Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX A Initial Surveys For the first round of surveys, the focus of the assessment was on which evaluation criteria were most important and which organizations were most influential to both the general public and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) stakeholders. The MPO with its project partners implemented two surveys to gather this information. The first, for the general public, was the Jefferson Area Community Survey (JACS). This survey was implemented in the spring of 2013 and is discussed below. The second survey, for the MPO stakeholders, was a web-based survey known as the MPO stakeholder survey. This survey was also implemented in the spring of 2013 and is discussed in the second part of this appendix. Appendix A presents the overall survey questions and results for both the JACS and the MPO stakeholder survey. The results from this section only apply to the initial round of survey implementation. Information on the second round of survey implementation can be found in Appendix B. The following findings for both surveys as outlined below are based on survey analysis reports developed by the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey Research. These reports were developed as a part of the overall pilot assessment of TCAPP, now known as PlanWorks. Initial JACS Question 1 The first question reads as follows: “These days, how interested are you in transportation projects and planning issues in our region?” As shown in Error! Reference source not found., about half of Charlottesville and Albemarle respondents (48%) are somewhat interested in transportation projects and planning issues in the region. Thirty-five percent are very or extremely interested, while almost one in five respondents are not interested. Figure A.1. How interested are you in transportation projects and planning issues in our region? 17.0% 48.0% 25.5% 9.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Interested Somewhat Interested Very Interested Extremely Interested A1

Question 2: Factors Considered in Decisions on Transportation Investments The following 10 questions address items representing key areas that might influence decisions about transportation investments. The respondent was asked to consider each factor and assess the importance of that item in deciding his/her support or opposition to any transportation proposal. Figure A.2 displays a comparison of the ratings of importance of each factor. These factors will then be analyzed individually in the following pages. Figure A.2. Importance of key factors considered in decisions on transportation investments. Question 2A: Impact on Sensitive Habitats Question 2A reads as follows: “Would you say the impact of the proposal on sensitive habitats, wetlands and areas near rivers or streams is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.3, well over half of respondents (59.9%) considered the impact of the proposal on sensitive habitats, wetlands, and areas near rivers and streams to be either very or extremely important. Less than one in 10 persons considered this factor not at all important in deciding whether to support or oppose a proposal. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bus System Ease of Walking and Biking Sensitive Habitats Minority and Low-Income Areas Budget Public Sites and Green Space Schools Air and Water Quality Travel Times Transportation Safety Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not At All Important A2

Figure A.3. How important is the impact of the proposal on sensitive habitats, wetlands, and areas near rivers or streams for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2B: Impact on Air or Water Quality Question 2B reads as follows: “Would you say change in air pollution, greenhouse gases, or water quality is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.4, over 90% of respondents (91.8%) consider change in air and water quality to be at least somewhat important in deciding support or opposition to a proposal. Figure A.4. How important is change in air pollution, greenhouse gases, or water quality for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2C: Impact on Public Sites and Green Space Question 2C reads as follows: “Would you say impact on historical sites, parks, and green space is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.5, nearly two-thirds of respondents (62.9%) consider the impact of a proposal on public sites and green space to be very or extremely important. Only one in 20 people consider this impact not at all important in deciding support or opposition for a proposal. 7.5% 32.6% 37.1% 22.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 8.2% 23.7% 40.0% 28.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A3

Figure A.5. How important is impact on historical sites, parks, and green space for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2D: Impact on Schools Question 2D reads as follows: “Would you say impact on schools is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” Shown by Figure A.6, over two-thirds of respondents consider impact on schools to be very or extremely important in considering whether or not to support a proposal. Figure A.6. How important is impact on schools for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2E: Impact on Minority and Low-Income Areas Question 2E reads as follows: “Would you say effects on minority and low-income communities are extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.7, over 90% of respondents (92.1%) consider the impact on minority and low-income areas to be at least somewhat important in deciding support or opposition for a proposal. Only 8% consider this impact not at all important in their decision. 5.1% 32.1% 43.4% 19.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 8.6% 22.7% 45.6% 23.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A4

Figure A.7. How important is impact on minority and low-income communities for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2F: Impact on Ease of Walking or Biking Question 2F reads as follows: “Would you say how much the project makes it easier to walk or bike is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.8, about 45% of respondents (44.3%) consider how much the project eases walking and biking as being very or extremely important. Yet, nearly one in five respondents (18.3%) considers this impact not at all important. Figure A.8. How important is the extent to which the project makes it easier to walk or bike for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2G: Impact on Bus System Question 2G reads as follows: “Would you say how much the project improves the bus system is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.9, four in five respondents consider the impact on the bus system to be at least somewhat important. 7.9% 30.1% 43.2% 18.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 18.3% 37.4% 29.1% 15.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A5

Figure A.9. How important is the extent to which the project improves the bus system for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2H: Impact on Budget Question 2H reads as follows: “Would you say dollar cost of the project is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.10, well over half of respondents consider the dollar cost of the project to be extremely or very important. Fewer than one in 20 people consider this factor not at all important. Figure A.10. How important is dollar cost of the project for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2I: Impact on Travel Times Question 2I reads as follows: “Would you say improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.11, two-thirds of respondents consider improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion to be extremely or very important. Further, over 90% of respondents consider this factor to be at least somewhat important. 22.1% 38.7% 28.7% 10.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 3.7% 34.2% 44.6% 17.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A6

Figure A.11. How important is improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 2J: Impact on Transportation Safety Question 2J reads as follows: “Would you say improving safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians is extremely, very, somewhat, or not at all important for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?” As shown in Figure A.12, 95% of respondents consider a proposal’s impact on transportation safety to be at least somewhat important. Further, of those respondents, three in four consider this impact to be extremely or very important. Figure A.12. How important is improving safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal? Question 3 The following final seven questions each refer to groups or individuals whose support of a project may influence respondents’ decisions about transportation investments. The respondent was asked to consider the extent of each group or individual’s influence in deciding his/her own support or opposition to any proposal. Figure A.13 displays a comparison of the extent of influence perceived for each source. Each item of possible influence will be analyzed individually in the following pages. 7.2% 24.1% 43.6% 25.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.9% 23.4% 44.8% 26.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A7

