<%BANNER%>

Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies and Temporary Campus Transit Use on the Permanent Transit Habits an...


PAGE 1

IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATI ON DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIV ERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI By ALEXANDER BOND A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

In Memory of Andrew Factor, Ch ristopher Zeiss and Premal Dagly

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the fo llowing people for their support of my thesis research. Special thanks to my thesis committee chai r, employer and adviso r Professor Ruth L. Steiner. Her guidance, support and advice ha ve gone above and beyond the call of duty. The other members of my thesis committee de serve thanks as well. Professor Joshua Comenetz and Dr. Linda Crider have lent their expertise a nd advice at critical moments through this process, and their input has been very valuable. Professor Paul Zwick, Linda Dixon of UF Campus Facilities Planni ng and Construction, Doug Robinson of the Regional Transit System, and Bob Miller Vice President for UF Finance and Administration, have also assisted this project in several ways. This project was an expensive one, and without in-kind support the cost would have been prohibitive. The Urban and Regional Planning Department generously supplied me with thousands of letterhead and return mail envelopes, significantly reducing the cost of the project. Members of my family were also integral to the process. Special thanks go to my sister Carly Bond for her effort at the start of this project. Without her work, this project would have ended before it began. My pare nts, Carolyn and Tony Bond, have given me their undying love and support throughout my time at the University of Florida.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... .x 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................4 Transportation Demand Management.............................................................................4 Public Transit In America.............................................................................................12 Transit Ridership.......................................................................................................12 Modal Split................................................................................................................12 Transit Funding.........................................................................................................15 Florida Transit Funding............................................................................................16 Bus Transit.................................................................................................................... 17 Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit................................................................18 Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership.........................................20 Non-User Studies......................................................................................................25 University Transportation.............................................................................................26 Campus Parking........................................................................................................27 Campus Transit.........................................................................................................29 Unlimited Access and Fare Structure.......................................................................31 Campus Transit Case Studies....................................................................................33 Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use..............................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................39 Survey Administration..................................................................................................39 Survey Scope................................................................................................................40 Freshman Survey..........................................................................................................41 Alumni Survey..............................................................................................................42 Limitations.................................................................................................................... 43 Other Research Methods...............................................................................................43

PAGE 5

v 4 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................45 The University of Florida..............................................................................................45 Regional Transit System...............................................................................................52 Campus Transit Service Agreement.............................................................................56 Transportation Access Fee........................................................................................58 Service Enhancements..............................................................................................62 Standard City Routes................................................................................................63 Campus Circulator Routes........................................................................................65 Later Gator................................................................................................................66 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................................68 Transportation Habits....................................................................................................68 Transportation Before Attending UF........................................................................69 Transportation While Enrolled.................................................................................70 Transportation After Graduation...............................................................................71 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge.................................................................................73 Transportation Demand Manageme nt and Public Policy.............................................77 Self-Selection for Transit Use.......................................................................................81 Florida Residency.....................................................................................................81 Multifamily and Single Family residents..................................................................83 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 85 Transportation Habits................................................................................................85 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge.............................................................................87 TDM and Public Policy............................................................................................89 Self-Selection for Transit Use...................................................................................89 6 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................92 Conclusions...................................................................................................................9 2 Policy Recommendations..............................................................................................95 RTS Recommendations............................................................................................96 City of Gainesville Recommendations.....................................................................98 University of Florida Recommendations..................................................................99 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................100 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL.....................................................................103 B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY........................................................................104 C ALUMNI SURVEY...................................................................................................108 D FRESHMEN RAW SURVEY DATA.......................................................................112 E ALUMNI RAW SURVEY DATA.............................................................................140

PAGE 6

vi REFERENCES...............................................................................................................172 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..........................................................................................178

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect......................................................................6 2 United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000..................................................14 3 Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size..................................30 4 Parking and Decal Sales, 2003................................................................................51 5 Total Ridership 1995 to 2003.................................................................................55 6 Campus Circulator Rout e Ridership 1995 to 2003................................................55 7 Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth.............................................61 8 2004-2005 Standard City R outes and Funding Levels...........................................64 9 Funding and Frequency of Ca mpus Circulator Routes...........................................66 10 2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics....................67 11 Parents Mode of Travel to Work.........................................................................70 12 Transit Service Use at UF.....................................................................................71 13 Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split......................................................................72 14 Frequency of Transit Use......................................................................................73 15 Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni..........................................................73 16 Willingness to Ride Dir ect Transit Route to Work 17 Willingness to Use Transit....................................................................................76 18 Regular vs. Fare Free Transit................................................................................77 19 Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction.........................................................78 20 Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion.....................................................................79

PAGE 8

viii 21 Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate...................................80 22 TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk.....................80 23 Wish Transit Was a Better Option........................................................................81 24 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency..................82 25 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Re spondents Mode of Travel to Work...........83 26 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Re spondents Willingness to Use Transit.......83 27 Multifamily and Single Family Residents Transit Frequency.............................84 28 Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work.....................................85 29 Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit.................................85

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split)............................................13 2 Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001......................................15 3 All Campus Parking Facilities and Core Campus Area..........................................49 4 UF Park and Ride Facilities....................................................................................50 5 RTS Route System..................................................................................................54 6 Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth.............................................................56 7 Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen...........................................................69 8 Knowledge of Transit System Information.............................................................75

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of th e University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEM AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI By Alexander Bond May 2005 Chairperson: Ruth L. Steiner Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning The University of Florida began fina ncially supporting the Regional Transit System in 1998, allowing students to ride bus ses without paying a fa re and substantially improving service characteristics such as frequency and hours of operation. Students have responded by shifting their commuting patterns away from single occupant automobiles, and have played the pivotal role in boosting RTS ridership by 284% in the first six years of the program. Students at the University of Florida are provided with high-quality, free-fare transit during their period of attendance. Students are also subjected to a comprehensive set of transportation demand management (TDM ) policies intended to curb their use of automobiles and shift their commutes toward alternative modes of transportation. After graduation, most move away from the City of Gainesville to find employment. Alumni must make new transportation choices, based on their new environs. The purpose of this

PAGE 11

xi project is to understand how temporary expos ure to TDM policies a nd high-quality transit impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes. Two mail surveys were administered, mi micking a time-series survey. Incoming freshmen to the University were surveyed pr ior to their arrival at UF. Recent alumni were surveyed as well, and the alumni re sponses can be compared to the freshmen responses. Respondents were asked questi ons about transit us e, transit system knowledge, attitudes toward tran sportation policies, and attitudes toward TDM policies. Survey results show a slight increase in transit ridership among alumni. Despite the increase in ridership, alum ni indicate they are less wi lling to ride transit than freshmen. Upon deeper investigation, two sel f-selection factors for transit use were identified: non-Florida residency and living in multifamily housing. The most important factors for influencing transit use were fare cost and parking restriction. This project concludes that people of all ages and backgrounds will ride transit under certain circumstances. Those circumstan ces are parking prici ng or restriction and high-frequency transit. Low cost or free-fare transit may also be valuable if target users are low-income or otherwise transportation disadvantaged. Prior automobile use does not preclude the user from riding transit. Simila rly, temporary transit use does not translate into permanent habits once the users life circumstances change. The decision on whether to use transit is based on the transpor tation environment, which is largely shaped by transportation demand management policies. This study concludes that TDM systems in most citiesparticularly those in Florid aare not comprehensive enough to influence automobile users to change modes to transit.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The bulk of communities throughout the nati on have failed to create a modal shift toward transit because they have failed to implement a variety of complementary transportation demand management (TDM) policies. TDM policies are those that discourage single occupant automobile use a nd promote the use of alternative modes. Universities are better equipped and more motivated than their surrounding communities to implement comprehensive TDM programs. For many universities, increasing public transits mode share is the primary goal of their TDM programs. Universities across the c ountry are partnering with their communities public transit agencies to provide enhanced transit se rvice to their campuses (Brown et al. 2003). Schools hope to increase the number of student s and staff that commute to campus by bus, thus reducing the demand for parking on campus. Some schools offer unlimited access, which allows users to board the bus without paying a fare. Many universities improve the frequency, amenities and operating hours of transit routes serving the campus. The University of Florida is one university that has part nered with its local transit agency to provide unlimited access, high frequency service. The partnership has been very successful, increasing the system-wid e number of transit riders 284% since its inception in 1998. In 2004, the Gainesville Re gional Transit System (RTS) carried 8.2 million riders per year, the majority of whom are students. RTS is now the 4th largest

PAGE 13

2 transit system in the State of Florida despite serving the 17th largest county. Alachua County now has the highest ratio of riders per capita of any count y in Florida (NTD 2003/Census 2000) The high rate of transit use in Gainesv ille (and Alachua County) stands in stark contrast to the rest of the state. Florida is one of the most automobile dependent states in the nation (Census 2000). Most of Florida was developed using suburban urban design, the least transit-supportive pa ttern. Eighty five percent of the student population at the University of Florida are in-state students and as such have been raised in an environment where private automobiles are the mode of choice for a ll trips. Since the University of Florida has adopted a variety of TDM policies—including enhanced transit service—students have been prompted to br eak their pre-conceive d notions about using alternative modes. Some students choose to wa lk or bike. Some c hoose to ride the bus. Many students that persist in driving use busse s to reach the core of campus from parking facilities. For many students riding the bus to, from and around the University of Florida campus will represent their first sustained experience with bus transit. Seventy eight percent of alumni report that they used RTS busses during their time at UF. It is clear that students are amenable to riding the bus wh ile in attendance at UF. But what happens after they graduate? Most students will leav e Gainesville, and most of those who stay will no longer commute to campus. Will alumni continue to ride public transit in their new communities? The purpose of this project is to explore how temporary transit use impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.

PAGE 14

3 To answer questions about transit us e after graduation, two mail surveys were administered. The first survey was sent to incoming freshmen to establish baseline data about transit habits a nd attitudes before arriving at the University. The second survey was sent to alumni and asked many of the same questions. Data from the alumni survey can be compared to the freshman surv ey, exposing any changes in transit habits or attitudes toward public transportation. Research questions. Three principal research questions are asked during this project. The rese arch questions are 1) Do alumni of the University of Fl orida ride public transit more frequently than before they attended UF? 2) Do attitudes and perceptions about bus transit change after using busses on and around the University of Florida Campus? 3) Which, if any, Transp ortation Demand Management policies are perceived as being most effective by freshmen and alumni? There are also some subsidiary resear ch questions. These questions are: 1) What characteristics of bus tran sit and ancillary TDM policies at the University of Florida make busses an attractive commuting option? 2) How educated are students and alumni on transit options? 3) Do students and alumni take transportation factors into consideration when choosing where to live before and after graduation? 4) Which TDM policies are supported by students/alumni?

PAGE 15

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This section contains a review of the exis ting literature on a variety of topics that relate to public transportati on, building bus ridership, and university tr ansportation. Public transit has many benefits for its co mmunity including lower traffic congestion, lower air pollution, increased tr ansportation equity and lower cost of living. Increasing transit’s share of passenger trips is an im portant goal of many metropolitan areas. This section begins with a discussi on of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which uses a variety of policy measures to create a more balanced transportation system. A summary of current trends in tran sit ridership and administration follow. An important component of TDM strategies is the enhancement of transit services, and a section is included that discu sses various service enhancements that have been proven to build ridership. Transit systems that serve uni versities are covered in depth in the final part. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a package term for a variety of planning strategies that promote the more efficient use of transportation resources. Efficient use of the transportation system is becoming increasingly important as widespread automobile use strains the ex isting road infrastructure, and available government monetary resources cannot k eep up with the demand for new roadway

PAGE 16

5 capacity. The broad use of automobiles also has negative impacts on air quality, urban design, and creates hardships to transportation disa dvantaged persons such as the elderly, poor or handicapped. TDM strategies seek to reduce or mitig ate the negative aspects of automobile travel including congestion, air quality, and tr ansportation inequity. They also seek to build upon positive aspects of a balanced transportation system including economic development, expanded housing choices, a nd a reduction in capital expenditure on transportation infrastructure. Some TDM strategies include: more transportation mode choices, improved convenience of alternative mo des, efficient pricing and other financial incentives, marketing of alternative modes, and land use changes that improve access and reduce automobile dependency (Litman 2003). TDM policies fall into three broad categoriespositive, mixed and negative. Positive TDM policies expand transportation options and access for all users and include: Transit service improvements, flextime work hour scheduling, and carpool/vanpool programs. Mixed TDM strategies expand optio ns and access for only one segment of the population, but do not adversely impact those who are not in the target group. Mixed TDM strategies include: high occupant vehicl e lanes, fare-free transit programs, and traffic calming. Negative TDM strategies re duce options or increase costs. Negative TDM strategies include: fuel tax increases, pa rking pricing, or auto -free zones (Victoria Transportation Policy Institute [VTPI] 2004). Erik Ferguson (1990) identifies TDM as a complementary strategy to Transportation Supply Management (TSM). TSM strives to increase transportation system capacity on all modes by forecasting infrastructure needs. TDM complements

PAGE 17

6 TSM because it maximizes the use of all built transportation infrastructure. Ferguson identifies five aspects of tr avel that can be altered to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system: 1) Trip Genera tion, 2) Trip Distribution, 3) Mode Choice, 4) Route Selection (spatial), a nd 5) Route Selection (temporal). The five aspects of travel and proven strategies to alter that as pect are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1–TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect Aspect of Travel TDM Objective Selected Strategies Trip Generation Eliminate trips -Growth management -Telecomuting Trip Distribution Move trips to less congested destination -Increased density -Promote trip chaining Mode Choice Move trips to higher occupancy modes -Bike/Ped amenities -Parking pricing -Ridesharing -Transit enhancement Route Selection (spatial) Move trips to a less congested route -Traffic calming -Intelligent transportation systems Route Selection (temporal) Move trips to less congested time period -Alternative work schedules -Jobs/Housing mix Source: Ferguson (1990) Individual TDM strategies have a modest impact on the transportation system as a whole. However when multiple strategies are applied in concert, the impact on the system can be substantial. When multiple strategies are applied at the same time, the negative impacts on individual users are m itigated (Litman 1999). For example, if parking pricing is instituted it may reduce vehicle travel by 3% The increase in prices will likely cause lower income users to end their automobile commutes, impacting them substantially. If parking pr ices are increased, AND transit service is improved, vehicle travel could be reduced by 8-10%. Lower in come users who were priced out of parking will find the transit system meets their needs, and higher income users will choose to ride the transit system because it is more cost-effective.

