Public Perception of Safety Messages and Public Service Announcements on Dynamic Message Signs in Rural Areas

Printable Version [PDF, 6.4 MB]
You may need the Adobe® Reader® to view the PDFs on this page.
Contact Information: Operations Feedback at OperationsFeedback@dot.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Operations
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

FHWA-HOP-16-048

June 2016

---

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

---

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-HOP-16-048		2. Government Accession No.	3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Public Perception of Safety Messages and Public Service Announcements on Dynamic Message Signs in Rural Areas			5. Report Date June 2016
			6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Jeremy Schroeder, Eric Plapper, Henry Zeng, Bob Krile (Battelle)			8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201			10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
			11. Contract or Grant No. Contract No. DTFH61-12-D-00046; Task Order No. T-5012
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590			13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report; April 2015-March 2016
			14. Sponsoring Agency Code HOTM
15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Transportation Management Center (TMC) Pooled Fund Study (PFS). Jimmy Chu (Task Manager)
16. Abstract The objective of this project was to assess the effectiveness and potential benefits of posting public service announcements (PSAs) in rural areas by surveying a variety of travelers in those areas, including local residents, tourists, and long-haul truck drivers. This project addressed a number of questions related to safety awareness and PSA messages on dynamic message signs (DMS), including: driver awareness, driver understanding, changes in driver behavior, and drivers' opinions. Study findings provide an understanding of the usefulness and effectiveness of using DMS for safety and PSA campaigns, providing a basis for recommendations to influence and/or improve agencies'; guidelines, policies and operations on using DMS as a tool for safety and public service campaigns.
17. Key Words Dynamic Message Sign, DMS, Public Safety Announcements, Safety Messages		18. Distribution Statement No restriction
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified	20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified	21. No. of Pages 144	22. Price

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2. SURVEY DESIGN METHODOLOGY
  • Experimental Design
  • Survey Design and Sample Frame
  • Data Collection Methodology
  • Design and Testing of the Survey Instruments
• CHAPTER 3. TRAVELER INTERCEPT SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
  • Survey Preparations and Execution
  • Site Descriptions
• CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
• CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Study Findings
  • Hypotheses Area and Survey Questions
  • Evaluation of Awareness
  • Evaluation of Understanding
  • Evaluation of Behavior Change
  • Evaluation of Traveler Opinions
  • Discussion of Results
  • Recommendations
• APPENDIX A: SITE QUESTIONNAIRES
  • Kansas, I-70
  • Minnesota/Wisconsin, I-94
  • Missouri, I-44
  • Nevada, I-80
• APPENDIX B: COMMENTS FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
  • Kansas, I-70
  • Minnesota/Wisconsin, I-94
  • Missouri, I-44
  • Nevada, I-80
• APPENDIX C: ODDS RATIO GRAPHS FOR EVALUATION OF HYPOTHESES
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

