Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) arrows logo
Resources > Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA > Interim Approval IA 9 > Specific Service Signs

Specific Service Signs:
Full Service Food Logo Panel MUTCD Experiment

SURVEY

The Center for Human Factors Research (within VTTI) engaged the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research (CSR) to conduct a survey of residents throughout Virginia regarding their opinions and perceptions about interstate road signage across the Commonwealth. The portion of the study contracted with CSR involved the administration of a telephone survey designed to assist VDOT in the development of policies regarding interstate logo signs that will best serve travelers on Virginia's interstates.

The CSR completed the survey portion of the study by conducting telephone interviews with 804 residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The data collection procedure used during the administration of this survey is presented below, followed by tabulations of the data.

A random-digit dialing (RDD) method was employed by the CSR for the administration of the survey. Both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were included in the sample for this project. CSR worked with Survey Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut to define the parameters of the sample. The survey sample was randomly generated from numbers available to Virginia residents. Because the survey questions required that respondents have specific knowledge of interstate travel and logo signs on interstates in the Commonwealth, screening questions were included in the survey to ensure that survey respondents: 1) had traveled at least 200 miles from home in an automobile in the past year; and 2) that they had traveled in at least one of the following areas in the past year: Interstate 64 near Charlottesville, Interstate 81 near Roanoke, Harrisonburg, or Christiansburg, or Interstate 95 near Richmond or Fredericksburg. Sample members reporting no travel of at least 200 miles in an automobile in the past year, or no travel in the areas defined for the study, were eliminated from the eligible sample pool for calling. There were 416 sample members with this final call disposition code (329 members reporting no travel of at least 200 miles in an automobile in the past year, and 87 members reporting no travel in the past year in the areas qualifying for the study).

The call records were selected randomly from among available numbers in Virginia and all call records were added to the sample pool in randomized replicates (sets) by CSR. Once a replicate was added to the calling pool, all numbers were attempted numerous times until they could be ruled out as viable (the average number of attempts for non-respondents was 11.4).

Based on a total of 804 completed interviews, the survey has a sampling error of ±3.5 percent. This means that in 95 out of 100 surveys completed with this number of interviews using the same sampling methodology and parameters, the results obtained would fall in a range of ±3.5 percent of the results that would be achieved if interviews were completed with every potential adult respondent (in households with working telephones) residing in Virginia. Smaller sampling errors are present for items on which there is polarized response (e.g., 90 percent of respondents with the same response).

Survey Instrument Design

The Center for Human Factors Research provided the CSR with a draft document of proposed items to be included in the survey. The CSR developed the telephone survey instrument and provided several drafts of the survey to the Center for Human Factors Research for final approval prior to survey administration. The Center for Human Factors Research worked with VDOT to ensure that the survey instrument met the research objectives specified for the project. CSR also pre-tested the survey instrument in order to ensure an optimal cooperation rate for the survey and to ensure that the survey length did not exceed the contracted average (10 minutes). The survey pre-test revealed the need to clarify the wording of some survey items. After all wording changes to the survey instrument were approved by representatives of the Center for Human Factors Research (and VDOT) final changes to the calling program were made by CSR. A copy of the final survey instrument used by CSR for survey administration appears in Appendix A of this summary.

Data Collection Procedures

All telephone calls for the survey were made by CSR staff members utilizing a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system at the Blacksburg, Virginia location of CSR. All calls were made during the period of April 13, 2005 and June 7, 2005. CSR wrote a calling program to be used with CATI for administering the VDOT Logo Motherboard Survey. The program provides scripted survey items, precludes out-of-range responses, and facilitates real-time data entry of all responses gathered on the telephone.

Each interviewer collecting data for the project participated in a project-specific training session. All interviewers working on the project had participated in multiple training sessions in both interviewing techniques and CATI. All interviews were monitored by a CSR Phonebank Supervisor in order to ensure accuracy and proper interviewing protocol

Clarifying notes for specific survey items appeared on the CATI screens for interviewers to ensure that identical prompts were used for respondents requesting additional information about survey items or response categories. CSR programmed all call scheduling such that each sample member remaining as a non-respondent at the completion of the study was attempted to be reached numerous times at different times of day on different days of the week. A total of 3,985 phone numbers were attempted by CSR during the duration of the survey administration. Sample members reporting no qualifying automobile travel within the past year were excluded from the eligible sample pool (N=416); likewise, respondents who indicated a language or hearing barrier such that they could not respond or request that another adult in the household respond, were also excluded from the eligible sample pool (N=50). Cases in which a sample member reported having no adults residing in the household (N=29) were excluded from the eligible sample. Non-working telephone numbers (fax tones, out of service/disconnected" numbers, automated disconnect/refusal services) were also excluded from the eligible sample pool (N=1,015). Non-residential numbers (N=356) were excluded from the eligible pool of sample members as well.