PAGE 18

7 TDM has been criticized for “forcing ” people into using alternative modes, particularly individuals with low income or educational attainment levels. These criticisms view modes other th an the automobile as inferi or (Pisarksi 1999). Proponents counter that TDM is in fact a market-based system that provides additional options and price points to users. TDM balances accessibility with mobility. Few TDM strategies actually force people to change their transpor tation habits. Most strategies create financial, convenience or time incentives to reduce automobile use (Litman 1999). Comprehensive TDM programs have gain ed their broadest support in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, the Netherla nds, and Belgium. TDM policies are built into the national transportation policies of thes e European nations. This stands in stark contrast to the United States, where TDM polic ies vary from locality to locality (Cleland and Cooper 2003). There are three themes of European TDM that deserve particular attention when discussing TDM in a college/university setting. First, utilizing TDM transportation alternatives is marketed as the socially responsible norm in European countries. In the United States TDM-friendly behavior is mark eted as an alternative to the automobile-dependent culture. Second, many European cities were founded and substantially built prior to widespread autom obile ownership. The opposite is true of many US cities, but many universities were established prior to the automobile-era (including the University of Florida). Last recent European TDM programs have been negative TDM programs that increase costs or reduce automobile accessibility. Road pricing has recently been instituted in inner London, Singapore and Rome. These “negative” TDM strategies have not been give n serious consideration by most American cities, however they have been employe d by some universities. Colleges and

PAGE 19

8 universities—like dense urban areas—must redu ce single occupant vehicle use, promote an alternative mode oriented environment, and employ negative TDM policies as the norm, more closely resembling a European TDM model. Published literature focuses mostly on decreasing automobile dependence (Hodgson and Tight 1999) and best practice discussions (Vuchic 2001). The literature does not fully address the unique trans portation environment found on a university campus. Universities have a mixed populat ion who commute on irregular schedules– classes and other activities are scheduled th roughout the day. They also function as a distinct community, and value interpersonal contact. Univer sities often have written TDM policies promoting bicycle and pedestrian trips over automob iles (Balsas 2002). Balsas does not go into much detail about tr ansit-promoting TDM measures; however he found that universities value a pedestrian environment–often having written bicycle and pedestrian capital improvement plans and education programs. An important component of any TDM plan is the control, rest riction and pricing of parking resources. Restricting the unlimite d supply of parking creates a disincentive for travel by single occupant car, thus reduc ing congestion. Universi ties have a dual need for controlling the parking supply on cam pus. Beyond the obvious benefit of lower congestion, universities have limited space and fi nancial resources to dedicate to parking infrastructure. By implementing TDM parking policies, universities can save substantial amount of already scarce space and money–and apply those resources to its mission of education. Parking regulation and pricing is a pow erful TDM strategy. Charging fees for parking where public transit is available woul d cause a rise in ridership. If no public

PAGE 20

9 transit is available, parki ng pricing would stimulate more ridesharing (Downs 1992). The parking situation on university campuses stands in strong contrast to their surrounding communities. Keniry (1995) joking states that a “University is a group of faculty, students and administrators held t ogether by a common grievance over parking.” This jesting comment underscores how cond itioned the American population is to the suburban parking environment, and how unive rsity students (and faculty) must adapt their travel behavior to the university setting. Suburban au tomobile users expect a free, reserved parking space close to, or at, th eir destination (Beyard et al. 2003). Contemporary urban planning mandates dedicated parking spaces for each land use. Minimum parking requirements are a form of government intervention that circumvents what would otherwise be a market system of paid parking. Ninety nine percent of American automobile trips terminate in a free parking space (Shoup 1999). Richard Willson (1995) surveyed planning di rectors in 144 cities and found that the minimum parking requirements were based on either a) the parking standards of neighboring cities or b) the Institu te of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Handbook Most, if not all, minimum parki ng requirements are thus based on ITE standards. In practice, peak parking demand has very little correlation with the standards listed in the ITE handbook.1 Parking requirements in cities throughout the United States inflate the supply and virtually eliminate the price of parking. But minimum parking requirements do not eliminate the cost of parking. The cost of parking is built into the total expense of the 1 Shoup (1999) cites an example from the ITE Parking Generation Handbook ITE studies on fast food restaurants show a range from 3.55 to 15.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. The majority of localities use the standard of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 sq uare feet, even though th e ITE handbook shows that only 4% of the peak parking demand is attributable to floor square footage variance.

PAGE 21

10 development. The cost of the free parking is then absorbed by the landowner or passed along to consumers (Shoup 1999). Constructing parking spaces can be quite expensive, and the cost varies greatly based on the valu e of the land it is built on. Above or below grade (structured) parking spaces cost between $10,000 and $25,000 per space. Surface spaces cost $2,000-$3,000 each. Universities are in a peculiar position when it comes to parking facility construction. They are non-profit entities, and cannot “mark up” the price of goods to cover parking facility cost s. Universities must charge students and faculty who use parking spaces to recover at least a portion of the costs associated with facility construction and ma intenance (Shoup 1999). Since universities are unable or unwilling to provide free parking, it follows th at universities should incorporate parking pricing into their TDM plans. By applying an cillary TDM programssuch as ridesharing, enhanced transit services, and bike/ped capit al improvements – universities can capitalize on the necessary parking pricing to create a comprehensive TDM program. The multiple TDM strategies applied in c oncert could have the effect of stimulating substantial transportation behavioral changes. Morrall and Bolger (1996) found a st rong inverse correlation between the available proportion of parking spaces and tran sit’s share of peakhour commuters. In places with fewer available parking spaces (and presumably priced parking), transit use was high. In places with an excess of parking spaces, transit use was low. The correlation is weaker in United States cities and stronger in Canada. This study also found that more people used transit when th e ratio of jobs to the number of parking spaces was lower.

PAGE 22

11 A TCRP study (Kuzmayak et al. 2003) found that transit tends to be competitive in dense areas such as central business di stricts [or university campuses] for several reasons. First, motorists face long walks after parking their vehicles. After parking in a CBD, motorists were found to walk between 500 and 950 feet to thei r end destination. The walking leg of the trip is shorter or equal if transit is used instead of an automobile. Second, travelers must decide on a cost/convenience tradeoff. Riding public transit costs less money than operating and parking a vehi cle. However travelers are bound by the transit provider’s schedule and route ne twork. Third, dense areas possess multiple potential destinations within one area. This reduces the ne cessity of an automobile for midday trips and promotes trip chaining. Four th, at the extreme parking is simply not available, legal, or its price point is too high for most users. One study conducted in The Hague, Neth erlands looked at the users of a 200 space high-demand CBD parking lot before and after its closure. The number of transit trips taken during the week after lot closure went from 22 to 80, a 224% increase. Transit’s mode share increased from 5% to 19%. Previously, a ll 200 cars were single occupant vehicles. After the lot closure, 4% of the displaced persons chose to carpool. The bicycle/pedestrian modal share did not ch ange, remaining at 4% Despite the shift toward public transit, single occupant vehicle commuting remained the overwhelming majority at 74% (Gantvoort 1984). Automob ile commuters chose to park at a more distant location. The finding of this study ha s some mitigating factors. All of the ‘before’ trips taken were si ngle occupant vehicular commuters. Work commuters have very little choice as to the timing of their tr ip, and cannot choose whether or not to make the trip. Public transit was already in place, yet the subj ects of the study were choosing

PAGE 23

12 not to avail themselves of it. Universities are somewhat different in that students have a moderate amount of control ov er the timing of their trip, and often whether or not to make the trip. Students also have a mo re limited budget than commuters to a major European urban center. Public Transit In America Transit Ridership Public transit has been experiencing a mode rate resurgence in recent years. The decade from 1985-1995 was one of ridership stagnation or decline. Public transit ridership has been growing since, rising 18.7% between 1995 and 2001. In 2001, 9.5 billion riders took public transit. Since 2001, transit gave up a small percentage of its gains, dropping to 9.2 billion riders in 2003.2 The number of bus riders has increased every year since 1996, rising by 12.2% to 5.2 bi llion bus riders per year in 2001 (APTA 2003). Despite the ridership gains, busses carry less than 2% of all trips nationwide, and most of those trips are work-re lated (Brown, et al. 2001). Modal Split Busses have been declining in their share of the transit rides. The reason for the decrease in busses share of trips is that other modes have been adding more route miles to their systems or attracting new riders. Demand response/paratransit, heavy rail and vanpool systems have each added significant amounts of route miles since 1995. Figure 1 demonstrates the national modal split in 2001. 2 Data from 2002 and 2003 are preliminary. The term public transit covers several modes of intra-city travel including bus, light rail, subway, trolley, heavy rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand response/paratransit, ferries and other motorized alternative modes.

PAGE 24

13 57.9 3.7 4.6 30.3 0.1 0.9 2.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 BusLight RailCommuter Rail Heavy RailVanpoolDemand Response OtherPercent Figure 1Percent of Transit Trip s Taken (Transit Modal Split) Source: 2001 National Transit Summaries and Trends Busses remain the workhorse of the pub lic transit system, carrying 57.9% of all transit riders. Busses carry nearly all of th e able-bodied transit riders in small and medium-sized communities, where rail modes generally do not exist. Heavy rail has the second largest ridership share with 30.3%. Other modes carry a very small share of public transport ride rs (NTD/FTA 2002). All of the discussion to this poi nt has been growth and modal split within the broad category of transit. Cars remain by far the most dominant mode of travel, particularly for travel to work. Transit accounts for a small portion of the total transportation system. Table 2 shows th e modal split for travel to work from the 2000 Census.

PAGE 25

14 Table 2–United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000 Mode USA Users Percent of US Total Florida Users Percent of FL Total Single Occupant Car 97,102,050 75.7% 5,445,527 78.8% Carpool 15,634,051 12.2% 893,766 12.9% Home Work 4,184,223 3.3% 207,089 3.0% Walk 3,758,982 2.9% 118,386 1.7% Bus 3,206,682 2.5% 108,340 1.6% Subway/Elevated 1,885,961 1.5% 6,851 0.1% Commuter Rail 658,0970.5% 3,638 0.05% Bicycle 488,497 0.38% 14,967 0.2% Taxicab 200,144 0.16% 8,708 0.1% Motorcycle 142,424 0.11% 14,967 0.2% Streetcar3 72,7130.0005% 954 0.01% Ferry 44,106 0.0003% 629 0.009% Other 901,298 0.70% 207,089 3.0% Total 12,8279,228 Source: 2000 US Census with calculation Automobiles have an 87.9% modal share for travel to work. This figure is even higher in small communities where transit options are limited or simply unavailable. The share of commuters that travel by bus is 2.5%, a nd that share is even eclipsed by walkers. Florida’s commuters use automobiles at a 3.1% higher rate. Walki ng and bus riding are less common in Florida than nationwide. In fact, Florida commuters use all alternative modes at a lower rate than nationwide commuters. Long commutes occupy valuable time that could be devoted to work, family or ci vic activities. Long commutes also drive up personal transportation costs be cause of increased expenditu res on fuel and depreciation of automobiles. The average American ta kes 25.5 minutes each way to get to work, while Floridians spend an averag e of 26.2 minutes (Census 2002). 3 The choices presented on the census form do not contai n a clear choice for light rail or vanpool. Light rail users could think they should enter Streetcar or Subway/Elevated. Vanpool users could think they should enter Bus or Carpool.

PAGE 26

15 Transit Funding With little demand for public transit, ag encies have had to subsidize their operation with outside sources of money. Tr ansit agencies across the nation depend on a variety of sources to subsidize their opera tion. Figure 2 below shows the sources of transit agency operating expenses in 2001. Th e largest source of transit funding remains local government subsidy. However the local government contributi on to public transit has been decreasing, falling from 29.3% in 1991 to 24.9% in 2001. Federal assistance also fell by more than 3%.4 The finance of public tran sit has shifted toward farebox recovery and “other” sources of funds. Those categories ro se 2.3% and 5% respectively between 1991 and 2001. The rise in receipts from the farebox is attributable to the rise in the total number of riders. “Other” sources of funding include advertising sales, development partnerships and employer-based subsidy. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Percent 1991 29.320.420.320.69.4 2001 24.920.717.222.914.4 LocalStateFederalFareOther Figure 2–Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001 Source: National Transit Summary and Trends, 2002 4 The Federal government’s role in funding transit operations is relatively small, however the Federal government plays the largest role in providing star t-up capital for fleet acquisition and infrastructure construction, particularly for rail projects.

PAGE 27

16 The amount subsidized per passenger has al so been increasing, but only at or near the rate of inflation. Subsidy per ri de was $1.55 in 2001, up 27% over the previous decade. Inflation over that period was approxi mately 30%. However, small and medium urban areas subsidized riders at a higher ra te. Small urban areas subsidize up to $2.42 for each ride (NTD 2002). Florida Transit Funding The State of Florida contributes less than comparably sized states toward transit operation. In 2001 the state appropriated $92 m illion to fund transit operation and capital improvement. This ranks Florida as the twel fth largest supporter of public transit in terms of dollars spent. Florida is the f ourth largest state in the union with about 17 million residents. In terms of per capita spe nding on transit, Florida ranks eighteenth of the fifty states (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Florida collects approximately $2.2 b illion annually from fuel taxes, license/title/registr ation fees, and rental car taxes. Ei ghty five percent of this amount is spent on road construction and maintenance. The remaining fifteen percent is divided among other modes, with public tr ansit receiving approximately f our percent of the total. Of the $92 million spent on public transit, $64.2 million is allocated to local transit agencies through formula-based State Tran sit Bloc Grants. Local governments may spend this money on public tr ansit however they see fit.5 Another $9 million is allocated to the Urban Transit Capital program, which is earmarked to address the backlog of planned transit capital improvements in ma jor urban areas. The Transit Corridor 5 Fifteen percent of the State Transit Bloc Grant fu nds are earmarked for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund (Cambridge Systematics, 2003).

PAGE 28

17 Program allocates $7.1 million for state-designate d corridors. The Public Transit Service Development Program spends $5.1 million a ye ar on short-term pilo t and trial programs.6 Another $6.2 million is spent through 3 pr ograms to fund research, development and special projects (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Most of the Federal and State transit operational assistance goes to support bus transit. Bus Transit As discussed in the trans it ridership section, busses cont inue to carry the majority of public transit passengers in the United States Public transit riders can be divided into two broad categoriesTransportation Disa dvantaged and Choice Riders. Transportation Disadvantaged riders are dependent on public transit for mobility because they do not have ready access to an automobile. Tran sportation disadvantaged persons account for the majority of riders on busses, particularly in small urban areas. Choice riders have access to automobiles, but choose to ride trans it for certain trips because of time, cost or other advantages that the mode offers. Among Florida transit users, sixty two pe rcent are female. Ridership is highest among people of prime working age (30-49). When more automobiles are available to the household, fewer transit trips are taken. Households that do not own automobiles account for twenty percent of riders in Flor ida, below the national figure of thirty one percent. Households with lower income also tend to ride transit more often than higher income individuals. People with an annual income of less than $15,000 account for 40% of transit riders in Florida. Nationwide the figure is much smaller (12%). This is likely due to high-income transit users in large metropolitan areas nationwide. Transit 6 RTS received $150,000 betw een 2000 and 2001 under the Public Tr ansit Service Development Program. These funds helped with the start-up of the Later Gator program.

PAGE 29

18 usersparticularly in Floridaare likely to be minorities. Nationwide, white users account for forty three percent of all riders. In Florid a this percentage drops to nineteen percent. Floridas black riders account for thirty one percent, close to the national average. The disparity in ethnic makeup of riders in Florid a can be attributed to Hispanic and two-race riders (Thompson et al. 2002). Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit Fare elasticity is the concept that ridership will change according to the fare charged. The industry standard known as the Simpson-Curtain rule sets fare/ridership elasticity at -0.3. The rule stat es that if fares are increased 10%, ridership will decline by 3%. According to the Simpson-Curtain rule, if fares are reduced 100%, ridership should increase by 30%. In practice, systems that in stitute free-fare transit experience ridership gains closer to 50% (Hodge et al. 1994). Theoretically, there are advantages to in stituting a fare-free policy. Automobile riders could be enticed to us e transit, thereby reducing tra ffic congestion and emissions. Transit systems would experience lower costs because there would be no need to collect and account for fare funds. Busses would load and unload faster because fares would not be collected and paper transfer s would not need to be printed. The system would be easier to use because users could not be confused over fares and passes. For small agencies, collecting fares may be a reve nue neutral exercise, because the farebox recovery rate7 is sometimes less than 10%. Accounting, equipment and security costs can easily exceed farebox receipts. However large transit agencies could suffer 7 Farebox recovery rate refers to the percentage of annual operations that are paid for through income generated by fare-paying customers. Cash fares and bus pass sales are both included in the dollar figure of income produced at the Fare box.