Figure A.13. Extent of influence by group on transportation investments. Question 3A: Elected Officials Question 3A reads as follows: “To what extent would support from elected officials influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.14, nearly one in three respondents consider elected officials’ support for a project to carry no influence on their own position on the project. Slightly less than half of respondents (45.9%) consider elected officials to provide a little influence on their own decisions for transportation projects. Figure A.14. To what extent would support from elected officials influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Media Endorsements Elected Officials Local Government Staff Economic Development Advocates Local Businesses Community Groups Environmental Protection Groups A lot A little Not at all 30.9% 45.9% 23.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot A8

Question 3B: Local Government Staff Question 3B reads as follows: “To what extent would support from local government professional staff influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.15, three in four respondents report that local government staff influences their support or opposition for a project to at least some extent. However, two-thirds of those respondents consider that influence to be just “a little.” Figure A.15. To what extent would support from local government professional staff influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? Question 3C: Environmental Protection Groups Question 3C reads as follows: “To what extent would support from organizations that advocate for environmental protection influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.16, over 40% of respondents consider environmental protection organizations to carry a lot of influence. An additional 40% consider these groups to carry a little influence, and less than one in five respondents (16.9%) consider these groups to have no influence at all. Figure A.16. To what extent would support from organizations that advocate for environmental protection influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? 24.7% 49.3% 26.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot 16.9% 39.7% 43.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot A9

Question 3D: Economic Development Advocates Question 3D reads as follows: “To what extent would support from organizations that advocate for economic development influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.17, nearly one in three respondents found economic development advocates to carry a lot of influence in their own decisions on transportation projects. Alternatively, nearly 20% of the respondents found these groups to carry no influence at all. Figure A.17. To what extent would support from organizations that advocate for economic development influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? Question 3E: Community Groups Question 3E reads as follows: “To what extent would support from neighborhood and community groups influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.18, nearly 85% of respondents consider neighborhood and community groups to provide at least some level of influence. Forty percent of all respondents find these groups carry a lot of influence in their decisions to support or oppose transportation projects. Figure A.18. To what extent would support from neighborhood and community groups influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? 19.3% 48.9% 31.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot 16.4% 43.8% 39.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot A10

Question 3F: Media Endorsements Question 3F reads as follows: “To what extent would support from opinions and endorsements by the local media, including newspapers, radio, TV, local websites, or blogs influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.19, over 40% of respondents consider that media endorsements carry no influence at all in making their decisions on transportation projects. Less than 15% of respondents find these groups to provide a lot of influence. Figure A.19. To what extent would support from opinions and endorsements by the local media, including newspapers, radio, TV, local websites, or blogs influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? Question 3G: Local Businesses Question 3G reads as follows: “To what extent would support from major employers in the area influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?” As shown in Figure A.20, more than one in three respondents considered that support from major local employers offers a lot of influence in making their own decisions regarding transportation projects. An additional 42% considered these local businesses to carry a little influence. Figure A.20. To what extent would support from major employers in the area influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project? 41.1% 45.1% 13.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot 21.5% 41.8% 36.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all A little A lot A11

Initial MPO Stakeholder Survey The total number of respondents to the MPO stakeholder survey was 45. The graphs below represent responses of all 45 survey participants, including participants who declined to respond to certain questions. Question 1 The first question reads as follows: “Please indicate which of the following best describes you.” As shown in Figure A.21, the majority of stakeholders are local appointed officials (37.8%), with the second highest group being local planning and engineering staff (22.2%). Figure A.21. Which of the following best describes you? Question 2 The second question reads as follows: “What has been your level of involvement with the long- range transportation planning process prior to 2013?” As shown in Figure A.22, the level of involvement has been reasonably even across the responses; 68.8% of respondents stated that they were very active, active, or moderately active in the development of previous long-range transportation plans. Figure A.22. What has been your level of involvement with the long-range transportation planning process prior to 2013? Question 3 The third question reads as follows: “Please consider the importance of key factors that may influence your support of or opposition to potential transportation investments. How important to 2.2% 11.1% 8.9% 22.2% 37.8% 17.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Member of general public Member of transportation policy… Local planning and engineering staff Local appointed official Local elected official 2.2% 28.9% 22.2% 24.4% 22.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No involvement Minimal involvement Moderately active Active Very active A12

your transportation decisions are impacts on: land use, public safety, environment, social justice and community, passenger mobility, economy, freight mobility….” As shown in Figure A.23, land use and public safety ranked highest among the stakeholders with 86.3% of stakeholder ranking land use as extremely important or very important and 86.0% of stakeholders ranking public safety as extremely important or very important. For stakeholders, freight mobility was ranked as the least important performance measure area with only 43.1% ranking freight mobility as extremely important or very important. Figure A.23. How important to your transportation decisions are impacts on: land use, public safety, environment, social justice and community, passenger mobility, economy, freight mobility? The following series of questions considers the way in which the various factors, such as performance measures or influence groups, may affect critical transportation policy decisions. This section delves deeper into general performance measures areas outlined in Question 3. The final question in this section, Question 11 deals with which groups influence decisions on transportation policy. Question 4 The fourth question reads as follows: “Consider the environmental effects of potential projects. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Freight Mobility Economy Passenger Mobility Social Justice and Community Environment Public Safety Land Use Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not At All Important A13

Question 4a: Distance of the project from sensitive habitats and riparian (stream) buffers. (See Figure A.24.) Figure A.24. How important is the distance of the project from sensitive habitats and riparian (stream) buffers? Question 4b: Lost acreage of wetlands. (See Figure A.25.) Figure A.25. How important is the lost acreage of wetlands? Question 4c: Percentage change in pollutant emissions (e.g., carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter). (See Figure A.26.) Figure A.26. How important is the percentage change in pollutant emissions? 4.4% 37.8% 26.7% 31.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 2.2% 26.7% 35.6% 31.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 2.2% 22.2% 35.6% 33.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A14

Questions 4d: Percentage change in greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide). (See Figure A.27.) Figure A.27. How important is the percentage change in greenhouse gases? Questions 4e: Extent of waterways where pollutants would exceed regulatory limits. (See Figure A.28.) Figure A.28. How important is the extent of waterways where pollutants would exceed regulatory limits? Question 5 The fifth question reads as follows: “Consider the effects of potential transportation projects on land use. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” 6.7% 4.4% 17.8% 44.4% 26.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 2.2% 15.6% 31.1% 44.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A15