After the elimination of all the ineligible records described above, the remaining number of eligible sample members was 2,119. A total of 804 interviews were completed for this study. Table 1 provides an overview of the final call dispositions for all sample members. Many sample members were never reached after numerous attempts and a final disposition of "no answer" was assigned. Likewise, a number of fax tones were also reached. Therefore, the residency rate among these households is unknown. It may be assumed that a number of these households are ineligible sample members due to non-residence. All telephone numbers deemed to be temporarily disconnected were attempted periodically throughout the duration of the study.

Table 1. Disposition of full initial sample for telephone survey.
Total Initial Sample 3,985

Ineligible Sample:

No automobile travel of at least 200 miles from home in past year (329)

No travel in past year in qualifying areas (87)

Non-working telephone number (fax tones, out of service/disconnected numbers, automated disconnect/refusal services) (1,015)

Non-residential telephone number (356)

Sample member reported having no adults in the household (29)

Hearing/language barrier (50)

 empty cell
Eligible Sample 2,119
Total Number of Completed Interviews 804

Non-respondents:

Final disposition of no answer, busy, answering machine or callback after at least seven attempts (767)

Refusals (548)

 1,315

Data Compilation and Storage

A compact disc containing the SPSS dataset from which the tabulations in this summary were derived was provided to the VTTI research team. This respondent number could be used to link the open-ended responses with the data on the SPSS file because the unique identifying respondent number was also provided on the SPSS file. All variable and value labels are provided on the SPSS dataset.

CSR cleaned all open-ended responses (summarized in Appendix B) for clarity to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors and to allow for streamlined formatting and sorting of the responses for inclusion in this summary. All electronic files of the survey instrument and data are the property of the Center for Human Factors Research. However, CSR will retain copies of all project materials for a period of at least one year. No information from this survey will be shared by the CSR with anyone other than project team members from the Center for Human Factors Research without the express permission of that office. Permission to conduct the survey was obtained from the Virginia Tech Institution Review Board before the telephone survey began. This is required for any projects involving human subjects.

Results

The response tabulations for all close-ended items appear below in Tables 2 through 27. Tables 2 through 5 are screening and general information questions. Tables 6 through 20 are relevant to Hypothesis 1, and Tables 21 through 27 show demographic information. County of residence information was also available, and is provided in Appendix C. Summaries of responses to open-ended survey items appear in Appendix B. These responses are sorted by survey item.

Table 2. Q1: Have you traveled at least 200 miles from home in an automobile in the past year?
empty cell Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 804 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3. Q2: Have you traveled on Interstate 64 near Charlottesville in the past year?
empty cell Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 470 58.5 58.5 58.5
No 328 40.8 40.8 99.3
DK/RF 6 .7 .7 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 4. Q3: Have you traveled on Interstate 81 near Roanoke, Harrisonburg, or Christiansburg in the past year?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 493 61.3 61.3 61.3
No 307 38.2 38.2 99.5
DK/RF 4 .5 .5 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cel

Table 5. Q4: Have you traveled on Interstate 95 near Richmond or Fredericksburg in the past year?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 630 78.4 78.4 78.4
No 171 21.3 21.3 99.6
DK/RF 3> .4 .4 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 6. Q5: How often do you travel on Virginia's interstates?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Once a year or less 38 4.7 4.7 4.7
Once every six months 69 8.6 8.6 13.3
Once every three months 128 15.9 15.9 29.2
Once a month or more 568 70.6 70.6 99.9
DK/RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 7. Q6: Would you say that having more than one service type on each sign would be very confusing, somewhat confusing, or not at all confusing to you while traveling?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Confusing 68 8.5 8.5 8.5
Somewhat Confusing 203 25.2 25.2 33.7
Not At All Confusing 507 63.1 63.1 96.8
DK/No Preference 26 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0