PAGE 30

19 substantial losses of revenue. In large agencies, farebox recovery can be as high as 35 percent. Jennifer Perone (2000) claims that fare -free policies could be advantageous for small systems, but not for large ones. Sma ll systems such as Logan, UT and Commerce, CA have had success with fare-free transit pr ograms, and continue to offer it to their communities. Amherst, MA, is a medium sized system that carries 6 million passengers a year. All riders board fare-free, in part because the system’s budget is supplemented by funds from 5 local colleges and universitie s. There have been three attempts at eliminating fares on an entire tr ansit system in a large city. Denver, CO and Trenton, NJ instituted a fare-free policy throughout thei r systems in the late 1970s. Austin, TX attempted the same in 1989/1990. All three prog rams were discontinued within one year, despite a dramatic rise in ridership. Af ter the programs were discontinued, ridership returned to its previous leve ls. These systems found that th ey were not attracting choice riders and were having little impact on overa ll traffic congestion. Instead of taking people out of cars, more trips were being ta ken by transportation di sadvantaged riders. Vandalism, vagrancy and rowdiness skyrocketed. The costs to maintain and repair transit vehicles and bus stop infrastructure went up dramatically. The savings promised by removing the farebox paled in comparison to th e costs being expended on maintenance. Additional busses were needed to meet peak demand (Perone 2002). The key to increasing transit ridership is not necessarily tied to the fare. One study found service frequency was valued nearly twice as much as the cost (Perone 2000 citing Cervero 1990). The Center for Urban Tr ansportation Research (CUTR) found that customer satisfaction of riders in Florid a depended more on “fre quency, routing and on-

PAGE 31

20 time performance” (24%) than cost (10%). E liminating fares is not enough to attract and satisfy riders of public transit. Service characteristics must be improved as well (Cleland and Thompson 2000). Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership Every time a person makes a trip, he or she must make decisions about which mode best suits the trip. Each mode offers advantages over others. Users must decide on tradeoffs between cost, convenience, comf ort and time amongst other factors. Automobiles offer distinctive advantages over busses under the prevailing transportation system. However, certain attributes of bus transit can be changed to close the gap between bus and car, thus helping busses ga in modal share. Making transit more attractive will help recruit “choice riders”— those with access to an automobile. The scheduling of busses is the most of ten-cited factor for improving ridership. Scheduling consists of the hours of operation, frequency of busses, and ease of transfer. Choice transit riders take into consideration the time needed to complete their trip, and compare the time savings to using an automob ile. Since wait time is a component of total travel time, transit is already at a subs tantial disadvantage. Improvements to bus frequency reduce the wait time of patrons. Pa trons arriving randomly to board a bus that runs on 30 minute frequencies can expect to wait an average of 15 minutes but no more than 30. As frequencies are shortened, the c onvenience of bus trans it improves. A patron arriving at random for a 10 minute frequency bus can expect to wait an average of 5 minutes or a maximum of 10 (Li 2003). Traveler s tend to feel their total travel time is longer than the actual travel time, particularly if there is an idle waiting period. Agnes Moreau (1992) blamed travel “time drag” on several factors includi ng transit users being

PAGE 32

21 unoccupied, alone, anxious, and their travel delay being une xplained. Hess, Brown and Shoup (2003) found that persons waiting for trans it perceived their wait time to be nearly twice as along as the actual wait time. Increased frequency of busses causes a rise in ridership (and vice versa). The ridership to service frequency elasticity averages +0.5. For every 10% reduction in frequency, ridership increases by 5%. Ridershi p increases the most when routes change from low frequency (30 minutes or more) to high frequency (less than 20 minutes). When frequency is already medium or high, shortening the frequency has less of an impact on ridership. For example, when a bus changes its frequency from 60 minutes to 20 minutes, ridership elasticity can improve by a factor ex ceeding +1.0. Patrons may shift from other low-frequency routes to th e new high frequency route. Walkers may be attracted to very high frequency transit. Ho wever for a bus changing its frequency from 20 minutes to 10 minutes, the ridership elastici ty will be far lower, and in some cases negligible (Evans IV 2004). Fare cost and bus frequency are the two most commonly cited service characteristics that attract choice riders. The literature does not conclude which is more effective at building ridershi p. Ridership gains are maximized when the two strategies are applied in concert. A study in Dallas, TX found that inner city residents are more sensitive to the cost of transit, while subur ban residents are more sensitive toward bus frequency. Presumably inner city resident s were poor or trans portation disadvantaged, and preferred low-cost mobility. Suburban re sidents were choice transit riders who desired convenient service. A fare decrease in Dallas of 29 percent along with a 16

PAGE 33

22 percent increase in frequency yielded a 50 pe rcent increase in ridership system-wide over a three year period (Allen 1991). Students riding the bus from graduate st udent apartments to the UCLA campus have two transit optionsone free bus and one that costs 75 cents. Both busses operate on 10-12 minute frequencies. Eighty six percent of students bypass the bus requiring a fare, preferring to wait for the next free bus. Th e average wait time for those who chose to wait was 5.3 minutes. This translates to the subjects valuing their time at a rate equal to $8.50 per hour. Most people value their commute time at up to half of their hourly wage. The bus requiring a fare payment was consider ed the most comfortable, yet the cost was the overwhelming concern for students (Hess et al. 2003). Flexibility (or convenience) is an importa nt factor when deciding whether to use transit. Automobile users value two flexible aspects of car travel. Temporal flexibility allows drivers to depart at the time of day they choose w ithout regard to schedules. Spatial flexibility allows driver s to choose their path and arrive at destinations not served by transit (Evans IV 2004). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that California commuters who needed to make multiple trips during work hours or those who worked in multiple locations were far less likely to take transit. A study in Os lo, Norway found that transit riders are willing to wait an extra 8-10 minutes or pay 33 cents [currency conversion calculated] to avoid a bus transfer. Patrons were concerned about service reliability, weather and a confusion of the procedures and costs of transfe rring busses (Evans IV 2004 citing Stangeby 1993). Transit can impr ove its flexibility by lengthening service hours, reducing frequencies and adding new rout e miles. Transit systems can also offer

PAGE 34

23 jitney busses and “guaranteed rides home” on taxis. However transit’s ability to compete with automobiles in terms of flexibility/convenience is limited (Evans IV 2004). Safety associated with transit use can be a concern for some riders. Bus Rapid Transit (a type of express bus service that runs in segreg ated right-of-way) riders in Florida reported that after tr avel time, personal safety was the most important reason for choosing private automobiles over public transit (Ba ites 2003). Most of the concern over personal safety stems from waiting at stops. Ev ans et al. (1997) found that one aspect of safety dealt with the transit patron’s (now a pedestrian) interaction wi th street traffic and the elements. High speed vehicular traffic, poor intersection design and the lack of sidewalks contributed to the pe rception of danger. Bus stops that had sidewalks, shelters and seating helped mitigate the sense of danger— and actual danger—of patrons waiting for busses. Another aspect of safety deals with violent crime while waiting for the bus. In some circumstances the perceived risk of vi olent crime is very real In the urban core of Los Angeles, one third of transit users repor ted being the victim of violent or property crime while making a transit trip. The risk of crime was highly focused in the inner city and at stops with hiding places (Loukaito u-Sideris and Liggett 2000). Suburban users have a somewhat different experience. R eed et al. (1999) found that transit users generally feel safe using transit, but their perceived fear of crime increased with longer wait times. Reed also found that non-users thi nk that transit is more dangerous than users do. Every transit trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. The origin and destination points of a person’ s trip must both be within reasonable walking distance of the transit route. There is a growing movement to deve lop high-density land uses in

PAGE 35

24 proximity to transit routes. This move ment—commonly known at Transit Oriented Development (TOD)—seeks to place land uses cl ose to transit routes. The urban design of the area around the transit stop is also important. The urban environment must be appealing and pedestrian-frie ndly (Cervero 2001). Potentia l users must be within one quarter mile of the transit stop to be realisti cally expected to walk to the transit stop. Some users will walk (or bike) a longer distance, but choice riders generally will not walk more than mile (Johnson 2003). Longer walks add considerably to the user’s out of vehicle wait time (Li 2003). Social acceptability can also be an im portant factor when deciding whether to drive or take transit. Reese et al. (1980, c ited in Thompson et al. 2002) found that social stigmas exist toward users of public transit. People expressed con cerns about the social acceptability of busses. The perceived bias stigmatized transit users as being from a lower socio-economic class. Reese’s st udy also found that busses were the least acceptable for evening activities. Users felt that transit was more socially acceptable than non-users. Improving transit’s amenities can help attract and retain choice riders or infrequent riders. Additional amenities can also help raise the level of customer satisfaction. A transit system with amenitie s generally has a better public image. Bus stop amenities include infrastructure such as seating, lighting and even retail such as newsstands. On-board amenities include low fl oor busses, courteous drivers, bike racks and comfortable seats. Clean liness both on-board and at stop s is essential (PPS 1999). A common perception is that consumers prefer rail tran sit to bus transit. The social stigma holds that white-collar workers use rail transit, whereas blue-collar workers

PAGE 36

25 frequent bus transit. Moshe Ben-Akiva (2002) refutes this perception using mathematical models that prove bus rapid transit has an equa l preference to rail tran sit. People slightly preferred rail over bus transit that operates in the same right of way as automobiles because busses realized no time savings over driving. One aspect of transit amenities is th e ease of information dissemination. The availability of information is critical in attracting new riders. The public is generally uneducated about transit. Bus routes are di fficult to recognize and wait times are very uncertain (Ben-Akiva 2002). Abdel-Aty et al (1996) found that tran sit non-users are one third more likely to use transit if they ar e given advanced information such as point-topoint routing instructions, travel time es timates and single-route maps. Many people do not intuitively understand transit and are una ble to choose the correct routes, estimate travel time, or decipher fa re structures (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Hardin 2001). Non-User Studies Studies that focus on non-user s of public trans it are often very valuable to transit researchers and planners. The goal is to build ridership, and non-users are the market that transit seeks to attract. In a study of nonusers in seventeen US cities, the relative attractiveness of the automob ile was cited as the reason fo r not using public transit. Transit was viewed as having no clear advant age, while cars were viewed as having flexibility and travel time advantages. Ho wever when non-users were presented with a set of hypothetical service ch anges, 50% said they woul d ride transit under those circumstances. The most popular hypothetical service changes were: dedicated bus lanes, direct transit routes from home to work, and increased frequency (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Mierzejewski and Ball 1990).

PAGE 37

26 Employer-based programs can help build transit ridership among non-users. Oram and Stark (1996) found that employers who provided free or di scounted individual ride tickets showed a moderate increase in ridership among employees. Employees did not generally switch their daily commute to tran sit. Instead they rode transit relatively infrequently. Employees found it easier to use transit without co mmitting to it entirely, and employers saved considerable amounts of money by not purchasi ng monthly passes. Employer-based programs have the effect of making transit non-users into infrequent users. Employer-based programs can add 8-9% to the total number of riders on a transit system (Conklin et al. 2001). Employer-based transit programs are very similar to programs offered by colleges and universities. Both employers and univers ities seek to reduce their costs associated with parking, and give their constituents additional fringe benefits of attendance or employment. Employers that reduce or elim inate their subsidy of free parking will be able to use those funds to increase profits or reinvest in the compa ny. Universities that discontinue subsidized parking are able to use those funds to support the school’s primary missions of academic instruction and research. From the transit agency’s point of view, large employment sites and univers ities are substantial trip ge nerators that need transit service and have the potential to incr ease total ridership on the system. University Transportation Universities have a different set of tr ansportation needs than their surrounding communities. Universities value a walkable green campus where buildings are in close proximity to foster academic collaboration. Pa rking takes up valuable space that could be devoted to classrooms or laboratories. Univer sities are major trip attractors. Students

PAGE 38

27 commute on irregular schedules, since classe s begin throughout the day. Cities expect spikes in transportation demand during rush hour s, while universities can expect a fairly steady flow throughout the day. Finally, univ ersities are experiencing rising costs for constructing and administering transportation infrastructure, which detracts from the university’s primary mission of academics (B alsas, 2002). Universities are in an excellent position to experime nt with and implement tran sportation policy changes. Universities have complete control over the ro ad network, parking faci lities and land uses on their campus. Cities do not po ssess absolute power over these factors (Miller 2001). Universities have begun to address their transportation needs in ways similar to their municipal counterparts. A study by Gutkowski and Daggett (2003) found that 91 percent of surveyed universitie s maintained a campus master plan, and that 70 percent of schools had a dedicated transportation sect ion. But only 57 percent of universities incorporate public transit into their campus plans. Exposing students to alternative modes c ould have lasting impacts on the nation’s transportation system. Rodney Tolley (1996) ma kes the claim that creating a “green”, sustainable and multimodal transportation sy stem on a university campus could make lasting impacts on the travel behavior of graduates. His claim depends heavily on students being environmentally conscious, and argues that graduates will keep the earth in mind when deciding how to co mmute to their first jobs. Campus Parking The parking situation on campuses varies, but restricting park ing is always an integral part in effecting a modal shift. Universities usually have fewer parking spaces (supply) than the number of commuters w ho wish to park on campus (demand).

PAGE 39

28 Universities usually track the demand for park ing by the number of requests received for parking passes each year. The demand to s upply ratio of parking spaces at sampled universities varied from 0.70 to 4.00 with a m ean of 1.70. To help fund parking facility construction, operation and maintenance, all uni versities charge for parking passes. This process—known as “parking pricing”—also serves to discourage commuters from parking on campus, and to encourage them to carpool or utilize alte rnative modes. The cost of parking passes in a recent sample ranged from $14 to $300 per semester, with a mean of $83.43 (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). The pricing of parking is an essential step in promo ting transit use. Even though the University of Florida prices its pa rking, the price point remains below other comparable schools. The annual price of d ecals for students is ch eaper at UF ($94/yr) than other comparable universities such as the University of Wisconsin–Madison ($200834), the University of California–Davis ($204) and the University of Minnesota ($537) (Siegel 2000). Even at schools with more expensive parking, univers ities are not pricing parking to recover 100 percent of its costs. The monetary co sts of parking to a university include salaries for parking personnel, accounting, construction costs, and loss of available landwhich at some point in the future could necessita te the purchase of campus annexes (Tolley 1996). A discussion of parking on the University of Florida campus can be found in Chapter 4 of this report. Peripheral parking lots (sometimes known as ‘park-and-ride’ lots) have not been shown to increase transit’s modal share. In general, periphery parking is not intended to induce travelers to change their modal choice They are intended to capture vehicular traffic before it enters the congested central core. However if priority parking spaces

PAGE 40

29 within the core are awarded for carpools, peri pheral lots can help increase ridesharing. Peripheral parking is commonly used by major employers, hospitals a nd universities that are unwilling or unable to supply onsite parking (Kuzmayak 2003). Universities have adopted parking mana gement policies to promote transit use and alleviate parking demands in the center of campus. The University of Maryland at College Park operates peripheral parking lots linked by shuttle busses. UM’s park-andride service moves 750,000 people an nually from the parking lots to the center of campus by shuttle bus. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not sell parking passes to students who live within the transit system’s operating area. Similarly, UCLA prices its parking passes based on the student’s address and its proximity to campus and the transit system (Kuzmayak 2003) In an interesting side observation it wa s noted that in eight US cities with periphery lots, many users chose to walk the last leg of their trip inst ead of using busses. Unfortunately this phenomenon was not studied in depth, and the pedestrian’s reasoning for choosing walking over transit is not known (Kuzmayak, 2003 citing Pratt and Copple, 1981). Campus Transit Transit service on university campuses varies from school to school. Among colleges with 10 or more transit vehicles se rving the campus, roughly half of the systems are operated under contract by the local community tran sit provider (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003 and Miller 2001). The rest are operated by the univers ity administration. Campus transit services are targeted toward four types of service: 1) Home to school