Question 5a: Number of historical and archeological sites affected. (See Figure A.29.) Figure A.29. How important is the number of historical and archeological sites affected? Question 5b: Acres of green space consumed by transportation improvements. (See Figure A.30.) Figure A.30. How important are the acres of green space consumed by transportation improvements? Question 5c: Number of houses and businesses taken due to the project. (See Figure A.31.) Figure A.31. How important is the number of houses and businesses taken due to the project? 8.9% 2.2% 37.8% 22.2% 28.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 6.7% 26.7% 31.1% 31.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 26.7% 48.9% 20.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A16

Question 5d: Inclusion in the local comprehensive plan. (See Figure A.32.) Figure A.32. How important is the inclusion in the local comprehensive plan? Question 5e: Location within the local plan growth areas. (See Figure A.33.) Figure A.33. How important are the locations within the local plan growth areas? Question 5f: Impact on street connectivity. (See Figure A.34.) Figure A.34. How important is the impact on street connectivity? 4.4% 6.7% 20.0% 26.7% 42.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 6.7% 20.0% 33.3% 35.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 13.3% 42.2% 40.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A17

Question 5g: Impact on the connection of people to their jobs. (See Figure A.35.) Figure A.35. How important is the impact on the connection of people to their jobs? Question 6 Question 6 reads as follows: “Consider the social effects of potential projects. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” Question 6a: Number of minority and low-income persons adversely affected by the improvement. (See Figure A.36.) Figure A.36. How important is the number of minority and low-income persons adversely affected by the improvement? 4.4% 17.8% 37.8% 40.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 4.4% 33.3% 31.1% 26.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A18

Question 6b: Number of minority and low-income persons who would enjoy either shorter travel times or improved transportation options as a result of the project. (See Figure A.37.) Figure A.37. How important is the number of minority and low-income persons who would enjoy either shorter travel times or improved transportation options as a result of the project? Question 6c: Number of persons for whom walking and biking are made more or less feasible because of the project. (See Figure A.38.) Figure A.38. How important is the number of persons for whom walking and biking are made more or less feasible because of the project? Question 6d: Portion of the project that directly supports transit. (See Figure A.39.) Figure A.39. How important is the portion of the project that directly supports transit? 4.4% 4.4% 26.7% 42.2% 22.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 2.2% 15.6% 40.0% 37.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 6.7% 17.8% 37.8% 33.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A19

Question 6e: Portion of the project that directly supports biking. (See Figure A.40.) Figure A.40. How important is the portion of the project that directly supports biking? Question 6f: Portion of the project that directly supports walking. (See Figure A.41.) Figure A.41. How important is the portion of the project that directly supports walking? Question 6g: Effect on the combined household costs of housing and transportation. (See Figure A.42.) Figure A.42. How important is the effect on the combined household costs of housing and transportation? 4.4% 4.4% 24.4% 31.1% 35.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 2.2% 22.2% 28.9% 42.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 4.4% 28.9% 40.0% 20.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A20

Question 7 Question 7 reads as follows: “Now consider the economic impact of potential projects. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” Question 7a: Percentage change in travel time to existing employment centers. (See Figure A.43.) Figure A.43. How important is the percentage change in travel time to existing employment centers? Question 7b: Percentage change in travel time to future employment centers. (See Figure A.44.) Figure A.44. How important is the percentage change in travel time to future employment centers? 4.4% 4.4% 24.4% 51.1% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 4.4% 35.6% 40.0% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A21

Question 7c: Benefit-cost ratio for the project, where cost is monetary costs to government, and benefits are based on monetization of crash reductions and travel time savings. (See Figure A.45.) Figure A.45. How important is the benefit-cost ratio for the project, where cost is monetary costs to government, and benefits are based on monetization of crash reductions and travel time savings? Question 7d: Amount of project monetary costs that must be borne by localities. (See Figure A.46.) Figure A.46. How important is the amount of project monetary costs that must be borne by localities? Question 7e: Value of travel time savings. (See Figure A.47.) Figure A.47. How important is the value of travel time savings? 6.7% 8.9% 28.9% 33.3% 22.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 2.2% 37.8% 37.8% 17.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 4.4% 2.2% 37.8% 42.2% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A22

Question 8 Question 8 reads as follows: “Consider the project effects on public safety. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” Question 8a: Portion of the project that is within the 100-year floodplain. (See Figure A.48.) Figure A.48. How important is the portion of the project that is within the 100-year floodplain? Question 8b: Expected change in safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. (See Figure A.49.) Figure A.49. How important is the expected change in safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians? 4.4% 4.4% 31.1% 44.4% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 4.4% 48.9% 40.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A23

Question 8c: Change in response time for emergency services. (See Figure A.50.) Figure A.50. How important is the change in response for emergency services? Question 9 Question 9 reads as follows:” Consider the passenger mobility effects of potential projects. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” Question 9a: Change in the ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity. (See Figure A.51.) Figure A.51. How important is the change in the ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity? 4.4% 2.2% 28.9% 42.2% 22.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 6.7% 40.0% 37.8% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A24

Question 9b: Percent change in passenger-miles traveled on non-auto modes. (See Figure A.52.) Figure A.52. How important is the percent change in passenger-miles traveled on non-auto modes? Question 9c: Change in vehicle miles traveled. (See Figure A.53.) Figure A.53. How important is the change in vehicle miles traveled? Question 9d: Change in level of service (A to F rating of road performance). (See Figure A.54.) Figure A.54. How important is the change in level of service (A to F rating of road performance)? 6.7% 6.7% 15.6% 35.6% 35.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 6.7% 22.2% 44.4% 20.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 8.9% 26.7% 44.4% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A25

Question 9e: Change in the length of average delays at intersections. (See Figure A.55.) Figure A.55. How important is the change in the length of average delays at intersections? Question 10 Question 10 reads as follows: “Consider the freight mobility effects of potential projects. For each measure, indicate its importance to your decision to support or oppose potential transportation investments.” Question 10a: Average truck speed on key freight corridors. (See Figure A.56.) Figure A.56. How important is the average truck speed on key freight corridors? 6.7% 11.1% 20.0% 44.4% 17.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 15.6% 53.3% 20.0% 4.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A26

Question 10b: Number of weight-restricted bridges and height-restricted overpasses on key freight corridors within the region. (See Figure A.57.) Figure A.57. How important is the number of weight-restricted bridges and height- restricted overpasses on key freight corridors within the region? Question 10c: Number of at-grade rail crossings. (See Figure A.58.) Figure A.58. How important is the number of at-grade rail crossings? Question 10d: Monetized cost to the region of truck delay. (See Figure A.59.) Figure A.59. How important is the monetized cost to the region of truck delay? 6.7% 20.0% 40.0% 24.4% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 6.7% 15.6% 40.0% 22.2% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 8.9% 26.7% 42.2% 20.0% 2.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A27