Table 8. Q7: If instead, the services were listed in random order to accommodate additional business listings on the signs, would that be very confusing, somewhat confusing, or not at all confusing for you?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Confusing 104 12.9 12.9 12.9
Somewhat Confusing 235 29.2 29.2 42.2
Not At All Confusing 445 55.3 55.3 97.5
DK/No Preference 20 2.5 2.5 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 9. Q8: If the same service were listed on multiple signs, would that be very useful, somewhat useful, not very useful, or not at all useful?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Useful 207 25.7 25.7 25.7
Somewhat Useful 376 46.8 46.8 72.5
Not Very Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 97 12.1 12.1 84.6
Not At All Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 96 11.9 11.9 96.5
DK/No Preference 28 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 10. Q9: Have you ever seen any of these signs for full service food establishments?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 185 23.0 23.0 23.0
No 548 68.2 68.2 91.2
DK/RF 71 8.8 8.8 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 11. Q10: How useful were these signs to you? (Answered by those who answered "Yes" to Question 9.)
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Useful 96 11.9 51.9 51.9
Somewhat Useful 58 7.2 31.4 83.2
Not Very Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 13 1.6 7.0 90.3
Not At All Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 7 .9 3.8 94.1
DK/No Preference 11 1.4 5.9 100.0
Total 185 23.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 12. Q11 How useful do you think it would be to you to have full service restaurants listed on their own full service food interstate signs? (Answered by those who answered "Yes" to Question 9.)
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Useful 201 25.0 32.5 32.5
Somewhat Useful 258 32.1 41.7 74.2
Not Very Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 72 9.0 11.6 85.8
Not At All Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 64 8.0 10.3 96.1
DK/No Preference 24 3.0 3.9 100.0
Total 619 77.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 13. Q12: How useful do you think it would be to include full service restaurants on signs with other service types, such as camping, if there was free space on the camping sign?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Very Useful 219 27.2 27.2 27.2
Somewhat Useful 360 44.8 44.8 72.0
Not Very Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 104 12.9 12.9 85.0
Not At All Useful [Reasons summarized in Appendix B] 86 10.7 10.7 95.6
DK/No Preference 35 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 14. Q13: What do you consider to be the primary differences in the services provided by those establishments on the standard food signs and those establishments on the full service food sign?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Response Provided [Responses summarized in Appendix B] 409 50.9 50.9 50.9
Don't Know The Differences 391 48.6 48.6 99.5
RF 4 .5 .5 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 15. Q14a: Please tell me your level of agreement that each of the items I mention should be served at breakfast: Coffee…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 690 85.8 85.8 85.8
Somewhat Agree 75 9.3 9.3 95.1
Somewhat Disagree 7 .9 .9 96.0
Strongly Disagree 9 1.1 1.1 97.1
DK/No Preference 22 2.7 2.7 99.9
RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 16. Q14b: Please tell me your level of agreement that each of the items I mention should be served at breakfast: Juice…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 618 76.9 76.9 76.9
Somewhat Agree 139 17.3 17.3 94.2
Somewhat Disagree 25 3.1 3.1 97.3
Strongly Disagree 8 1.0 1.0 98.3
DK/No Preference 13 1.6 1.6 99.9
RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 17. Q14c: Please tell me your level of agreement that each of the items I mention should be served at breakfast: Eggs…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 608 75.6 75.6 75.6
Somewhat Agree 146 18.2 18.2 93.8
Somewhat Disagree 14 1.7 1.7 95.5
Strongly Disagree 13 1.6 1.6 97.1
DK/No Preference 22 2.7 2.7 99.9
RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 18. Q14d: Please tell me your level of agreement that each of the items I mention should be served at breakfast: Breakfast meats such as bacon or sausage…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 586 72.9 72.9 72.9
Somewhat Agree 165 20.5 20.5 93.4
Somewhat Disagree 15 1.9 1.9 95.3
Strongly Disagree 14 1.7 1.7 97.0
DK/No Preference 23 2.9 2.9 99.9
RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell
Table 19. Q14e: Please tell me your level of agreement that each of the items I mention should be served at breakfast: breakfast grains such as biscuits, toast, pastries, or cereal…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 585 72.8 72.8 72.8
Somewhat Agree 171 21.3 21.3 94.0
Somewhat Disagree 18 2.2 2.2 96.3
Strongly Disagree 13 1.6 1.6 97.9
DK/No Preference 16 2.0 2.0 99.9
RF 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 20. Q15: Now, Is there anything else you would like to tell me about interstate signs for food establishments that we have not already discussed?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes [Responses summarized in Appendix B] 161 20.0 20.0 20.0
No 643 80.0 80.0 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 21. Question 16: Would you say that your total combined household income before taxes last year was…
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
$20,000 45 5.6 5.6 5.6
at least $20,000 but < $40,000 97 12.1 12.1 17.7
at least $40,000 but < $60,000 134 16.7 16.7 34.3
at least $60,000 but < $80,000 123 15.3 15.3 49.6
at least $80,000 but < $100,000 101 12.6 12.6 62.2
at least $100,000 but< $120,000 64 8.0 8.0 70.1
or $120,000 or more? 117 14.6 14.6 84.7
DK/RF 123 15.3 15.3 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 22. Q17: Counting yourself, how many people live in your household currently?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
1 125 15.5 15.5 15.5
2 296 36.8 36.8 52.4
3 132 16.4 16.4 68.8
4 148 18.4 18.4 87.2
5 63 7.8 7.8 95.0
6 13 1.6 1.6 96.6
7 3 .4 .4 97.0
8 4 .5 .5 97.5
9 1 .1 .1 97.6
DK/RF 19 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 23: Q18: Counting yourself, how many of these people are 18 to 25 years of age?
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0 550 68.4 68.4 68.4
1 93 11.6 11.6 80.0
2 104 12.9 12.9 92.9
3 25 3.1 3.1 96.0
4 9 1.1 1.1 97.1
5 1 .1 .1 97.3
DK/RF 22 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Table 24. Q19: Counting yourself, how many of these people are 26 to 35? (This question only asked for those who did not account for all household members in previous question.)
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0 546 67.9 73.1 73.1
1 87 10.8 11.6 84.7
2 88 10.9 11.8 96.5
3 1 .1 .1 96.7
DK/RF 25 3.1 3.3 100.0
Total 747 92.9 100.0 empty cell