PAGE 41

30 trips; 2) Intra-campus trips; 3) Remote park ing shuttles; and 4) Ge neral service routes that treat the campus as a special generato r of trips (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003). The mission of the transit system dictates the ownership and fi nancial situation of the transit provider. Table 3 below summarizes the prevailing ownership, financial, and targeted trips of all four types of campus transit systems. Systems on small campuses (less than 8,000 students) are generally university-owned. Un iversity-owned systems are cheaper to operate because of non-unionized employees (often students) and smaller, more efficient vehicles. Small transit systems tend to target intra-campus trips and remote parking facilities. Schools in larger communities usually en ter into contractual service agreements with local transit provide rs. Local agency transit service is more expensive, but the more complex route system allows busses serving the campus to extend far into the surrounding community. This opens up housing options to students (Miller 2001). Even though the annual cost is more expensive for larger systems, smaller systems are usually more expensive on a per-ride basis. Table 3–Transit System Characteristi cs by University and City Size Large University / Small City Owner/Operator: City Target Users: Intra-Campus and Home to School Finances: Expensive Large University / Large City Owner/Operator: City Target Users: Home to School Trips Finances: Very Expensive Small University / Small City Ownership: University Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Finances: Inexpensive Small University / Large City Ownership: University Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Finances: Inexpensive Source: Gutkowsky and Daggett (2003) and Miller (2001) About 40 percent of contractual serv ice agreements al low the university administration or student leader ship to dictate service changes. The remainder of systems depend on the transit agency’s judgment (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). An

PAGE 42

31 increasingly popular service change is th e implementation a free-fare system, where students do not pay cash fares each time they board the bus. Unlimited Access and Fare Structure The idea of unlimited access transit (als o known as fare-free transit) has been practiced on university campuses since the late 1970s (Miller 2001). As of 1998, thirty five universities offered unlimited access tran sit. That year, total of 875,000 students receive unlimited access benefits from their universities (Brown et al. 2001). The number of schools offering unlimited access has grown since 1998, but no literature was located that cited a precise number. Unlimited access transit is not free transit. It is a different way of paying for transit service. A third pa rty pre-pays the transit provi der to carry members of a constituent group without charging them a fare The transit provider usually receives an annual lump sum payment from the univers ity (Brown et al. 2001). Through a method similar to group health insurance, fares ar e substantially discounted because so many fares are being purchased (Miller 2001). Tran sit passes are distribute d, or identification cards double as passes. Users are allowed to ride free on all transit system routes, irregardless if they connect with the university.8 Currently, passengers occupy only 27% of available seats on busses nationwide. The enormous number of empty seats drives up the needed operating subsidy. Transit systems want riders to fill those seats, a nd universities want to discourage automobile commuters to campus. Through university paymen ts to transit systems, new riders can 8 Some universities provide free-fare transit only on routes that intersect with campus (Brown et al. 2003). This model is more typical of employer-based transit programs.

PAGE 43

32 be brought to the transit system while at the same time relievi ng the parking demand on campus (Brown et al. 2001). Unlimited access programs offer multiple advantages to the university and its students: 1) Unlimited access reduces demand for parking on campus. Consequently the university divests itself of th e capital expenditure costs of constructing new parking. 2) Unlimited access transit reduces the cost of at tendance for students, while at the same time increasing mobility options. Students do not need to buy and maintain a car, which can save an individual up to $4,000 a year. For students who continue to own cars, slower depreciation and gas expenses can save the owner $800-1,000 a year. 3) Students have better access to housing and employmen t. Students living on campus do not need a car for off campus social or shopping trips. Students off campus do not need a car to commute to campus, and can also use tran sit for social and shopping trips – although their options may be limited. 4) Unlimited access can help a university attract and retain students (Brown et al. 2001). There are substantial advantages for the tr ansit agency as well. Unused seats are occupied, optimizing the bus’ operation. The ag ency also receives a stable source of income less subject to political whims. St ate and Federal assistance is often based on formulas that take into account ridership. Simply by putting people in seats, the transit agency can garner a larger share of state and federal as sistance (Brown et al. 2003). Among schools that have a fare-free tr ansit system, approximately 20 percent have an unlimited access fare structure similar to the University of Florida. Students, faculty and staff ride without paying a fare because the university administration or student fees have prepaid thei r fares. Fifty three percent of schools have systems where

PAGE 44

33 the general public rides fare-f ree, however the bulk of those are campus-only systems. The remainder of free transit system s are park-and-ride shuttles only. Both the local transit agency and the unive rsity can reap benefits from contractual service agreements. Universitie s are able to divest themselves of the administrative and fiscal burden of operating on-campus busses, even if the school makes substantial payments to the transit provider. Schools th at choose to use student fees can further reduce the school’s contribution. University-ope rated transit systems are not eligible to receive most types of Federal and State matchi ng funds. Thus partnering with the local transit provider makes the system eligible fo r operating assistance and start-up funds. For local transit agencies, partnering with local universities also provi des a reliable revenue stream in a period of declining gove rnment subsidy (Miller 2001). Campus Transit Case Studies Each university pursues the goal of build ing transit ridership differently. This section presents three case studies of enha nced transit service on university campuses. Each school used a different model to appro ach the issue of bringi ng about a mode shift toward public transit. These three case studies are selected to dem onstrate principles of college/city joint transit service that are not emb odied at the University of Florida. An indepth case study of the Univers ity of Florida transit prog ram can be found in Chapter Four of this report. Clemson UniversityClemson, SC. Clemson, SC is located in Pickens County (pop. 105,000). Until the mid-1990s, there was no m unicipal transit system in Clemson. Partnering with the city a nd county, Clemson Univers ity pledged $350,000 toward the joint project that had previously funded oncampus parking shuttles. The new source of

PAGE 45

34 funding allowed the city /county to create a transit agency and avail itself of state and federal matching funds that were previously unavailable to the university. The small, efficient system operates on a fare-free basis for all riders, student or otherwise. As ridership increased, the transit agency was ab le to secure additional operating assistance from federal rural transit assistance funds (a lso known as Section 5311 funds). The State of South Carolina also pledged additional ope rating assistance, in part due to Clemson Area Transit’s (CAT) contri bution to state ridership totals which boosted South Carolina’s share of federal block grants. Thus the city/county a dded a transit system where one had been lacking, and the univers ity was able to shift people from single occupant cars to public transit. In 1999/2000, CAT operated 10 routes carrying 666,000 passengers annually at a cost of $782,000. CA T also operates late evening busses to shuttle patrons to bars and other evening activities. (TCRP 2003) Clemson’s experience is an example of how small college towns can partner with the university to create a transit system where there previously was none. A small community benefits by creating transportati on options, lowering tr affic congestion, and opening access to housing. All transit systems can learn from CAT’s example how to leverage state and federal funding sources to maximize operating assistance. Funding arrangements vary from state to state, and South Carolina’s local assistance framework is what made the CAT system possible. One dr awback of instituting a no-fare system is that the cost of expanding route miles is prohibitive, since th ere is no dedicated source of funding for capital improvements (Miller 2001). University of California at BerkeleyBerkeley, CA. AC Transit, the bus service provider in Alameda (Oakland) and Contra Costa Counties, California operates

PAGE 46

35 154 routes, seventeen of which intersect th e University of California campus. The University of California has only 4,000 parking spaces for 32,000 students. The impetus for change came in 1998 when the City of Be rkeley relaxed its rent control laws, creating a market for student housing outside of wa lking distance to campus. In 1998—the year before the program began—one thousand eight hundred students purch ased transit passes at a cost of $60 per semester. A rider study found approximately 700 other students who paid cash fares on a regular basis. Student leadership wanted to increase access to additional housing stock, and the university wa nted to ease its parking demand. In April of 1999, UC students voted by an 89 percent marg in to establish a student fee of $10 per semester to create the “TransitClass” progr am. The transit agency receives at least $320,000 each semester to provide unlimited access service, more if the number of passes requested was high. Through a process known as distributive cost pr icing, the individual cost of a transit pass is much lower sin ce the total cost is spread across the whole constituency of students attend ing the university. The concept of distributive cost pricing is similar to group insurance rates or taxation, where the cost per person of the program is very small, yet the benefits to individuals who utilize the program is substantial. Under the TransitClass program, student s receive unlimited access on AC Transit routes. Students must sign up to rece ive a transit pass. Over 23,000 of the 32,000 eligible students signed up to receive one during the first semester the program was offered, twelve times the number who purchased passes before the start of the program. The large number of student passes distributed and the appr oval rate of the referendum were the result of a successful marketing program. The marketing program exposed students to the financial, environmental, a nd institutional benefits of transit use.

PAGE 47

36 There are several attributes of the UC-B erkeley program that demonstrate models of campus transit. The University of Calif ornia/AC Transit partne rship is a successful example of a university unlimite d access program inte grating into a large urban transit system. It is also an example of utilizing student fees in the partnershipthe university administration does not contri bute any funds to the trans it system. Even though all students are entitled to a free transit pass, each student who wants to ride must interact with a third party to receive be nefits. This is one variant of a distributive cost pricing model. All students must pay the fee, but not all students will sign up for a pass. Students must decide to sign up for the unlimited access program before arriving at the bus stop. By requiring students to sign up, it creates a roadblock to infrequent or occasional riders. However, the fee is be ing utilized to pay for the number of passes requested, not unlimited access for all student s. Some students will not sign up for a pass. From the transit agency’s perspective this is a more efficient model to implement (Levin 2000). University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)Los Angeles, CA. The University of California at Los Angeles is served by 5 routes of the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines. Students, faculty and st aff are allowed to ride fare-free on those 5 routes. Passengers must swipe their university ID card to board. UCLA’s administration pays Santa Monica Bus Lines 45 cents per ride. The University pays about $80,000 monthly. There has been a marked modal shift among student commuters. Student commutes by transit increased 43%. Twenty nine percent of the student riders were new

PAGE 48

37 to using public transit. The number of drivers fell by 33%. Th e rise in student ridership increased further during subsequent years of the program (Brown et al. 2003). UCLA’s transit agreement is a good ex ample of a university administration paying for transit service. UCLA’s administra tion pays for the entire cost of providing unlimited access transit. The university is di vesting itself of the expense of constructing parking infrastructure, but more institutional money could be saved by instituting student fees. Instead of applying a distributive cost pricing model, the school pays for each individual ride. From the tr ansit provider’s perspective th is is advantageous, since a ridership increase will result in increased revenue. Under a fixed-payment scheme, ridership gain does not cause an increase in revenue. Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use What happens to people’s behavior once they have been exposed to transit? It is clear that people will use transit under certa in circumstances (Crane 1999). The decision to use transit is in part based on the level of service in each mode (Hensher and Button 2000). The decision to use transit is also base d on the habits, attit udes and beliefs of the user. Experience with high level of service transit may influence future behavior, since psychologically the experience was a positive one (Verplanken et al. 1994). The existing literature is largely lacki ng for experiments that examine the lasting effects of temporary transit use. One experiment performed by Fujii and Kitamura (2002) gave automobile users in Japan a free bus pass for one month. People who received transit passes continued to use the bus after the one month period ended. Ridership within the experimental group rose by 20 percent. The study also concluded that automobile users had a general negative perception of public transit which was

PAGE 49

38 refuted after using transit temporarily. This important concept indicates that a temporary change in transportation habits can alter a person’s permanent routine. The authors suggest a temporary period of free-fare transit may help in crease ridership in the long term. The literature is lacking in studies that ask if users of high frequency, unlimited access transit continue their trans it use after they move to a ne w city. In fact, there is a lack of studies asking questi ons about the overall reasoni ng of choice riders who use transit. Further, there is no previous r ecord of studies that focus on whether the transportation system at a university has any lasting effects on the habits or attitudes of former students.

PAGE 50

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A natural experiment exists for evaluati ng the lasting effects of using bus transit while at the University of Florida. The experiment involves sampling students before they arrive on campus (incoming freshmen), and then sampling students soon after graduation (recent alumni). Responses can be compared between the two groups to uncover changes in habits and attitudes toward alternative modes. It is assumed that any changes observed are attributed to the res pondents’ common experience of commuting to and from the University of Florida campus. Time constraints prohibited the administra tion of a true time-series survey to the incoming freshman of 2003 and surveying th e cohort again in 2008 af ter graduation. It was necessary to survey the 2003 incoming fr eshmen class and a group of alumni during the same year. This research project assu mes that the responses given by the alumni surveyed would be substantially similar to responses that would be collected in 2008 if time constraints did not apply. Survey Administration To analyze the impact that multimodal transportation to campus has changed the habits and attitudes of University of Florid a students, two surveys were taken. Both surveys were administered by mail using addres s lists maintained by the University. The data collection period ran from July through November of 2003.

PAGE 51

40 Survey Scope Both surveys asked questions in the fo llowing general areas, although questions were not grouped together in consecutive order: Demographics Questions about gender, race, mar ital status and zip code. These questions were asked so that other respons es could be put into social and spatial context. Transportation Habits This section included questi ons concerning commute time, automobile ownership, modal choice and maximum preferred walking/biking distance. Some questions were asked twice, with one question asking about habits while at the University and the ot her asking about habits in their current location. These questions were asked to determine the respondents’ actual transportation habits. Their responses can be compared to othe r groups within the survey or to state and national datasets. HousingThis question set asked about housing choice and desirabl e attributes of housing. These questions were asked in an attempt to dete rmine how important transportation factors were considered in the respondents’ decision-making process when choosing where to live. Some of these questions were asked twice, with one question asking about college housing and one asking about current housing. In the case of the alumni group, respondents were directed to answer questions about their collegiate hous ing choice based upon where they lived during their senior year only. Alternative Mode Use These questions were asked to gauge the willingness of respondents to use alternative modes. A dditional questions were asked to gauge

PAGE 52

41 the level of education the respondent posse sses about public transi t in their current city. Some questions asked about the usage of public tran sportation during all four years of undergraduate work. Public PolicyThese questions ask respondents to rate their level of agreement with transportation public policy measures. These questions asked participants to rate their level of agreement with statem ents on a scale from 1 to 5 (or Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). Freshman Survey The first survey consisted of 45 clos ed response questions. It was randomly mailed to 697 incoming freshmen during the su mmer of 2003. These incoming freshmen were not yet enrolled at the University. Addresses were obtained from a list of admitted fall-semester students maintained by the Un iversity of Florida Office of Admissions. Only addresses from the 50 United States and the District of Columb ia were included. The size of the admitted freshman population was 7,296. Of the 697 surveys mailed, it was expected th at up to 34% of the recipients were ineligible to take the survey. This was due to two factors. Persons under the age of 18 (approximately 17% of the incoming class) were not allowed to take the survey due to concerns over parental consent. Recipients under the age of 18 were instructed not to complete the survey. The mailing list also included persons who had been admitted to UF but were not planning to enroll–a pproximately 20 percent of the sample. 1 1 The Office of Admissions reported 7,296 admitted freshmen. The University Registrar reported 5,830 enrolled freshmen for the Fall 2003 semester. The difference between the two figures is 20.1%.