Question 10e: The buffer index for key freight corridors, summarized as the time cushion trucks must add to their average time to ensure on-time arrival. (See Figure A.60.) Figure A.60. How important is the buffer index for key freight corridors, summarized as the time cushion trucks must add to their average time to ensure on-time arrival? Question 10f: Number of double-stack rail tunnel restrictions. (See Figure A.61.) Figure A.61. How important is the number of double-stack rail tunnel restrictions? 15.6% 31.1% 37.8% 11.1% 4.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important 13.3% 20.0% 37.8% 22.2% 6.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely important A28

Question 11 Question 11 reads as follows: “To what extent would support from the following groups or individuals influence your support or opposition for a particular transportation project?’ Question 11a: Elected officials at the state or local level. (See Figure A.62.) Figure A.62. Would support from elected officials influence your support or opposition for a project? Question 11b: Appointed officials. (See Figure A.63.) Figure A.63. Would support from appointed officials influence your support or opposition for a project? 8.9% 8.9% 57.8% 24.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot 8.9% 6.7% 62.2% 22.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot A29

Question 11c: Local government/professional staff. (See Figure A.64.) Figure A.64. Would support from local government/professional staff influence your support or opposition for a project? Question 11d: Organizations that advocate for environmental protection. (See Figure A.65.) Figure A.65. Would support from organizations that advocate for environmental protection influence your support or opposition for a project? Question 11e: Organizations that advocate for economic development. (See Figure A.66.) Figure A.66. Would support from organizations that advocate for economic development influence your support or opposition for a project? 8.9% 2.2% 51.1% 37.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot 8.9% 4.4% 28.9% 57.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot 8.9% 13.3% 46.7% 31.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot A30

Question 11f: Neighborhood and community groups. (See Figure A.67.) Figure A.67. Would support from neighborhood and community groups influence your support or opposition for a project? Question 11g: Local media (including newspapers, radio, TV, local websites, or blogs). (See Figure A.68.) Figure A.68. Would support from local media influence your support or opposition for a project? Question 11h: Major employers in the area. (See Figure A.69.) Figure A.69. Would support from major employers in the area influence your support or opposition for a project? 8.9% 4.4% 31.1% 55.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot 8.9% 44.4% 44.4% 2.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot 8.9% 6.7% 55.6% 28.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Declined to respond Not at all A little A lot A31

APPENDIX B Follow-Up Surveys For the second round of surveys, the focus of the assessment was the importance of evaluation criteria and the degree of influence the results of a performance measure have on respondents’ support for a set of transportation projects. As with the first round of surveys, the phone-based Jefferson Area Community Survey (JACS) targeted the general public, and the web-based MPO stakeholder survey targeted decision makers. Both surveys were implemented in the spring of 2014. The MPO stakeholder survey also evaluated the degree of influence of certain organizations as well as thoughts about the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) process. The findings outlined below are based on survey analysis reports developed by the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey Research. These reports were developed as a part of the overall pilot assessment of TCAPP. The results from this section only apply to the second round of survey implementation. Results for the JACS are discussed first, and results for the MPO stakeholder survey follow. Follow-Up JACS Question 1 The first question reads as follows: “These days, how interested are you in transportation projects and planning issues in our region?” As shown in Figure B.1, only 21.3% of respondents were not interested in the issues at all. The figure illustrates 712 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.1. How interested are you in transportation projects and planning issues in our region? Question 2 The following 10 questions address items representing key areas that might influence decisions about investments in transportation. Respondents were asked to consider each of the factors and to assess the importance of that item in deciding support or opposition for any transportation 13.8% 23.3% 41.7% 21.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely Interested Very interested Somewhat interested Not interested B1

proposal. Figure B.2 displays a comparison of the ratings of importance of each factor. These factors are then analyzed individually in the following pages. Figure B.2. Importance of key factors considered in decisions on transportation investments. Question 2A: Impact on Transportation Safety Question 2A asks about the importance of improving safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As shown in Figure B.3, 36% of respondents considered the impacts on sensitive habits to be extremely important. The figure+ illustrates 712 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.3. Improving safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Transportation Safety Travel Times Air and Water Quality Schools Public Sites and Green Space Budget Minority and Low Income Areas Sensitive Habitats Ease of Walking and Biking Bus System Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not At All Important 36.0% 40.1% 20.4% 3.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B2

Question 2B: Impact on Travel Times Question 2B asks about the importance of improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion. As shown in Figure B.4, over 32% of respondents considered the impacts on improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 712 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.4. Improving travel times and reducing traffic congestion. Question 2C: Impact on Air and Water Quality Question 2C asks about the importance of changes in air pollution, greenhouse gases, and water quality. As shown in Figure B.5, over 30% of respondents considered these changes to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 713 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.5. Change in air pollution, greenhouse gases, or water quality. 32.7% 43.0% 18.4% 5.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important 32.2% 37.9% 20.6% 9.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B3

Question 2D: Impact on Schools Question 2D asks about the importance of impact on schools. As shown in Figure B.6, over 29% of respondents considered the impacts on schools to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 366 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.6. Impact on schools. Question 2E: Impact on Public Sites and Green Space Question 2E asks about the importance of impact on historical sites, parks, and green space. As shown in Figure B.7, nearly 25% of respondents considered the impacts on historical sites, parks, and green space to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 356 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.7. Impact on historical sites, parks, and green space. Question 2F: Impact on Budget Question 2F asks about the dollar cost of the project. As shown in Figure B.8, over 17% of respondents considered the impacts on sensitive habits to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 690 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. 29.4% 38.7% 25.2% 6.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important 23.9% 36.7% 30.2% 9.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B4

Figure B.8. Dollar cost of the project. Question 2G: Impact on Minority and Low-Income Areas Question 2G asks about the importance of effects on minority and low-income communities. As shown in Figure B.9, over 29% of respondents considered the impacts on these communities to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 320 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.9. Effects on minority and low-income communities. 17.2% 38.9% 36.5% 7.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important 29.0% 35.8% 31.3% 3.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B5