List of Figures

• Figure 1. Map. The Study Corridors.
• Figure 2. Chart. Responsibilities for Survey Administration.
• Figure 3. Map. DMS Locations on the I-70 Study Corridor.
• Figure 4. Map. Three Minnesota DOT DMS locations on the I-94 Minnesota Study Corridor, including one Located in Wisconsin.
• Figure 5. Map. Current DMS Locations on the I-94 Wisconsin Study Corridor from Madison (bottom right) Northwest through Eau Claire (top left).
• Figure 6. Map. DMS Locations on the I-44 Study Corridor.
• Figure 7. Map. DMS Locations on the I-80 Study Corridor.
• Figure 8. Graph. Percentage of Each Traveler Type by Site.
• Figure 9. Graph. Percentage of Gender in Each Site.
• Figure 10. Graph. Frequency of Seeing Safety Campaign Messages on DMS.
• Figure 11. Graph. Percentage of Respondents that Reported Seeing the Posted Safety-Related Messages on DMS.
• Figure 12. Graph. Safety-Related Message Interpretation by Site.
• Figure 13. Graph. Responses to "Do You Agree that the Identified DMS was Understandable?" by Survey Round.
• Figure 14. Graph. Respondents' Understanding of Messages Displayed at Other Sites.
• Figure 15. Graph. Participant Responses on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down to read the message.
• Figure 16. Graph. Responses to "Did You Do Anything Differently?" by Site.
• Figure 17. Graph. Participant Responses Regarding whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Behavior Changes.
• Figure 18. Graph. Agreement on Whether the Identified Message is Appropriate.
• Figure 19. Graph. Respondent Opinions that Messages Displayed at Other Sites are Inappropriate
• Figure 20. Graph. Agreement on Whether the Identified Message Raised Traveler Awareness of the Issue.
• Figure 21. Graph. Respondent Opinions that Messages Displayed at Other Sites Increased their Awareness of an Issue.
• Figure 22. Graph. Responses for Each Survey Round about Whether the Specific Messages are Displayed too Often.
• Figure 23. Graph. Responses about Whether Travelers are More Likely to Stop Reading DMS if the Same Message is Repeatedly Seen.
• Figure 24. Graph. Responses on the Best Way of Communicating Safety-Related Information.
• Figure 25. Graph. Responses on What Message Types should be Displayed on DMS.
• Figure C-1. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Nevada.
• Figure C-2. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-3. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Kansas.
• Figure C-4. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Missouri.
• Figure C-5. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Nevada.
• Figure C-6. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-7. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Kansas.
• Figure C-8. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Missouri.
• Figure C-9. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Nevada.
• Figure C-10. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-11. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Kansas.
• Figure C-12. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Missouri.
• Figure C-13. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Nevada.
• Figure C-14. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-15. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Kansas.
• Figure C-16. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Missouri.
• Figure C-17. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Nevada.
• Figure C-18. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-19. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Kansas.
• Figure C-20. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Missouri.
• Figure C-21. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Nevada.
• Figure C-22. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-23. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Kansas.
• Figure C-24. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Missouri.
• Figure C-25. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Nevada.
• Figure C-26. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-27. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Kansas.
• Figure C-28. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Missouri.
• Figure C-29. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Nevada.
• Figure C-30. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-31. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Kansas.
• Figure C-32. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Missouri.
• Figure C-33. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Nevada.
• Figure C-34. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-35. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Kansas.
• Figure C-36. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Missouri.
• Figure C-37. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Nevada.
• Figure C-38. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• Figure C-39. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Kansas.
• Figure C-40. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Missouri.

List of Tables

• Table 1. Table 1. Preliminary Sample Size Requirements for Comparing Differences in Traveler Opinions Between Two Corridors.
• Table 2. Initial Hypotheses and Survey Measures.
• Table 3. Safety Campaign Messages Posted During this Study.
• Table 4. Number of Travelers Encountered.
• Table 5. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage by Traveler Type.
• Table 6. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage by Gender.
• Table 7. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage by Frequency of Seeing Safety Campaign Messages on DMS.
• Table 8. Hypothesis Areas and Survey Questions
• Table 9. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on Whether They See Identified Safety Campaign Messages on DMS.
• Table 10. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS by Site.
• Table 11. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on the Understanding of the Listed Message.
• Table 12. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message by Site.
• Table 13. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on Their Agreement on Whether the Message is Understandable.
• Table 14. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable by Site.
• Table 15. Have these DMS ever Caused You to Slow Down?
• Table 16. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down by Site.
• Table 17. Responses to "Did You Do Anything Differently?" by Site.
• Table 18. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Drivers Doing Anything Differently After Seeing the Message by Site.
• Table 19. Responses to "Have these DMS messages ever caused changes in your driving behavior?" by Site.
• Table 20. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior by Site.
• Table 21. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on Their Agreement on Whether the Identified Message is Appropriate.
• Table 22. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate by Site.
• Table 23. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on Their Agreement on Whether the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue.
• Table 24. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue by Site.
• Table 25. Number of Survey Participants per Corridor, and Percentage on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information.
• Table 26. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information by Site.
• Table 27. Percentage of Survey Participants on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS.
• Table 28. Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Limits – Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS by Site.
• Table 29. Hypotheses and Evaluation Results.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA	Analysis of Variance
DMS	Dynamic Message Sign
DOT	Department of Transportation
FHWA	Federal Highway Administration
KS	Kansas
MN	Minnesota
MO	Missouri
NV	Nevada
PCMS	Portable Changeable Message Sign
PSA	Public Service Announcement
TMC PFS	Transportation Management Center Pooled Fund Study
WI	Wisconsin