PAGE 53

42 One hundred and twenty three valid freshm an surveys were returned. This is a raw response rate of 17.6%. Taking into acc ount the recipients who were not permitted to respond, the response rate was 30.4%. A c opy of the freshman survey can be found in Appendix B. Raw data from the freshman survey can be found in Appendix D. Alumni Survey A second survey was taken to determine the multimodal behaviors and attitudes of recent alumni of the University. Responses on the alumni survey can be compared to the freshman survey to determine if the mu ltimodal environment of the university campus had caused any changes. Six hundred and fifteen surveys were mailed to randomly selected addresses from a database mainta ined by the University of Florida Alumni Association. Only students who graduated with their bachelors degree in 2001 and 2002 were selected. Alumni who received only grad uate degrees or who were still enrolled were not included. The total pote ntial population repr esented 12,376 people.2 These limiting factors were chosen because: a) Alumni who graduated in 2000 or before would have limited exposure to enhanced transit serv ices; b) Alumni would have at least one full year to settle into a transportation r outine post-graduation; c) Alumni holding only graduate degrees have an unknown backgr ound since high school graduation, and d) Alumni who hold a bachelors degree but were still enrolled at the University are still commuting to the same multimodal environment found during their undergraduate years. The survey that was mailed to alumni had 49 closed response questions. Of those, 24 questions were exact duplicates of questions asked of the freshmen. An 2 The alumni population 12,376 represents the number of addresses that are on file with the University of Florida Alumni Association minus the percentage of graduate and professional degrees awarded each year by the University. The Alumni Association is a membership organization, and some alumni choose not to join.

PAGE 54

43 additional 11 questions were substantially si milar, and to a varying degree they can be compared using statistical tests. One hundred and fifty four valid alumni surveys were returned. This represents a 25 percent respons e rate. A copy of the alumni survey can be found in Appendix C. Raw data from the al umni survey can be found in Appendix E. Limitations Both surveys qualify as large samples, and it can be assumed that the confidence level of sampling error is p = 0.05 or 95%. Us ing this confidence level, the margins of error for scalar data can be calculated. For th e Freshmen, the margin of error is +/8.74. For the Alumni, the margin of error is +/7.85. Other limitations exist on the survey data. The alumni surveyed graduated in 2001 and 2002. Since 2002, expenditure on bus transit by UF has more than doubled. The alumni sample did not experience the same transit environment that the incoming freshmen will. Further, some alumni will have experience with high-quality transit outside of Gainesville. Alumni may have m oved to or visited cities with high quality transit (including rail transit) or comprehensive TD M policies. Any changes found in habits or attitudes can be attribut ed to temporary transit use. Other Research Methods Interviews were conducted with severa l key informants. An interview was conducted in April 2003 with the UF Campus Master Planner Linda Dixon to investigate the scope and intent of the campus’ TDM polic ies. Bob Miller, UF Vice President for Finance and Administration was interviewed in July of 2004 to discuss University

PAGE 55

44 funding of the RTS system. Finally, Doug R obinson, transit planner with the Regional Transit System was interviewed by email and telephone. Other research methods were employed dur ing this project. The author of this project was appointed a voting member of the 2004/05 Trans portation Access Fee Committee. Through membership on the committee, the author gained familiarity with the process and the responsible parties. Do cuments were reviewed from the UF Division of Finance and Administration (publicly ava ilable) to compile information on monetary payments for bus service. The Division of Finance and Student Government records were obtained. These documents show the agreements, funding, and service agreements between the University and RTS. The Regi onal Transit System provided ridership data dating back to 1996. The UF Campus Master Pl an was reviewed. Finally, the policies of the Transportation and Parking Division were analyzed to estab lish the campus TDM parking policies.

PAGE 56

45 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND This section contains an in-depth discu ssion of the transit-oriented environment at the University of Florida and the City of Ga inesville. In order to understand any changes in habits and attitudes found in the survey, it is important to have a full understanding of the transportation environment and TDM policie s at the University. This section also serves as a case study of bus transit at UF. The University of Florida The University of Florida had a tota l enrollment of 47,373 students in 2003/04. Of that number, 28 percent are graduate or professional students and 72 percent are undergraduates. UF is a residential sc hool. Most of the student body moved to Gainesville to attend classes, as relatively few students are native to Alachua County. In addition to the student body, there are over 4,000 faculty and 8,000 other staff members. Founded at its present site in 1905, the oldest part of campus is dense and is best navigated on foot or bicycle. The core pa rt of the campus is largely a pedestrian-only zone during daylight hours and lacks parking resources. The core part of the campus and Shands Hospital occupy roughly 600 acres, wi th the other 1050 acres devoted to less dense uses such as agricultural research and conservation. At least some coursework is

PAGE 57

46 required on the Gainesville campus to satis fy the requirements for all but a few1 of the 100+ undergraduate and 242 graduate program s. Accommodating the needs of 58,000+ regular commuters to the core of campus re quires balancing the needs of diverse groups and maintaining a comprehensive transportatio n demand management plan. University of Florida Transportation Demand Management Multiple TDM policies are maintained by the University of Florida. However, the University does not maintain a stand-alone Transportation Demand Management plan. TDM policies are distributed throughout the Ca mpus Master Plan and in the regulations of the Transportation and Pa rking Services Division. The Campus Master Plan outlays the following major goals related to transportation: 1) Build future parking facilities near campus gateways and other remote areas 2) Maintain a transportation fee that covers the costs of parking, circulation, transit and non-vehicular transportation infrastructure 3) Build bike lanes and off-road trails to promote bicycle use 4) Provide fare-free transit to students, faculty and staff 5) Promote pedestrian behavior in the “Pedestrian Enhancement Zone” by removing vehicle parking, restrictin g automobile access, and constructing pedestrian infrastructure. 6) Enhance the service characteristic s of bus transit, including on-campus circulators The campus plan seeks to increase the mode share of transit and non-motorized modes for commuting to campus. The plan recognizes that not al l students have the 1 Some degree programs in the fine arts can be obtained by taking classes only at the New World School of the Arts in Miami. At least some Instruction in residence in at the Gainesville campus is required for all undergraduate degree programs except those offered at the Ne w World School of the Arts.

PAGE 58

47 option of using alternative modes, so parking facilities constr uction is provided at remote facilities. Automobile commuters would then transfer to alternative modes such as oncampus busses, bicycles or walking. Th e plan puts heavy emphasis on capturing automobile traffic in park-and-ride lots to lessen the impact on campus roadways and entice cars to enter the campus at several di fferent locations to mitigate their impact on city roads. The plan also provides fo r a carpool program, with carpools receiving preferential parking. The core of the campus is designated a “P edestrian Enhancement Zone”. In effect this is an auto-free zone, except it is accessi ble by busses, official business vehicles and handicapped persons. One positive impact of the auto-free zone is that bus riders debark close to classrooms, while automobile drivers face a long walk, bike ride or bus ride of their own to reach the same point on campus. The Transportation and Parking Services Division (TAPS) implements several TDM policies. That office determines the re quirements for different classes of parking passes. They also issue parking decals and collect fees for their purchase. Stringent parking enforcement is coordinated through th e TAPS office. Thus the Transportation and Parking Services Division implements th e parking restriction and parking pricing portion of the “TDM plan”. The office also operates the University’s carpool program, which has been marginally successful (Siegel 2000). Even without a formal TDM plan, th e University is employing several TDM strategies to foster a modal shift among stude nts, faculty and staff. Below, UF’s TDM strategies are summarized according to the broad categories defined by Littman (1999). PositiveUnlimited access transit, transit serv ice characteristic improvements, pedestrian/bicycle capital improvements

PAGE 59

48 MixedCarpooling program with preferential space assignment, park-and-ride facility construction, traffic calming NegativeParking pricing, parking restriction, auto-free zone s, transportation fees TDM seeks to reduce automobile depe ndence and its harmful impacts. The positive, mixed and negative TDM policies work in concert to discourage the use of single-occupant automobiles. Viable alternat ives are presented to commuters. Unlimited access, high quality transit is presented as the alternative for motorized travel to campus. According to Ferguson (1990), TDM tackles the disparity in mode share by employing five strategies. UF’s TDM strategies ar e organized in the list below according to Ferguson’s categories. Trip GenerationTransportation Fees Trip DistributionParking Pricing, Parking Restri ction, Park-and-Ride facilities Mode SelectionCarpool program, Parking Re striction, Parking Pricing, Unlimited Access Transit, Transit characteristic improvements, Pedestrian/Bicycle Capital Improvements Route Selection (spatial)Auto-free zones, Traffic Calming Route Selection (temporal)Night and evening classes, Transit characteristic improvements Four of the most important TDM policies ar e discussed in the rest of this section. The parking pricing, parking restrictions, bus transit service enhancement, and transportation fees are all inve stigated in greater depth. Parking demand far exceeds supply on the University of Florida campus, although some limited parking facilities are available in neighborhoods adjacent to the University. A total of 19,371 spaces are ava ilable on campus. The available spaces are prioritized for certain groups’ use: 5,094 ar e reserved for students who live on campus;

PAGE 60

49 another 7,719 are reserved for faculty and staff. Only 6,558 spaces remain to accommodate the approximately 9,600 students li ving off campus. Figure 3 below shows all campus parking facilities. Figure 3–All Campus Parking Fac ilities and Core Campus Area Source: UF Office of Parking an d Transportation Services Approximately 37,750 students live off ca mpus. About half of the spaces reserved for off campus students are locat ed in the core area of campus, and are designated “Commuter”. Students with 90 cr edit hours (senior status) and graduate students can park in these more centrally lo cated commuter spaces, usually in structured parking facilities. Other students must use park-and-ride spaces. Park-and-ride spaces are found on the perimeter of campus, and user s require a bus or bi cycle ride to reach

PAGE 61

50 most instructional facilities. Under the contractual UF-RTS agreement, RTS provides dedicated park-and-ride busse s at 10-20 minute intervals at a cost of $995,000 annually. Figure 4 below shows the park -and-ride facilities only. Figure 4–UF Park and Ride Facilities Source: UF Division of Transportation and Parking Services Analyzing the purchases of parking decal s can render useful information about the demand for parking on campus. Table 4 below summarizes the number of spaces, their cost, and the overs ell ratio of decals.

PAGE 62

51 Table 4–Parking and Decal Sales, 2003 Decal Type Spaces Eligible Purchasers Decals Sold Decal Cost Oversell Ratio Faculty/Staff (Orange, Blue, Official Business) 7,719 N/A2 11,351 Up to $636 1.47 On-Campus Residents (Red) 5,094 9,623 5,823 $94 1.14 Commuter 3,393 ~21,000 7,655 $94 2.73 Park and Ride 3,165 ~26,300 2,837 $94 0.89 Total 19,371 ~58,000 27,666 1.43 Source: UF Office of Parking and Transportation Services UF Parking and Transportation Services does not limit the number of decals sold, instead choosing to let the supply of parki ng spaces and the willingness of drivers to search for spaces determine the number of d ecals sold. Table 4 above summarizes the parking situation on campus. Holders of f aculty/staff, on-campus, and commuter decals are only allowed to park in spaces reserved for their respective category of decal. Overall, the number of decals sold exceeds th e number of spaces by a 1.43 : 1 ratio. Only park-and-ride decals are sold at a rate lower than th e number of available spaces, although in practice this is not accurate since all other de cal types are allowed to use park-and-ride spaces. Lower-division students have few options when it comes to parking on campus. Those with junior status and under must use remote park and ride lots, which requires a bus ride to reach their classrooms. Seniors and graduate students can park in close-in facilities, but the number of decals sold in this category far exceeds the number spaces by a 2.7 : 1 ratio. Motorcycles and gas-powered scooters are treated very differently than automobiles. Since two-wheeled vehicles requ ire far less space to park, the decal cost is 2 The Faculty/Staff Category is broad and includes Faculty Staff (Orange) Official Business, Medical Resident, Gated Reserved, Shands Hospital (Blue) and certain types of advanced students. Data is not readily available to calculate the total number of eligible Faculty/Staff decal purchasers.

PAGE 63

52 substantially reduced. Motorcycle/scooter decals cost $24 per year, compared with $94 for cars. Motorcycle decal sales are not prio ritized according to credit hours. Further, motorcycle parking is found in every major lot on campus, greatly improving the riders’ locational choice of parking. Bicycles also require very little pa rking space, and the University maintains bike racks at or near every building on campus. Many of the students commuting daily to campus must use alternative modes of transportation to get to class. Some students will live close to campus and walk or bike to class. Some who live farther away will use public transit. Since 1998, the University of Florida has applied substantial monetary res ources to the local transit system to make riding the bus a more viable option for st udents to commute to campus. During the period 1998-2004, the number of student riders has been increasing very rapidly. In 2004, the number of students arriving on campus each day by bus was more than double the number of students who arrived by car. Regional Transit System Bus transit in the City of Gainesville is provided by the Regional Transit System (RTS), a division of the Public Works Depart ment of the City of Gainesville. In 2004/2005 RTS maintains a fleet of 92 diesel busses that operate on 21 standard city routes, 9 campus-only routes, and 4 late night routes (P erteet Engineering 2002). Paratransit for the city is contracted out to ATC/Intellitran. Many of the city routes operate on a pulse system from the downtown transfer plaza. Under a pulse system, many bus routes are timed to arrive at the tran sfer station at the same time. Busses wait 3 to 5 minutes, allowing passengers to transfer, before departing.

PAGE 64

53 Three transfer points exist on the Univer sity of Florida Camp us: the Reitz Union, Shands Hospital and Turlington Plaza. Th e campus transfer point s do not operate on a pulse system, in part due to short frequenc ies and in part due to the congruence of campus and city routes. Bus frequencies range from 60 minutes on some city routes to 8 minutes at peak times on high demand rout es operating from student-heavy areas to campus (Perteet Engineering 2002). Ridership on the Regional Transit Syst em (RTS) has increased each year since 1995. Please see Table 5 below for a summary of the ridership increase for the period 1995/1996 to 2002/2003. Over the study period, ridership increased 284%, to 8,106,964 boardings per year. RTS’ s annual ridership ranks 6th among state agencies behind Miami-Dade (63.4 Million), Broward (31.8 Million), the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (20.5 Million), Pine llas (10.1 Million), and Hillsborough (9.4 Million). This makes RTS the 6th largest transit system in the state, despite serving the 17th largest county (Census, 2000) Figure 5 below shows the RTS bus system and its routes within the City of Gainesville.

PAGE 65

54 Figure 5–RTS Route System Source: Regional Transit System The growth in bus ridership on the Regional Transit System has outpaced ridership growth nationwide. Nationwide, bus ridership has grown 15% to 5.27 Trillion over the period 1995 to 2003 (NTST 2003). The di sparity between ridership growth in Gainesville and the nationwide total can be attr ibuted to service changes at RTS, and to the TDM policies of the University of Florid a. RTS experienced the largest increases during the two years when student subsidy of transit services began. Student subsidy began in 1998/99 and resulted in substantial service improvement s. Further, UF students could ride the bus on a fare-free basis. Since 1999/2000, ridership increases have been steadily increasing at more modest rates, a lthough it is far out-distancing transit growth nationwide.