Question 2H: Impact on Sensitive Habitats Question 2H concerns impact on sensitive habitats, wetlands, and areas near rivers or streams. As shown in Figure B.10, over 25% of respondents considered the impacts on sensitive habitats to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 709 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.10. Impact on sensitive habitats, wetlands, and areas near rivers or streams. Question 2I: Impact on Ease of Walking and Biking Question 2I asks about the importance of projects making it easier to walk or bike. As shown in Figure B.11, over 18% of respondents considered this to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 397 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.11. How much the project makes it easier to walk or bike. 25.7% 37.2% 30.7% 6.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important 18.6% 32.5% 32.6% 16.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B6

Question 2J: Impact on Bus System Question 2J asks about the importance of how a project improves the bus system. As shown in Figure B.12, over 15% of respondents considered the impacts on the bus system to be extremely important. The figure illustrates 359 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.12. How much the project improves the bus system. Question 3 The following seven questions each refer to groups or individuals whose support of a project may influence respondents’ decisions about transportation investments. The respondents were asked to consider the extent of each group or individual’s influence on deciding their own support or opposition to any proposal. Figure B.13 displays a comparison of the extent of influence perceived for each source. Each item of influence is analyzed individually in the following pages. 15.4% 32.6% 34.9% 17.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not at all important B7

Figure B.13. Extent of influence by group on transportation investments (Stff = staff). Question 3A: Environmental Protection Groups Question 3A asks to what extent support from organizations that advocate for environmental protection would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.14, over 42% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 702 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.14. Organizations that advocate for environmental protection. Question 3B: Community Groups Question 3B asks to what extent support from neighborhood and community groups would influence the process. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Environmental Protection Groups Community Groups Local Business Economic Development Advocates Local Government Stff Elected Officials Media Endorsements A lot A little Not at all 42.2% 37.1% 20.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all B8

As shown in Figure B.15, over 43% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 704 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.15. Neighborhood and community groups. Question 3C: Local Business Question 3C asks to what extent support from major employers in the area would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.16, over 25% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 702 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.16. Major employers in the area. 43.4% 39.5% 17.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all 25.4% 49.8% 24.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all B9

Question 3D: Economic Development Advocates Question 3D asks to what extent support from organizations that advocate for economic development would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.17, over 32% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 699 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.17. Organizations that advocate for economic development. Question 3E: Local Government Staff Question 3E asks to what extent support from local government professional staff would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.18, over 22% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 699 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.18. Local government professional staff. 32% 46% 22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all 22.3% 45.3% 32.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all B10

Question 3F: Elected Officials Question 3F asks to what extent support from elected officials would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.19, over 16% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 705 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.19. Elected officials. Question 3G: Media Endorsements Question 3G asks to what extent opinions and endorsements by the local media would influence the process. As shown in Figure B.20, over 16% of respondents believed support would influence the process a lot. The figure illustrates 705 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.20. Opinions and endorsements by the local media, including newspapers, radio, TV, local websites, or blogs. Question 4 The following six questions address how precise a measure of impact would be necessary to influence support. Respondents were asked to consider each of the factors and to assess the importance of that item in deciding support or opposition for any transportation proposal. Figure B.21 displays a comparison of the ratings of importance of each factor. These factors are then analyzed individually in the following pages. 16.8% 43.5% 39.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all 16.4% 43.0% 40.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot A little Not at all B11

Figure B.21. Precision of measures necessary to influence support. Question 4A: Impact on Waterways Question 4A asks how precise a measure of impacts on waterways needs to be to influence support. As shown in Figure B.22, over 50% of respondents considered specific numbers to be more helpful. The figure illustrates 532 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.22. Impact on waterways: What is more helpful? Question 4B: Impact on Walking and Biking Question 4B asks how precise a measure of impacts on walking and biking needs to be to influence support. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Waterways Walking and Biking Benefits and Costs Miles traveled Average travel time Expected number of crashes Number Direction only None 52.7% 46.9% 0.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None B12

As shown in Figure B.23, over 50% of respondents considered specific numbers to be most helpful. The figure illustrates 343 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.23. Impact on walking and biking: What is more helpful. Question 4C: Benefits and Costs Question 4C asks how precise a measure of impacts of benefits and costs needs to be to influence support. As shown in Figure B.24, over 62% of respondents considered specific numbers to be most helpful. The figure illustrates 361 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.24. Benefits and costs: What is more helpful. Question 4D: Impact of Miles Traveled Question 4D asks how precise a measure of impacts of miles traveled needs to be to influence support. As shown in Figure B.25, over 52% of respondents considered specific numbers to be most helpful. The figure illustrates 361 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. 51.6% 47.8% 0.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None 62.3% 37.0% 0.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None B13

Figure B.25. Impact of miles traveled: What is more helpful. Question 4E: Average Travel Time Question 4E asks how precise a measure of impact on average travel time to work needs to be to influence support. As shown in Figure B.26, over 62% of respondents considered specific numbers to be most helpful. The figure illustrates 251 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.26. Impact on average travel time to work: What is more helpful. Question 4F: Impact on Expected Number of Crashes Question 4F asks how precise a measure of impacts on expected number of crashes per year needs to be to influence support. As shown in Figure B.27, over 70% of respondents considered specific numbers to be most helpful. The figure illustrates 515 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.27. Impact on expected number of crashes per year: What is more helpful. 52.8% 47.0% 0.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None 62.1% 36.8% 1.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None 70.8% 28.9% 0.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number Direction only None B14

Question 5 Question 5 asks how closely respondents follow the long-range transportation planning process. As shown in Figure B.28, 11.5% of respondents following the process very closely. The figure below illustrates 715 valid responses, out of a total of 715 respondents. Figure B.28. How closely do you follow the long-range transportation planning process? Follow-Up MPO Stakeholder Survey Question 1 Considering land use measures, respondents were given a table (Table B.1) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: Table B.1. Land Use Measures: Scenario X Scenario Average Travel Time to Work Change in Average Travel Time to Work Base 10.6 minutes No Change Scenario X 10.3 minutes 2.5%* * Shorter travel time; performance improves. The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.27, over 65% (65.80%) of respondents viewed the land use measures as somewhat helpful, while 34.2% found the measures to be very helpful. The figure illustrates 38 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 11.5% 33.9% 36.4% 18.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very closely Somewhat closely Occasionally Not at all B15

Figure B.27. Land use measures: How helpful. Question 1a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.28, 24.3% of respondents were not confident at all, while 62.20% and 13.50% were somewhat confident and very confident, respectively. The figure illustrates 37 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.28. Land use measures: How confident in using for assessment. Question 1b The third question asks: “How precise does ‘change in the average travel time to work’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.29, 35.1% of respondents replied that direction only was sufficient precision, while 64.9% believed numbers were required to specify impact. The figure illustrates 37 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 34.2% 65.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very helpful Somewhat helpful 13.5% 62.2% 24.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B16