Table 25. Q20: Counting yourself, how many of these people are 36 to 60? (This question only asked for those who did not account for all household members in previous questions.)
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0 210 26.1 30.4 30.4
1 147 18.3 21.3 51.7
2 302 37.6 43.7 95.4
3 5 .6 .7 96.1
4 1 .1 .1 96.2
DK/RF 26 3.2 3.8 100.0
Total 691 85.9 100.0 empty cell

Table 26. Q21: Counting yourself, how many of these people are over 60 years of age? (This question only asked for those who did not account for all household members in previous questions.)
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0 254 31.6 56.1 56.1
1 90 11.2 19.9 75.9
2 83 10.3 18.3 94.3
DK/RF 26 3.2 5.7 100.0
Total 453 56.3 100.0 empty cell

Table 27. Q22: Gender.
Response: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 319 39.7 39.7 39.7
Female 485 60.3 60.3 100.0
Total 804 100.0 100.0 empty cell

Conclusions

Overall results from the survey showed that people have strong opinions about the logo sign program, and are willing to share them. People generally report low levels of confusion with sharing motherboard space. It is interesting to note that almost 70 percent of drivers had not noticed the new category. A large number of open-ended responses appeared to associate the existing Food category with fast food, and the Full Service Food category with sit-down service. However, the open-ended responses also appeared to show some confusion about the meaning of Full Service Food. Many respondents thought that Full Service referred to multi-service facilities, such as combined restaurant/gas station/convenience store/hotel. Even with the confusion about meaning, most thought it would be useful to have this new category. There was also general agreement on meaning of breakfast. The demographics appeared to be fairly representative of the traveling public in Virginia, with the possible exception of the male/female ratio (60 percent of respondents were female).

All of the open-ended responses were summarized and are presented in Appendix B. Two of the open-ended questions showed trends worth mentioning here. For Question 13, regarding the meaning of Full Service Food, 69 percent of the 410 responses contained the words "fast food" even though that was never mentioned by the interviewer. An additional 9 percent of the responses referred to concepts such as menu variety, quality, and service. Some degree of confusion was noted in about 7 percent of responses to this question, indicating confusion with multi-service facilities such as combination gas station/restaurants, combination convenience store/restaurants, etc. These answers contained the words "gas," "convenience store," "hotel," motel," or "everything." Question 15 was an open-ended question asking for any other opinions on the logo boards. There were 161 responses, of which 37 percent indicated a desire for better directions and mileage signs on the main logo placard (on the interstate rather than on the ramp). Another 12 percent wanted the signs to be easier to read, and 10 percent wanted more restaurant information included on the signs.

Next | Previous

Home | Table of Contents | List of Tables | List of Figures