PAGE 66

55 Table 5–Total Ridership 1995 to 20033 Year Boardings Percent In crease over Previous Year 95/96 2,110,209 NA 96/97 2,174,840 3.1% 97/98 2,948,150 35.6% 98/99 4,412,773 49.7% 99/00 5,195,883 17.7% 00/01 6,306,241 21.4% 01/02 7,198,085 14.1% 02/03 8,106,964 12.6% Increase ‘95-‘03 5,996,755 284.1% Source: Regional Transit System Table 5 above demonstrates the overall grow th in ridership. Segments of the total ridership have grown at even faster rates. Ridership grow th on campus routes has not been as steady as other routes. Increases can be more closely attr ibuted to new routes being created, such as the Lakeside Apar tments bus. Over the period 1995/96 to 2002/03, ridership on Campus Circulator ro utes has increased by 125 percent to 2,253,041 annually. However, the proportion of cam pus route riders to the total number of riders has been steadily decreasing. Campus-only trips accounted for nearly half, 47.4%, of all RTS riders in 1995/96. That figure had decreased to 27.8% in 2002/03. Please see table 6 below for a summary of ridership on campus circulator routes. Table 6–Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003 Year Campus Percent Increase over Previous Year Campus Riders as Percent of Total 95/96 999,236 NA 47.4% 96/97 945,963 -5.3% 43.5% 97/98 987,049 4.3% 33.5% 98/99 1,184,643 20% 26.8% 99/00 1,281,250 8.2% 24.7% 00/01 1,620,287 26.5% 25.7% 01/02 1,879,694 16% 26.1% 02/03 2,253,041 19.9% 27.8% Increase ‘95-‘03 1,253,805 125.5% -Source: Regional Transit System 3 The RTS fiscal year begins on August 1st. This is meant to coincide with the beginning of the academic year. Ridership counts also are recorded by fiscal year.

PAGE 67

56 Figure 6 below demonstrates the separa tion between the number of riders using campus circulators and the total number of ri ders. Total ridership growth has outpaced campus-only growth, indicating that off-campus and special routes have been the source of greater ridership growth. 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 95/9696/9797/9898/9999/0000/0101/0202/03 Fiscal YearBoardings Total Campus Figure 6–Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth Source: Regional Transit System Campus Transit Service Agreement Prior to 1998, RTS operated as a small ur ban system. Busses covered the city by circuitous routes at infre quent intervals. Nearly a ll riders on the system were transportation disadvantaged. The system was experiencing d eclining community support and ridership. Meanwhile the Univ ersity of Florida had added over 8,000 students to its total enrollment during the prev ious decade. Previously students lived to the north and east of the campus, but the o ff-campus housing pattern had shifted to the southwest of the city into unincorporated Alachua County. The newer student apartment

PAGE 68

57 complexes were 2-5 miles distant from the co re campus. The outward sprawl of student housing coupled with rising enrollment increas ed the demand for motorized transport to campus. The University’s Transportati on Demand Management policies place an emphasis on public transit rather than private au tomobile use. In this next section, the sources of funding and mechanisms of coordination will be discussed. The increase in ridership correlates closely to funding increases to the transit provider. RTS realizes very little of its ope rating revenues from fare-paying customers. In 2002, farebox revenues accounted for $714,183 of the agency’s $9,462,631 budget. This represents a farebox recovery rate of only 7.5%, less than half the State of Florida average of 15.2%. Nationwide, farebox recovery averages 37.7%. However for small urbanized areas, the ratio is around 20% (NTD 2002). In 1998 the University of Florida entered into a contractual service agreement to provide enhanced transit service to the University in lieu of a massive parking fac ility construction proj ect. The City of Gainesville made an ongoing commitment to fund the “baseline” le vels of service found on routes in 1997. Newly estab lished routes would be city-f unded to provide a level of service consistent with routes operating in 1997, which operated with one or two busses on 30 to 60 minute frequencies. Additional funds to provide higher frequency, unlimited access transit would come from the University. The Transportation and Parking Services Division and the Campus Facilities Planning and Construction Office would pay a po rtion of the costs, principally to fund on-campus routes and faculty/staff unlimited acc ess. Each year th e Transportation and Parking Services Division gives $1 milli on dollars to RTS. All funds from Transportation and Parking come from parking decal sales and parking fine revenue. The

PAGE 69

58 Finance and Administration Di vision of UF (through the Camp us Facilities Planning and Construction Office) supports RTS serv ice with $500,000 annually. These funds are earmarked under the “Campus Developmen t Agreement,” a compact between the University and the City to help mitigate the impact the school has on city infrastructure (Miller, 2004). The bulk of the funds came from a thir d sourcea fee charged to students on a per-credit hour basis, similar to fees charged for capital im provements or activities. The funds that come directly from students pay fo r enhancements to the service characteristics of selected bus routes. The University pays RTS $42.50 per additional bus operating hour above and beyond the operating level of service paid for by the city.4 The cost of constructing bus stop infrastructure is shared by RTS, the UF Transportation and Parking Division and the Office of Ca mpus Facilities Planning.5 Transportation Access Fee The Transportation Access F ee is the discretionary a nd variable portion of the payments to the Regional Transit System. St udent funds are separate and distinct from Administration funds. The University’s inte rest in stimulating tr ansit use comes from a desire for less parking demand and improved walkability/bikability of the campus. The University administration’s share of the serv ice contract pays for unlimited access to RTS busses. Any improvements to service charac teristics come from student funds. From 4 The per-operating-hour fee was raised to $46.75 in 2004-2005. The increase was the first since the inception of the contract. The increase was necessary due to rising costs of fuel and labor. 5 Minutes of proceedings of the Transportation A ccess Fee Committee and Stud ent Government Budget and Appropriations Committees from 1998-2004. Of ficial correspondence between City Commissioners, UF representatives and RTS officials is also archiv ed by the Business Services Division and Student Government as official material pertaining to the student funding of transit services.

PAGE 70

59 1998-2001, student funds were allocated from the Student Government budget. For the period 2001-2004 funds came from the Transportation Access Fee. The responsibility for co llecting the Transportation Access Fee rests with the University Financial Affairs O ffice. Students are re quired to pay the fee as if it were a component of their tuition, and financial aid awards can be used to pay the fee. The responsibility for setting the Transportati on Access Fee and allocating the funds is directed by a 7-member committee operating with in the administrative structure of the Division of Finance and Admi nistration. Four voting members of the committee are students, all of whom are appointed by th e Student Body President and approved by the Vice President for Student Affairs.6 One faculty member and two representatives of the University Administration are also voting members. The Transportation Access Fee Committee is authorized to charge a requi red fee to all students under Florida State Statute 240.209.(3)(e)8 to “support the transporta tion infrastructure of the university for the purpose of increasing student ac cess to transportation services”.7 Student funds began to pay for enhanced bus services during academic year 1998/1999. Since a dedicated Transportation Ac cess Fee had not yet been instituted by the Florida Legislature, funds were budgete d as a portion of Student Government’s Activity & Service Fee, which also funds student organizations, recreation areas and fitness centers. Table 7 below summarizes student payments to RTS. In academic year 98/99 $179,055 was paid to RTS, which translates to about fifteen cents per credit hour. This first fee paid for frequency improvement s to areas where critical shortages of bus 6 Only 29% of university transit agreements guara ntee students a voting seat on advisory committees (TCRP #39, 2001). 7 Florida State Statute 240.209,(3)(e)8 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C-7.003(34), authorizing legislation of the transportatio n access fee, was passed in 2000.

PAGE 71

60 space were occurring on a regular basis, specifically to three routes serving student-heavy areas of southwest Gainesville. The first y ear of student subsidy of the transit system proved to be a success, and it was renewed for a second year. During the third year of student bus s ubsidy (2000/2001), the student contribution increased to $282,290. Daytime bus service leve ls remained the same as in previous years, costing $179,522. An additional $103,235 was spent to create a new late night bus route known as Later Gator. The Later Ga tor program was also a success and was expanded considerably during in coming years. Students had begun to use busses in larg e numbers. Busses were often full, and student housing complexes had continued to sp rawl outside of the RTS coverage area. Student Government could not increase its c ontribution to keep pace with rising demand. The idea of a separate Transportation Access Fee for all State of Florida Universities had been discussed as far back as 1996 (Salazar 1996) However creating a separate Transportation Fee woul d require approval from the State of Florida Legislature and the State University Board of Rege nts. This approval came during the 2000 legislative session. This allowed the estab lishment of a dedicated Transportation Access Fee beginning in the Fall 2001 semester. The Transportation Access F ee grew rapidly to keep pace with the rising demand for transit service. Table 7 below outlines the fee and the amount raised from academic year 98/99 through 04/05. The Fee amount ha s risen each year since its inception, starting in Fall 2001 as a $2 per credit hour fee. In 2004/2005, the fee will be $4.10 per credit hour. One hundred percent of Fee money is spent on motorized mass

PAGE 72

61 transportation services. The F ee has been increased to provide service enhancements due to congested busses, new residential c onstruction, and rising student demand. Table 7–Student Subsidy/Tran sportation Access Fee Growth Academic Year Funding Source Fee Amount per credit hour Cost Per Student Per Year Funds Raised 98/99 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055 99/00 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055 00/01 Student Government $0.24 9 $7.20 $282,290 01/02 Transportation Access $2.00 $60.00 $2,200,000 02/03 Transportation Access $3.00 $90.00 $3,940,000 03/04 Transportation Access $3.59 $107.70 $4,510,800 04/05 Transportation Access $4.10 $123.00 $5,264,500 Source: UF Business Services Division and RTS. Cost to students is based on 30 billed credits per academic year The Transportation Access Fee was not in tended by the state le gislature to be solely a means to subsidize or improve bus tr ansit services. Funds can be used to build bike/pedestrian infrastructure, provide paratransit, jitney bus service, parking facilities, or add roadway capacity. Other Florida universities have us ed Transportation Access Fee Funds for all of these purposes. However at the University of Florida it remains primarily a means to subsidize bus transit, as 96% of the funds reali zed are transferred to the bus transit provider. However two other University transportati on services are funded using the Transportation Access Fee. The Student Nighttime Auxiliary Patrol (SNAP) runs jitney van service on the UF Campus from 9PM to 2AM. SNAP was previously funded by Student Government. SNAP’s missi on is to provide safe point-to-point transport for on-campus residents and anyone on campus late at night. The program is operated by the University Police Departme nt. In academic year 2004/05, SNAP was 8 Fee amounts in 98/99, 99/00 and were allocated as a portion of the Activity and Service Fee. RTS also benefited from several Department of Transportation grants during this period. 9 The fee amount in 00/01 continued service enhancements from the previous two years and funded the first Later Gator late night service route. These fees were also budgeted and ap propriated from Student Government’s Activity and Service Fee.

PAGE 73

62 funded by $92,000 of Transportation Access F ee money. Paratransit around the UF Campus is provided by the Handi-Van servi ce. Before being funded by Transportation Access Fee funds, the Handi-Van was funde d and operated by the Transportation and Parking Services Division. The Handi-Van services remains under the operational control of Transportation and Parking Se rvices, however all $120,000 of its funding comes from the Fee. Sixteen cents of the $4.10 (or 4%) Fee goes to pay for SNAP and Handivan services. Service Enhancements The Campus Transit Development Agreement has paid for several bus transit improvements. The most important improvement was the creation of an unlimited access, fare-free system for students, faculty and staff. Anyone possessing a valid University of Florida Identification Card can board any RTS bus free of charge. The ID Card, referred to as a Gator-1 Card, is pres ented to the driver u pon boarding. There is no need for riders to obtain passes or interact w ith a third party to gain access to free transit services. This allows students to use bus transit services as frequently or infrequently as they desire. This is an im portant factor since bus route enhancements are intended to support a variety of different tr ips, some of which are used infrequently by patrons. The unlimited access program began during the fall semester of 199810 and has continued through 2004. Community and in stitutional support for the unlimited access program is very high, and the arrangement will likely c ontinue far into the future. Two other constituent groups have started unlimited access programs in recent years. Beginning in 2001, an unlimited access program was started for city and county employees. In the 10 UF Faculty and Staff were given unlimited access benefits in 2000.

PAGE 74

63 Spring 2004 semester, Santa Fe Community Co llege Students received fare-free rides on two routes that lead to that campus.11 The Service Contract provides three di fferent servicesStandard City Routes, Campus Only Routes, and “Later Gator” Late Night Routes. The service characteristics, funding arrangements and intended users differ for each type of bus route. Standard City Routes Standard city routes are id entical to fixed bus routes found in cities throughout the United States, except that select routes run on very short freq uencies. They are planned to connect residential areas (tri p producers) with trip attrac tors such as employment or institutional land uses. As discussed previ ously, the City of Gainesville agreed to continue funding Standard City Routes at le vels of service found in 1997. The University made a priority of increasing frequency of busses to entice more students to use the bus and to alleviate congestion on busses. Cert ain routes would have their operating hours lengthened to accommodate the irregular schedule of college students. Of the city’s 21 Standard Routes, 10 are supplemented by Univer sity funds. These routes connect student housing to the University campus. This create s a disparity between the level of service for UF-supplemented routes and routes ope rated only on city funds. Table 8 below shows the 2004 routes offered by RTS includi ng those supplemented by UF funds. 11 Funds to allow Santa Fe Community College students to ride fare-free on two bus routes serving that campus come from the College’s administration. At pr esent, Florida Statutes do not allow a Transportation Access Fee to be charged to community college students.

PAGE 75

64 Table 8–2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels Route Number City Funding UF Funding Additional Service Hours Peak Frequency (minutes) 1 $561,711 $0 0 20 2 $196,724 $0 0 60 5 $412,391 $ 129,044 2,760 20 6 $199,342 $0 0 60 7 $202,932 $0 0 60 8 $562,982 $0 0 30 9 $ 175,182 $ 653,397 13,976 8 10 $178,996 $0 0 60 11 $199,342 $0 0 60 12 12 $ 0 $ 708,085 15,146 10 13 $ 140,026 $ 240,865 5,152 15 15 13 $180,918 $0 0 30 16 $ 187,187 $ 430,549 9,210 10 20 $ 348,026 $ 609,751 13,043 12 2112 $ 0 $ 190,142 4,067 20 24 $190,964 $0 0 60 34 12 $ 0 $ 540,028 11,551 20 35 $ 438,029 $ 232,011 4,963 12 36 12 $ 0 $ 175,574 3,756 20 43 13 $315,995 $0 0 60 75 $487,359 $0 0 30 Totals $4,978,066 $3,894,612 83,307 -Source: Regional Transit System and UF Transportation Access Fee Committee. UF-funded routes are bolded The sharing of costs for citywide fixed routes requires close coordination between the University and the Regional Transit Syst em. Transit planners for RTS monitor full bus conditions and the locations of new st udent-oriented housing developments. They present the information to the responsible parties at UF includ ing the Transportation Access Fee Committee and the Student Body Pr esident, who collectively appropriate funding changes to alter the bus routes, schedules and hours to accommodate changes in demand for transit service. Final approval of expenditures comes from the University 12 Routes 12, 21, 34 and 36 are reverse routes or spurs off other routes. Since these four routes closely duplicate the service area of city-funded routes UF is responsible for the entire cost. 13 Routes 15 and 43 are partially funded by Santa Fe Community College

PAGE 76

65 President. In 2004/05, $3.02 of the $4.10 Fee goe s toward supplementing service levels on selected city routes. Campus Circulator Routes Campus Circulator Routes run on fixed r outes on the UF Campus. Certain routes leave the campus briefly, but only to co mplete loops when road connections and configurations require completing a loop usi ng city streets. They are intended to facilitate the movement of UF students, faculty and staff around the campus. The existence of Campus Circulator routes gives on-campus residents mobility within campus. These routes also allow off-campus students to park once or arrive by offcampus bus and move around to multiple destin ations. The North/S outh Circulator, and the East and West Circulat ors serve as the high frequency backbone of the campus system. These routes run on 9-15 minute fr equencies during peak hours. The Family Housing and Lakeside routes se rve to move on-campus residents that live in remote areas to the center of campus. Three routesPark & Ride 1, Park & Ride 2 and the Commuter Lot Routes primarily transport patrons of remote parking facilities to the center of campus. The Campus Circulator Routes are f unded entirely by the University, but are operated by RTS. The total cost of opera ting the Campus Circulator Routes is $2,272,005. The Campus Circulator Routes co st $48.54 per UF student per year. In 2004/2005, $1.61 ( or 39.5%) of the $4.10 per-credit hour fee is alloca ted to fund campus circulator routes. The cost of each Campus Circulator Bus is summarized in table 9 below.