Figure B.29. Land use measures: Level of precision needed to affect decision. Question 1c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values, such as ‘2.5%’?” As shown in Figure B.30, 43.2% of respondents thought it was very important to see specific values, while 45.9% and 10.8% of respondents thought it was somewhat important or not important at all, respectively. The figure illustrates 37 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.30. Land use measures: Importance of specific values such as “2.5%.” Question 1d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that this performance measure changes by 2.5% (0.3 minute less) for Scenario X. Suppose instead that it improved by 1.4% (0.1 minute less). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.31, 35.5% of respondents said the lower percentage of change would probably change their level of support, and 51.6% and 12.9% of respondents said the percentage change would probably not or definitely not change their support, respectively. The figure illustrates 31 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 64.9% 35.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only 43.2% 45.9% 10.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B17

Figure B.31. Land use measures: Would improvement by 1.4% change your support (compared to 2.5% improvement)? Question 1e The sixth question reads as follows: “Suppose this measure improved by 3.6% (0.4 minute less). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.32, 3.1% of respondents said performance improvement by 3.6% would change their support for the measures; 40.6% said it would probably change their support, while 50% and 6.3% of respondents said it would probably not or definitely not change their support, respectively. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.32. Land use measures: Would performance improvement by 3.6% change your support (compare to 2.5% improvement)? Question 2 In spring survey of stakeholders the “extent of waterways where pollutants would exceed regulatory limits” was seen as an important environmental performance measure. A related measure is the amount of change in pollutants in stormwater. Respondents were given a table (Table B.2) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: 35.5% 51.6% 12.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Probably Probably not Definitely not 3.1% 40.6% 50.0% 6.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B18

Table B.2. Environment Performance Measures: Scenario X Alternative Tons of Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff per Year Amount of Change in Pollutants in Stormwater Base Base 1,079.1 tons/year No Change Scenario X 1,096.4 tons/year 1.6%* * More pollutants; performance degrades. The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.33, 8.6% of the respondents found the measure extremely helpful, and 42.9% found it very helpful; 45.7% of the respondents found the measures to be somewhat helpful, and 2.9% did not consider them to be helpful at all. The figure illustrates 35 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.33. Environment performance measures: How helpful? Question 2a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.34, 24.2% of respondents were very confident in using these results as a basis for assessment, 60.6% were somewhat confident, and 15.2% of respondents were not confident at all. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 8.6% 42.9% 45.7% 2.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all B19

Figure B.34. Environment performance measures: How confident in using for assessment? Question 2b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does the ‘amount of change in pollutants in stormwater’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.35, 60% of respondents believed numbers to specify impact would constitute adequate precision; 37.10% believed only direction was necessary, and 2.9% did not believe any precision was necessary. The figure illustrates 35 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.35. Environment performance: Level of precision. Question 2c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values such as ‘1.6%’?” As shown in Figure B.36, 58.8% of respondents believed the inclusion of specific values was somewhat important; 5.9% found that the inclusion was not important at all, and 35.3% considered the measure to be very important. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 24.2% 60.6% 15.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all 60.0% 37.1% 2.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only None B20

Figure B.36. Environment performance: Importance of specific values. Question 2d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that this performance measure changes by 1.6% (17.3 more tons) for Scenario X. Suppose that it instead changed by 0.1% (10.3 more tons). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.37, 7.1% of respondents found that this change would definitely alter their support; 28.6% stated that it probably would, 60.7% said it would probably not, and 3.6% stated it would definitely not, alter their support. The figure illustrates 28 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.37. Environment performance: Would change of 0.1% instead of 1.4% change your support? Question 2e The sixth question reads as follows: “Suppose this measure changed by 8.3% (89.6 more tons). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.38, 25% of respondents would definitely change their support, while 56.3% would probably change their support and 18.8% would probably not. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 35.3% 58.8% 5.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all 7.1% 28.6% 60.7% 3.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B21

Figure B.38. Environment performance: Would change of 8.3% instead of 1.4% change your support? Question 3 In the spring survey of stakeholders the “number of persons for whom walking and biking are made more or less feasible because of the project” was seen as an important social effects measure. A related measure is the increase in percentage of roads suitable for bicycling that form a connected network. Respondents were given a table (Table B.3) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: Table B.3. Social Effects: Scenario X Alternative Percentage of Roads Suitable for Bicycling That Form a Connected Network Increase in Percentage of Roads Suitable for Bicycling That Form a Connected Network Base 68.20% No Change Scenario X 81.20% 19%* * Larger connected bicycling network; performance improves. The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.39, 14.7% and 50% of respondents found this information to be extremely helpful or very helpful, respectively; 29.4% found the information to be somewhat helpful, and 5.9% did not consider it to be helpful at all. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 25.0% 56.3% 18.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not B22

Figure B.39. Social effects: How helpful? Question 3a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.40, 3% were extremely confident in the results as a basis while 27.3% were very confident; 60.6% were somewhat confident, and 9.1% were not confident at all. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.40. Social effects: How confident in using for assessment? Question 3b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does ‘the increase in percent of roads suitable for bicycling that form a connected network’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.41, 73.5% believed that specific impact was the necessary precision; 23.5% believed that only direction was necessary, and 2.9% believed no precision was required. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 14.7% 50.0% 29.4% 5.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 3.0% 27.3% 60.6% 9.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely confident Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B23

Figure B.41. Social effects: Level of precision to affect decision. Question 3c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values such as ‘19.0%’?” As shown in Figure B.42, 50% considered specific values to be very important; 47.1% considered them somewhat important, and 2.9% did not think them important at all. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.42. Social effects: Importance of specific values (19%). Question 3d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that this performance measure changes by 19.0% (from 68.2% to 81.2%) for Scenario X. Suppose instead that it changed by 13.5% (from 68.2% to 77.4%). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.43, 9.4% of respondents would definitely change their support while 28.1% probably would, and 62.5% would probably not, change their level of support. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 73.5% 23.5% 2.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only None 50.0% 47.1% 2.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B24

Figure B.43. Social effects: Importance of specific values (13.5%). Question 3e The sixth question asked whether the respondents’ support would change if the performance measure changed by 24.5%. As shown in Figure B.44, 21.2% of respondents would definitely change their support; 42.4% probably would, and 36.4% would probably not. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.44. Social effects: Would a change of 24.5% change your support? Question 4 In the spring survey of stakeholders the “Expected change in safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians” was seen as an important safety measure. A related measure is the change in the number of vehicle crashes per year. Suppose the following table (Table B.4) quantifies the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure. Respondents were given a table quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: Table B.4. Safety Measures: Scenario X Alternative Number of Vehicle Crashes Change in Number of Vehicle Crashes per Year Base 2,865/year No Change Scenario X 2,849/year 0.6%* * Fewer crashes; performance improves. 9.4% 28.1% 62.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not 21.2% 42.4% 36.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not B25

The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.45, over 42% of respondents believed the measures to be either extremely or very helpful. The figure illustrates 35 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.45. Safety measures: How helpful? Question 4a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.46, over 75% of the respondents were at least somewhat confident in using the results as a basis for assessment. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.46. Safety measures: How confident in using for assessment? Question 4b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does the ‘number of vehicle crashes per year’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.47, nearly 60% of respondents believed that specific impacts were the necessary precision. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 11.4% 31.4% 45.7% 11.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 6.1% 18.2% 54.5% 21.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely confident Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B26

Figure B.47. Safety measures: Level of precision to affect decision. Question 4c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values such as ‘0.6%’?” As shown in Figure B.48, only 8.8% did not consider seeing specific values to be important at all. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.48. Safety measures: Importance of specific values (0.6%). Question 4d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that this performance measure changes by 0.6% (17 fewer vehicle crashes) for Scenario X. Suppose instead that it changed by 0.1% (three fewer vehicle crashes). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.49, just 10% of respondents stated the change would definitely alter their support. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 58.8% 41.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only 26.5% 64.7% 8.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B27

Figure B.49. Safety measures: Would a change of 0.1% instead of 0.6% change your support? Question 4e The sixth question reads as follows: “Suppose this measure changed by 1.1% (32 fewer vehicle crashes). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.50, over 67% of respondents would at least probably change their support. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.50. Safety measures: Would a change of 1.1% instead of 0.6% change your support? Question 5 In the spring survey of stakeholders the “Amount of change in passenger-miles traveled on non- auto modes” was seen as an important passenger mobility measure. A related measure is the change in auto mode share. Suppose the following table quantifies the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure. Respondents were given a table (Table B.5) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: Table B.5. Passenger Mobility Measures: Scenario X Alternative Auto Mode Share Change in Auto Mode Share Base 88.10% No Change Scenario X 87.70% 0.40% 10.0% 30.0% 46.7% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not 16.7% 50.0% 26.7% 6.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B28

The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.51, nearly 50% of respondents considered the measure to be very helpful or extremely helpful. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.51. Passenger mobility measures: How helpful? Question 5a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.52, only 22.6% of respondents had no confidence in using the results as a basis. The figure illustrates 31 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.52. Passenger mobility measures: How confident in using for assessment? Question 5b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does ‘change in auto mode’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.53, only 37.5% of respondents felt that direction was the only necessary precision. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 12.1% 30.3% 48.5% 9.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 6.5% 16.1% 54.8% 22.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely confident Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B29

Figure B.53. Passenger mobility measures: Level of precision to affect decision. Question 5c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values such as ‘0.4%’?” As shown in Figure B.54, over 56% of respondents considered the measure to be somewhat important. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.54. Passenger mobility measures: Importance of specific values. Question 5d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that this performance measure changes by 0.4% (from 88.1% to 87.7%) for Scenario X. Suppose instead that it changed by 0.2% (88.1% to 87.9%). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.55, over 75% of respondents said the change would not alter their support. The figure illustrates 29 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 62.5% 37.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only 26.7% 56.7% 16.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B30

Figure B.55. Passenger mobility measures: Would a change of 0.2% instead of 0.4% change your support? Question 5e The sixth question reads as follows: “Suppose this measure changed by 0.6% (from 88.1% to 87.6%). Would that new information change your level of support?” As shown in Figure B.56, nearly half of all respondents would probably not change their support. The figure illustrates 29 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.56. Passenger mobility measures: Would a change of 0.6% instead of 0.4% change your support? Question 6 In the spring survey of stakeholders “benefit-cost ratio” was seen as an important economic measure. Suppose the following table quantifies the benefits of reducing crashes and delay as well as the capital cost of the projects to achieve these reductions. Respondents were given a table (Table B.6) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: 10.3% 6.9% 75.9% 6.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not 9.8% 9.8% 46.3% 4.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B31

Table B.6. Economic Performance: Scenario X Alternative Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio for the Scenario, Where Cost Is the Cost to Government, and Benefits Are the Economic Value of Reduced Crashes and Improved Travel Time Base Negligible No change Scenario X $36.5 million/year 1 The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.57, 12.5% of respondents found the information to be extremely helpful. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.57. Economic performance: How helpful? Question 6a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.58, over 75% of respondents were somewhat confident in using the results as a basis. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.58. Economic performance: How confident in using for assessment? 12.5% 31.3% 43.8% 12.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 3.1% 6.3% 75.0% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely confident Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B32

Question 6b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does the ‘benefit-cost ratio’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.59, over 64% of respondents believed the precision needs to specify impact. The figure illustrates 35 valid responses, out of a total of 31 respondents. Figure B.59. Economic performance: Level of precision to affect decision. Question 6c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific benefit-cost ratios such as ‘1.0’?” As shown in Figure B.60, nearly 70% of respondents believe the ratios are somewhat important. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.60. Economic performance: Importance of specific benefit-cost ratios (1.0). Question 6d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that the benefit-cost ratio for Scenario X is 1.0. Suppose that it in fact is 0.75 (i.e., higher costs and/or lower benefits).Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.61, only 3.7% of respondents would definitely not change their support. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 64.5% 32.3% 3.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only None 23.3% 66.7% 10.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B33

Figure B.61. Economic performance: Would a change of 0.75 (higher costs/lower benefits) change your support? Question 6e The sixth question reads as follows: “Suppose that the benefit-cost ratio is 1.25 (i.e., lower costs and/or higher benefits). Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.62, 50% of respondents would probably change their support. The figure illustrates 27 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.62. Economic performance: Would a change of 1.25 (lower costs/higher benefits) change your support? Question 7 In the spring survey of stakeholders, although no freight measure was seen as particularly important, the “number of at-grade rail crossings” was seen as somewhat important. Respondents were given a table (Table B.7) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: 3.7% 40.7% 51.9% 3.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not 7.7% 50.0% 42.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not B34