PAGE 77

66 Table 9–Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes Route UF Funding Daily Operating Schedule Peak Number of Busses Frequency (minutes) Park & Ride 1 $466,920 7am-7:30pm 5 8 Park & Ride 2 $193,975 7am-7pm 2 15 Commuter Lot $333,791 7am-7:30pm 3 10 West Circulator $344,061 7am-7:30pm 3 6 East Circulator $186,308 7am-7:30pm 2 10 E/W Circulator $213,004 5:30pm-2am 2 15 N/S Circulator $284,156 7:30am-2am 2 15 Family Housing $121,428 7am-5:30pm 1 30 Lakeside Apts. $107,454 9am-4:30pm 1 30 Lake Wauberg $20,907 Sat/Sun 9:30am-5:30pm 1 60 Totals $2,272,005 22 Source: Regional Transit System and UF Parking and Transportation Services Later Gator Later Gator busses operate on special r outes from 8:30pm to 3:00am Wednesday through Saturday evenings. These routes are intended to connect stude nt residential areas with evening activity centers, including downt own bars and restaurants. The mission of the Later Gator program is threefold. First, it extends transit options into the late evening hours, a time traditionally ignored by transit providers. This further contributes to the ability of students to go about their daily live s with little or no automobile use. Second, Later Gator seeks to reduce the frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol by connecting student residential areas to popular bar and night club districts. Third, Later Gator seeks to alleviate severe parking s hortages along University Avenue and downtown Gainesville, the two primary distri cts of late even ing activity. The first Later Gator route was institu ted during the summer of 2000, by a special appropriation from Student Government. This first trial year cost $103,276 to operate for the fall and spring semesters from 9pm-2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The first route – known as Later Gator A –continues to operate in a loop through the

PAGE 78

67 University campus and downtown Gainesv ille, where many bars and night clubs are found. The program proved extremely popular, and in 2001 the respons ibility of paying for Later Gator was moved to the Transpor tation Access Fee. Al ong with the greater funding base, three new routes were crea ted. During the period 2001-2004, routes were added and deleted based on ridership and de mand. In 2004-05, the Later Gator program will offer 4 routes that operate Wednesday through Saturday from 8:30pm to 3:00am. The service summary and cost of the Later Ga tor routes is outlined in table 10 below. Thirty four cents (or 8.2%) of the $4.10 Tran sportation Access Fee goes to pay for Later Gator Service. Table 10–2004-2005 Later Gator Route F unding and Service Characteristics Route Funding Busses Frequency A $104,598 3 10 B $100,017 3 15 C $117,805 3 20 F $110,409 3 20 Totals $432,830 12 -Source: UF Finance and Administration

PAGE 79

68 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the results fr om both surveys admi nistered during the Summer/Fall of 2003. Beyond the nu merical results of the surve y, this section contains a discussion of the findings. The results are pr esented and discussed in three broad areas: 1) Transportation Habits, 2) Transit Attitu des and Knowledge, and 3) TDM and Public Policy. Transportation Habits Questions were asked on each survey to determine the transportation habits of respondents before, during and af ter attending the Un iversity of Florida. This section also covers respondent’s housing and how tr ansportation access impa cts housing choices. Incoming freshmen were largely suburb an dwellers. Sixt y eight percent of incoming freshmen lived in a suburban singl e family house. Another 17% report being raised in a single family house in a rural se tting. Only 16% of incoming freshmen lived in urban or multifamily settings. Figure 7 be low demonstrates the disparity in housing of incoming freshmen during their senior year of high school. It stands in strong contrast to the type of housing freshmen live in dur ing their freshman year of college.

PAGE 80

69 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ApartmentCondominiumTown HouseSFSuburbsSFUrbanSFRuralPercent Figure 7–Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen Source: 2003 Freshman Survey Respondents were allowed to give up to three responses to the question “Please indicate the three most impor tant factors when choosing a place to live.” The most popular response was “distance to campus” with 27%. The second most important factor was “cost” with 22.8%. “Security”, “Luxury”, “Amenities” and “Soc ial Life” were all between 11 and 12%. Living close to a bus line came in last with only 3.3%. Only eleven of 122 (or 9%) freshmen felt that living near a bus line was among their top three factors. Transportation Before Attending UF Incoming freshmen’s families show automobile dependence typical of most American families. Their parents take an av erage of 25.1 minutes to get to work, slightly less than the national average. Each household owns an average of 3.2 cars. Thirty four percent of families own 4 or more cars.

PAGE 81

70 Respondents were allowed to report two mode s of parents’ travel to work (one for each parent if applicable). The automobile commanded 91.1% of the modal share88.9% being single occupant vehicl es. Only 2.2% carpooled to work, far below the national figure of 12% (Census, 2000). Alternativ e modes carry a very small share of transportation to work. Table 11 below shows the modal split for incoming freshmen parents’ travel to work. Table 11–Parents’ Mode of Travel to Work Mode Number Percent Drive Alone 119 88.8% Other 4 3% Carpool 3 2.2% Bus 3 2.2% Bike 3 2.2% Subway/Elevated 1 0.7% Walk 1 0.7% Source: 2003 Freshman Survey Incoming students were also automobile dependent for travel to high school, although a substantial number carpooled. Si xty two percent drove to school alone. Another 27.9% carpooled to school. School busses (5%), public transit (1.7%) and walking (3.3%) account for le ss than 10% of the total. Transportation While Enrolled Incoming freshmen appear to be pragma tic about their options for commuting to class. Eighty percent report th ey will live on campus, and all answers in this section must consider that fact. Only 56.6% of inco ming freshmen will have a car during their freshman year, regardless of where they plan to live. Over seventy percent expect to get to class by walking or biking. Twenty two pe rcent expect to get to class by bus8% by city bus and 14% by campus circul ator bus. Only 8% expect to drive a car to class.

PAGE 82

71 Alumni were asked to report how often th ey used transit each of the 4 types of RTS service during their senior year (academ ic years 2000/01 or 01/02). Table 12 below shows the frequency of use on city to cam pus, city to city, later gator and campus circulator routes. Table 12–Transit Service Use at UF City to Campus City to City Later Gator Campus Circulator Daily 56 (36%) 2 (1%) --1 49 (32%) Weekly 19 (12%) 6 (4%) 12 (8%) 23 (15%) Monthly 6 (4%) 2 (1%) 14 (9%) 7 (5%) Infrequently 27 (18%) 31 (20%) 47 (31%) 34 (22%) Never 46 (30%) 113 (73%) 81 (53%) 31 (20%) Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Eighty two percent of alum ni report using at least one type of bus during their senior year. Campus circulat or busses have the highest freq uency of ridership. Seventy four percent of the sample reported using cam pus circulators during their senior year. The highest daily ridership wa s on routes that connected st udent residential areas to campus. Fifty six of the one hundred and fifty three respondents (36.6%) reported commuting from off-campus homes to campus by bus during their senior year. City-only routes experienced the lowest frequency of ri des. Only 26% reported having used a cityonly route. Rides on city routes were also infrequent, as 5.2 % rode city routes daily or weekly. Transportation After Graduation Alumni show similar commuting patterns to their parents, although there is a minor shift toward alternative modes. Th e average alumni took 22.8 minutes to get to work. The average time to work is 2.8 minut es shorter than the national average and 2.3 minutes shorter than their parents. 1 Later Gator is only offered three days per week.

PAGE 83

72 Alumni were asked the question “How do you get to work?.” Eighty three percent (83.4%) of alum ni travel to work by single occ upant automobile. Another 7.4% of alumni travel in a carpool to work, wher eas 3.3% of their parents used carpools. Subway use and walking had minor increases over the modal share of parents. The modal split is shown in Table 13 below. Table 13–Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split Mode Count Share Percent Drive Alone 136 83.4% Carpool 12 7.4% Bus 2 1.2% Subway 5 3.1% Walk 6 3.7% Bike 1 0.6% Other 1 0.6% Source: 2003 Alumni Survey The rates of transit use change somewhat before and after graduation. Each group was asked how frequently they had ridden trans it in their current cit y. The percentage of that reported never using transit declined fr om 81.9% (freshman) to 64.0% (alumni). The percentage of people who used transit da ily, weekly, monthly and infrequently all increased. The largest change is in the “I nfrequent” category, fr om a 14.8% share to 28.1% share. A Cramer’s V test indicates a moderate statistical change between the Alumni and Freshman groups for all responses,2 indicating that transit use changes somewhat after graduation. Transit use is more common among alumni, although most of the shift in responses came from “Never” to “Infrequently”. Table 14 below shows the frequency of responses about tran sit use among freshmen and alumni. 2 A Cramer’s V test renders a value of 0.208 with an approximate significance of 0.018. Cramer’s V varies between 0 and 1 and is used to compare cross-tabulate d nominal data when the table is greater than 2 by 2 squares.

PAGE 84

73 Table 14–Frequency of Transit Use Transit Use Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni % Daily 2 1.6% 4 2.6% Weekly 2 1.6% 5 3.3% Monthly 0 0.0% 3 2.0% Infrequently 18 14.6% 43 28.1% Never 100 82.0% 98 64.1% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Transit Attitudes and Knowledge Alumni respondents were asked to give two factors (not ranked) that make the RTS transit system an attractive option for st udent commuting. The results are shown in Table 15 below. The most important factor for riding RTS busses was the lack of fare. Difficulty in finding parking was second. A di stant third was the frequency of busses. Issues about social acceptability, hours of operation and traffic congestion were not a consideration of many alumni. Table 15–Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni Factor Responses Percent No Fare 107 35.3% Parking Difficulty 96 31.7% Frequency of Busses 44 14.5% Convenience Factors 31 10.2% Social Acceptability 10 3.3% Hours of Operation 8 2.6% Traffic Congestion 7 2.3% Source: 2003 Alumni Survey To determine if minimizing transfers was a concern of potential transit patrons, both survey groups were asked the hypothetical question “There is a tr ansit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it?” Respondents were given answer choices of “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe.” Table 16 below shows the results from both surveys. Very few res pondents outright rejected the idea of riding transit. Only 3.3% of freshmen and 12.4% of al umni said they would not to ride a direct

PAGE 85

74 transit line. A Cramer’s V test confirms there is a shift in the responses between freshmen and alumni.3 Alumni responded with more “maybe” and “no” answers. For freshmen the most common response (the m ode) was “yes”, while for alumni it was “maybe.” Table 16–Willingness to Ride Dire ct Transit Route to Work Answer Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni % Yes 71 58.7% 65 42.5% Maybe 46 38.0% 69 45.1% No 4 3.3% 19 12.4% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents of both surveys were aske d a series of questions about their knowledge of the transit system in their curre nt city. Respondents were asked if they knew the: a) location of the nearest bus stop; b) the destinations of busses that stopped there; c) the fare of the bus ; and d) the timetable of the bus. An actual answer was not required, simply a response of yes or no. Respondents were also asked if there was public transit in their city, and results we re only calculated from records where transit service was present. Seventy five percent of incoming freshmen report living in a city with public transit. while 93% for alumni report there is transit in th eir city. Additionally 30.2% of alumni live in a city wi th some form of rail transit.4 A graph of the results of the transit awareness question series can be found in figure 8 below. Knowledge a bout the transit system on the whole is low. A majority know where the closest bus stop is to thei r home. Seventy one percent of incoming freshmen knew where the closest bus stop wa s in their hometown. Alumni are less aware 3 Cramer’s V = 0.201 4 At the time of the survey rail transit operated in 5 Florida counties: Miami-Dade (Metrorail and Tri-Rail), Duval (SkyTrain), Hillsborough (Li ght Rail/Streetcar), Broward (Tri-Ra il), and Palm Beach (Tri-Rail). Miami-Dade offers 4 routes, and the other 3 rail tran sit providers operate one route each. Given the small scale of rail transit in Florida, questions were asked only about bus transit. Surveys were returned from across the United States, including ma ny metro areas with heavy, light and commuter rail service.

PAGE 86

75 of the closest bus stop, and only 61% report they know where it is. In-depth knowledge of the transit system is far less common. Tw enty nine percent of freshmen and 21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Even fewer knew how much the bus would cost. Only a small fraction (4.3%) of each group knew the timetable of the bus nearest their home. Alumni were consistently less knowledgeable about the transit system operating in their current city. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0Percent Freshmen Alumni Freshmen 70.729.322.84.3 Alumni 61.321.114.84.2 Bus StopDestinationCostSchedule Figure 8–Knowledge of Transit System Information Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents were asked to rate their w illingness to use public transit on a scale from “Very Unwilling” to “Very Willing.” Their responses were quantified on a scale from 1 to 5. By converting their responses to scalar data, the mean s could be analyzed using descriptive statistics a nd various statistical tests.5 The results of the 5 question 5 Responses were quantified using the following codes: “Very Unwilling” = 1; “Unwilling” = 2; “Neutral” = 3; “Willing” = 4; and “Very Willing” = 5.

PAGE 87

76 series are shown in table 17 below. The data is analyzed using three distinct groups: a) all 274 records; b) all 122 freshmen records; and c) all 154 alumni r ecords. The alumni group had lower means for every question. Stan dard deviation for a ll questions and all groups was between 1.2 and 1.3, indicating consistent moderate variance. Table 17–Willingness to Use Transit Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean Willing to Ride Bus 3.80 3.01 Willing to Ride Rail 3.58 3.41 Willing to Carpool 3.73 3.49 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys The mean for freshmen was 3.80, for Alumni 3.01. An independent sample t-test confirms that means before and after a ttending UF are significantly different.6 Alumni are less willing to use a bus than freshmen. Willingness to use rail transit was not sta tistically significant between alumni and freshmen.7 The results are similar regarding carpools. The mean responses for alumni and freshmen were not statistically significant.8 There is no statistical difference between the willingness of alumni and freshmen to use carpool or rail transit modes. The entire population was analyzed for pr eferences between rail and bus modes. The mean response for willingness to use busses was 3.36, and 3.48 for rail. There was 6 The Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not significantly different. The test renders a result of t= 5.401 at confidence level 0. 05, and we can reject the null hypothesis. A t statistic that is greater than 1.96 sign als with 95% certainty that th e means are significantly different. 7 Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result of t = 1.19. Since the t statistic is lower than 1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the means are not signifi cantly different. 8 Independent sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result of t = 1.57. We fail to reject the null hypothesis an d assume that the means are not significantly different.