Table B.7. Freight Performance: Scenario X Alternative Number of At-Grade Auto Rail Crossings Reduction in the Number of At-Grade Auto Rail Crossings Base 29 No change Scenario X 28 1* * One fewer crossing; performance improves. The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.63, only 11.8% of respondents found the information to not be helpful at all. The figure illustrates 26 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.63. Freight performance: How helpful? Question 7a The second question reads as follows: “How confident would you be in these results as a basis for assessment of the scenario?” As shown in Figure B.64, only 8.8% of respondents were not confident at all. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.64. Freight performance: How confident in using for assessment? 8.8% 29.4% 50.0% 11.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 20.6% 41.2% 29.4% 8.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely confident Very confident Somewhat confident Not confident at all B35

Question 7b The third question reads as follows: “How precise does the ‘Number of at-grade auto rail crossings’ need to be in order to influence your support for this alternative?” As shown in Figure B.65, almost 70% of respondents believed precision needs to specify impact. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.65. Freight performance: Level of precision to affect decision. Question 7c The fourth question reads as follows: “How important is it to see specific values such as ‘1’?” As shown in Figure B.66, over half of respondents considered the specific values to be very important. The figure illustrates 32 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.66. Freight performance: Importance of specific values (“1”). Question 7d The fifth question reads as follows: “The table shows that Scenario X reduces the number of at- grade auto rail crossings by 1. Suppose that it in fact does not change the number of at-grade crossings (no change in performance from the base). Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.67, over 10% of respondents stated the new information would definitely change their support. The figure illustrates 29 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 69.7% 18.2% 12.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number: specify impact Direction only None 56.3% 31.3% 12.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important Somewhat important Not important at all B36

Figure B.67. Freight performance: Would “no change” results change your support? Question 7e The sixth question reads as follows: “The table shows that Scenario X reduces the number of at- grade auto rail crossings by 1. Suppose that it in fact reduces the number of at-grade crossings by 2. Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.68, 13% of respondents would definitely change their support. The figure illustrates 30 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.68. Freight performance: If it reduces the number of at-grade auto rail crossings by two instead of one, would it change your support? Question 8 In the spring survey of stakeholders the “support from … organizations that advocate for environmental protection” was seen as an important influence measure. Respondents were given a table (Table B.8) quantifying the expected effect of implementing Scenario X on this performance measure and asked the following questions: Table B.8. Environmental Protection Group: Scenario X Alternative Tons of Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff per Year Amount of Change in Pollutant in Stormwater Base Base 1,079.1 tons/year No Change Scenario X 1,096.4 tons/year 1.6%* * More pollutants; performance degrades. 10.3% 44.8% 37.9% 6.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not 13.3% 43.3% 36.7% 6.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B37

The first question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.69, only 17.6% of respondents believed this information to not be helpful at all. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.69. Environmental protection groups: Oppose—how helpful. Question 8a The second question reads as follows: “The table shows that organizations that advocate for environmental protection are opposed to Scenario X. Suppose they support Scenario X. Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.70, over half of all respondents would probably change their support. The figure illustrates 29 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.70. Environmental protection groups: Support rather than oppose—would this change your support? Question 8b The third question reads as follows: “How helpful is this information to you in evaluating Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.71, given the knowledge that economic development groups were opposed to Scenario X, over 66% of respondents considered the information somewhat helpful. The figure illustrates 29 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 8.8% 23.5% 50.0% 17.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 6.9% 55.2% 20.7% 17.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not Definitely not B38

Figure B.71. Economic development groups: Oppose—how helpful? Question 8c The fourth question reads as follows: “The table shows that organizations that advocate for economic development are opposed to Scenario X. Suppose they support Scenario X. Would that new information change your level of support for Scenario X?” As shown in Figure B.72, over half of respondents would probably not change their support. The figure illustrates 33 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.72. Economic development groups support rather than oppose—would this change your support? Question 9 For the 2040 LRTP process the MPO considered potential projects for inclusion in the 2040 LRTP in project groups or “scenarios.” The goal for structuring projects in scenarios was to assess how plan improvements could affect the overall transportation system, especially when implemented in tandem. The first question reads as follows: “Did you find that grouping projects into ‘scenarios’ made it easier or more difficult to understand the overall impacts of transportation improvements?” As shown in Figure B.73, nearly half of respondents found the scenarios made it a little easier to understand. The figure illustrates 31 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 12.1% 18.2% 66.7% 3.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely helpful Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful at all 9.7% 35.5% 54.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Definitely Probably Probably not B39

Figure B.73. Scenarios made it easier/more difficult to understand the overall impacts of transportation improvement. Question 9a The second question reads as follows: “Did you find that grouping projects into ‘scenarios’ made it clearer or less clear that projects are addressing the transportation deficiencies?” As shown in Figure B.74, 25% of respondents believed the scenarios made it a little or a lot less clear. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.74. Scenarios made it more/less clear that projects are addressing the transportation deficiencies. Question 9b The third question reads as follows: “Did you find that grouping projects into ‘scenarios’ made it easier or more difficult to select projects?” As shown in Figure B.75, over 40% of respondents found it made it either a little or a lot easier to select projects. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. 11.8% 47.1% 8.8% 20.6% 11.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot easier A little easier No effect A little more difficult A lot more difficult 23.5% 35.3% 14.7% 14.7% 11.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot clearer A little clearer No effect A little less clear A lot less clear B40

Figure B.75. Scenarios made it easier/harder to select projects. Question 9c The fourth question reads as follows: “Did you find that grouping projects into ‘scenarios’ made it easier or more difficult to create a final scenario or preferred scenario that is feasible to implement?” As shown in Figure B.76, nearly a quarter of the respondents found the scenarios had no effect. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.76. Scenarios made it easier/harder to create a final/feasible scenario. Question 10 The first question reads as follows: “How satisfied were you with the planning process used this past year?” As shown in Figure B.77, over half of the respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the process. The figure illustrates 34 valid responses, out of a total of 41 respondents. Figure B.77. How satisfied were you with the planning process used this past year? 11.8% 29.4% 20.6% 23.5% 14.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot easier A little easier No effect A little more difficult A lot more difficult 18.2% 36.4% 24.2% 9.1% 12.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A lot easier A little easier No effect A little more difficult A lot more difficult 2.9% 23.5% 26.5% 20.6% 17.6% 8.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied B41