PAGE 88

77 no preference for rail transit over bus transit, or vice versa.9 Alumni preferred to use rail over bus. To determine if fare-free transit woul d increase the likeli hood of public transit use, respondents were asked to rate their willin gness to use “public tr ansit in general” and free public transit. Results for the free fare vs. regular transit que stions are shown in table 18 below. When the whole sample was split into groups according to classification, the results change somewhat. Freshmen more strong ly prefer free transit, and a paired t-test confirms the observation.10 However alumni show almost no change between fare and free-fare transit. A paired t-test confirms that the means are not significantly different.11 Table 18–Regular vs. Fare Free Transit Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean Willing to Ride Transit 3.73 3.18 Willing to Ride Free Transit 4.13 3.19 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy A hypothetical question was posed to bot h survey groups to determine their behavioral response to stringent parking restrictions found in many TDM policies, including on the University of Florida campus. The que stion was asked: “You know there is no parking at your shopping destin ation 3 miles away. What will you do?” Responses to the hypothetical question are s hown in Table 19 below. The top three responses are bolded. For freshmen, the most common response was to take public 9 One Sample t-test for bus willingness on the mean for rail results in t = 1.59, failing to reject the null. A test on rail transit willingness on the mean for bus results in t= 1.67, failing to reject the null. 10 A paired t-test is used to compare the means of a po pulation before and after an event. In this case the event is the application of the conditio n of fare-free transit. t = -3.49 11 t = -0.06

PAGE 89

78 transit. Public transit fell to the 3rd most common response for alumni. The option to drive to a more distant destination went from 4th for freshmen to 1st for alumni. Parking far away and walking to the destination was the 2nd most popular response for both freshmen and alumni. Fifteen percent of al umni responded that they would “not go” if there was no parking at their shopping de stination, up from 6.6% for freshmen. Table 19–Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction Behavioral Response Freshmen Count Freshmen Percent Alumni Count Alumni Percent Public Transit 42 34.7% 24 15.7% Park Far Away 26 21.5% 39 25.5% Get Dropped Off 18 14.9% 10 6.5% Drive to a More Distant Destination 17 14.0% 50 32.7% Not Go 8 6.6% 23 15.0% Bike 7 5.8% 2 1.3% Taxi 2 1.7% 1 0.7% Walk 1 0.8% 4 2.6% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents were asked to rate thei r level of agreemen t with public policy statements. The 5 possible answers vari ed from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”, and the answers were coded from 1 to 5 to allow numerical analysis. First, respondents were asked if they feel it is important for government to provide public transit. Overall the group agreed with that statement. The mean response was 4.20, with a low standard deviation of 0.82. The most frequent response was “Agree,” and only 12 people (or 4.4%) answered “Str ongly Disagree” or “Disagree.” There is no statistical difference between alumni and freshmen when the sample is broken down into separate groups. Respondents were also aske d to rate their agreement with the statement “It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic.” The

PAGE 90

79 level of agreement with this statement was very high. The mean response was 4.45 (maximum 5), with a very low standard devi ation of 0.66. The most frequent response was “Strongly Agree.” Four respondents (or 1.1%) disagreed with the statement. There is no statistical difference between groups. Respondents feel that government expend iture on road infrastructure is more important than expenditure on transit. Th e mean responses for agreement with road expenditure (4.45) and transit (4.20) were compared using a one-sample t-test. The t statistic value was 6.21, confirming that re spondents support road expenditures over transit expenditures. Alumni felt that “traffic congestion wa s a serious problem.” An independent sample t-test shows that the mean for alumni (4.27) is statistically different than the mean for freshmen (4.02).12 The most common response wa s “Strongly Agree,” and only 23 people (8.2%) disagreed that tr affic congestion was a seriou s problem. Respondents also believe that transit reduces tr affic congestion, and they genera lly believe that transit is effective at reducing traffic. The mean wa s 3.99, with a mode of 4 or “Agree.” There was no difference between freshmen and al umni groups. Table 20 below shows the frequency of responses of agreement with the statements about traffic congestion. Table 20–Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Traffic is a Serious Problem Mean = 4.16 1 22 26 108 113 Percent 0.4% 7.6% 9.6% 40.0% 41.9% Transit Reduces Congestion Mean = 3.99 4 19 42 120 89 Percent 1.4% 6.9% 15.2% 43.5% 32.2% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys 12 t = -2.23

PAGE 91

80 When asked if it was “critical to own a car,” alumni agreed with the statement more strongly than freshmen. Freshmen responded with a mean of 3.84, while the alumni mean was 4.25. An independent sample s t-test shows that alumni feel more strongly that owning a car is important.13 Respondents were also asked if they would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit. The mean response was 3.06, and the frequency of responses is show in table 21 below. The responses are nearly normally distributed, with most respondents “neu tral” on the issue. Statistically there is no change in the responses between alumni and freshmen. Table 21–Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Vote for Pro-Transit Candidate 15 39 149 57 14 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Freshmen report that TDM measures such as bike lanes, auto-free zones, and calmed traffic makes them more inclined to ride bicycles or walk. However alumni do not value these TDM measures as much as fr eshmen when choosing whether to walk to bike. Table 22 below shows the mean responses for alumni and freshm en, as well as the t statistic of the independent t-test on the mean s. All three TDM policies were less popular with alumni, as all three statements pres ented score statistically significantly lower among graduates. Table 22–TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk Alumni Mean Freshmen Mean t statistic Auto-Free Zones Increases Willingness to Walk 3.15 3.48 2.62 Sidewalks Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 3.61 3.88 2.34 Slow Traffic Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 2.64 3.21 4.58 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys 13 t = -3.32

PAGE 92

81 Finally, alumni and freshmen were asked rate their agreement with the statement “I wish transit was a better option in my c ity.” Table 23 below shows the frequency of responses. Forty Seven percent of respondents agree that they wish transit was a better option in their city. Only 16.% disagree, with 36% being neutral on the subject. Table 23–Wish Transit Was a Better Option Mean = 3.42 Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Wish Transit was a Better Option 3 41 99 100 31 Source : 2003 Alumni Survey Self-Selection for Transit Use Certain groups may be more likely to ride public transit than others. The literature suggests that inner city residents, those living in multifamily settings, and those living in major metropolitan areas are more likel y to use transit. Alumni make conscious decisions about where and how they live af ter graduation. Some will choose to leave Florida, others will stay. Many of thos e who leave Florida will move to large metropolitan areas where transit is a better opt ion. Some alumni w ill live in multifamily settings, others will live in single family homes. Whethe r or not transit access is an active concern for alumni moving to major metropolitan areas or to multifamily housing is not known. However, these two lifestyl e choices may create more opportunities to travel by transit. Florida Residency One hundred, or 65 percent, of alumni liv e in Florida. Ei ghteen percent of Florida-based alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit, all but 3 report living in Miami-Dade County. The remaining 54 alum ni respondents (35%) live outside of Florida. Many out-of-state alumni are moving to major metropolitan areas, as indicated

PAGE 93

82 by rail transit being present in 48 percent of th eir new cities. Fiftyfive percent of out-ofstate alumni lived in the ten largest metropo litan areas of the United States. The most popular metropolitan areas outside of Florid a are: Atlanta, Washington, DC, and New York City. The transit ridership frequency for alum ni inside and out of Florida is quite different. The breakdown is shown in Table 24 below. Zero alumni in Florida use transit on a daily, weekly, or monthly ba sis. Seventy-eight percent ha ve not used transit at all since graduation. Those living ou t-of-state used transit more frequently, a fact confirmed by a Cramer’s V value of 0.469. This indicate s a moderate-to-strong correlation between transit ridership and bein g a resident in a state other than Florida. Out-of-state residents are more likely to use transit frequently, as 16 percent ride transit daily or weekly. A larger proportion of out-of-st ate alumni use transit infreque ntly. The percentage of alumni who have never used transit dropped from 78% for Florida residents to 39% for out-of-state residents. Table 24–Florida and Out-of-State Alum ni Respondents to Transit Frequency Frequency Florida Florida % Ou t of State Out of State % Daily 0 0% 4 7% Weekly 0 0% 5 9% Monthly 0 0% 3 6% Infrequently 22 22% 21 39% Never 77 78% 21 39% Total 99 54 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Alumni who live out-of-state are signif icantly more likely to use transit to commute to work. The percentage of al umni who drive alone dropped from 90% for Florida residents to 72% for out -of-state. Twenty three percent of out-of-state residents used modes other than a car to get to wor k, while only 2% of Flor ida-based alumni use non-automobile modes. Walking to work al so increased substantially among those living

PAGE 94

83 out-of-state, from 1 percent to 9 percent. Table 25 below shows the modal split for travel to work for alumni. Table 25–Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents’ Mode of Travel to Work Mode Florida Florida % Out-of-State Out-of-State % Drive Alone 94 90% 42 72% Carpool 9 9% 3 5% Walk 1 1% 5 9% Bike 1 1% 0 0% Bus 0 0% 2 3% Subway 0 0% 5 9% Other 0 0% 1 2% Total 105 58 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Table 26 below summarizes the willingness of in-state and outof-state residents to use transit. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use tr ansit if it was free. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use rail transit than bus transit.14 Table 26–Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents’ Willingness to Use Transit Willingness to use Florida Out-of-State Significant15 Transit 3.12 3.31 No Free Transit 2.97 3.58 Yes Bus 3.02 2.98 No Rail 3.29 3.61 No Carpool 3.55 3.39 No Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Multifamily and Single Family residents To analyze if people living in multifamily housing are more likely to use public transit, the alumni survey was split into tw o groups who reported living in single family and multifamily housing. Possible multifam ily responses included: apartments, condominiums, townhomes and university housi ng. Single family homes included all 14 t = 2.04 15 Using an Independent Sample t-test, the means of Tr ansit, Bus, Rail, and Carpool for Florida and Out-ofState were not significant. Free Tran sit was statistically preferred by alumni living out of state than those living in-state. t = 2.74

PAGE 95

84 other survey responses. Two respondents did no t report the nature of their current home. Eighty-four, or 55%, of alumni reporting liv ing in multifamily homes, while 68 (or 45%) lived in single family homes. The frequency of transit use was hi gher among people living in multifamily homes. A Cramer’s V test renders a valu e of 0.251, indicating a moderate correlation between living in multifamily housing and using transit frequently. Refer to table 27 below. Respondents living in single family housing did not report using transit daily, weekly or monthly. Only 31% reported us ing transit infrequently, while 69% reported never using transit. Table 27–Multifamily and Single Family Residents’ Transit Frequency Frequency Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single % Daily 4 5% 0 0% Weekly 4 5% 0 0% Monthly 3 4% 0 0% Infrequently 23 27% 21 31% Never 50 60% 47 69% Total 84 68 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Living in a multifamily setting makes one more likely to commute by alternative modes. Refer to table 28 below. Driving al one retains the largest modal share, with 81 percent of multifamily responde nts, and 89% of single family respondents. The only alternative mode u tilized by single family respondents was walking, with 3%. Carpooling was the second-highest utilized among both groups. Only multifamily dwellers used bus and rail transit.

PAGE 96

85 Table 28–Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work Mode Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single % Drive Alone 73 81% 62 89% Carpool 6 7% 6 9% Walk 3 3% 2 3% Bike 0 0% 0 0% Bus 2 2% 0 0% Subway 5 6% 0 0% Other 1 1% 0 0% Total 90 70 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Single family respondents and multifamily respondents do not differ significantly from each other on willingness to use various t ypes of transit. See table 29 below for mean responses to willingness to use transit. Multifamily dwellers were not more willing to ride free transit than fare-paying transit.16 Multifamily dwellers were not statistically more willing to ride rail than bus.17 Table 29–Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit Willingness to use Multifamily Single Family Significant? Transit 3.06 3.32 No Free Transit 3.05 3.31 No Bus 2.87 3.14 No Rail 3.41 3.36 No Carpool 3.40 3.58 No Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Discussion Transportation Habits The data supports the hy pothesis that incoming student s to the University were brought up in automobile dependent homes. The suburban/rural sett ing of their homes, high vehicle ownership rates, a nd low rates of alternative m ode use suggest that incoming 16 t = 0.62 17 t = 1.74

PAGE 97

86 students are highly conditioned to automobile travel. Low density suburban areas are generally not supportive of public transit. St udents will have to adapt their transportation habits to conform with the TDM policies of the dense University of Florida Campus. Some of the University’s TDM policies are positive ones that will improve their transportation options, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvement s and transit investments. Other TDM policies will force a modal shift away from cars. These “negative” TDM policies include parking pr icing, parking availability and auto-free zones. Incoming students seem well educated a bout the TDM policies at the University, and are pragmatic about their options for comm uting to campus. Very few freshmen plan to drive to class. Most expect to walk or bike to class, which is not surprising since so many freshmen will live on campus. When c hoosing where to live during college years, freshmen appear to be taking transportation into account. However they do not consider access to transit to be very important wh en they arrive as freshmen. While at the University of Florida it is clear that students are using busses. Eighty two percent of alumni rode a bus at least one bus during thei r senior year. Walking and Biking also drew a substantial modal share. According to Tolley (1996) and Balsas (2002), alternative mode use while in school could have permanent impacts on transportation habits. There is some eviden ce that transportation habits have changed after graduation. Alternative modes have a smallbut statistically sign ificantincrease in modal share. A full 36% of alumni used tran sit after graduation, but most of those were infrequent users.

PAGE 98

87 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge On the whole alumni were far less willi ng to use busses than freshmen. Despite the slight increase in ridershi p between freshmen and alumni, busses lose their appeal to the broad population of alumni. This may signal a shift in the importance that alumni place on service characteristics af ter graduation. It may also si gnify that transit satisfies the transportation needs of only a small segment of the population. Previous experiments have shown that consumers have no preference for rail transit over bus transit. Howe ver in this study, alumni show a preference for rail transit over bus transit. This seems to confirm the stereotype that rail transit is the choice of white collar workers. Further, it may signal that some characteristics of rail transit are preferred. Free-fare transit was popular among fresh men, greatly increasing their willingness to ride transit. However this was not a signi ficant factor for alumni. This is further evidence that the life ci rcumstances of alumni are markedly different from freshmen. Free fare transit may be successful at build ing ridership among lower income people, but its benefits erode for those in higher income brackets. Alumni reported that the most importa nt factors about ridi ng public transit to, from, and around campus was the lack of a fa re and difficulty parking on campus. Bus frequency was the third most important factor Alumni preference for fare-free transit while in college did not transl ate into a preference for it after graduation. This likely signals the higher income status of recent graduates. A statistically higher number of alumni ha ve used public transit, but most of them only use it infrequently. This may signify that alumni have tried to us e public transit, but

PAGE 99

88 it is not meeting their daily tran sportation needs. It also sugge sts that the cost savings of public transit mean less to alumni. Alumni s how no preference for free-fare transit, while freshmen strongly prefer it. The literature s hows that people value their time at a rate equal to half of their hourly salary (Hess et al. 2003). College graduates have a far greater salary than college students, thus they place a higher dollar value on their transportation time. It is possible that cost is a concern fo r cash-strapped college students. Brown et al. (2002) argues that unlimited access transit substantially redu ces the cost of attending college, particularly if students do not ow n a car. Unlimited access also increases the viability of living on campus. These factor s help explain why cost is the number one factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus Parking difficulties on campus are almost as important as cost to UF students. This supports existing the ex isting literature on the impact of parking restriction on transit use. Convenience is also a factor for transit users. Convenience was the 4th most important factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. An important component of convenience is the number of connections requi red. The literature shows that minimizing connections will attract more riders. The surv ey data backed up other researchers’ work, showing that both alumni and freshmen strong ly prefer direct bus routes. However, alumni were more likely to reply “maybe” to the question about direct busses. This may indicate that other service charac teristics are more important. Respondent’s knowledge about the transit system in their town was poor. The majority of people knew the location of the nearest bus stop, however in-depth knowledge of the transit system dropped o ff significantly. Apparently very few

PAGE 100

89 respondents had explored their options for pub lic transit. Only 29% of freshmen and 21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Alumni were less aware of their city’s transit system than freshmen. Appa rently exposure to public transit while in college did not prompt graduate s to investigate the transit op tions available to them after graduation. TDM and Public Policy Transportation is a major concern for respondents of the survey. Both alumni and freshmen feel strongly that tr affic congestion is a serious problem. Respondents believe that government can tackle the problem of traffic congestion both by building roads and providing public trans it. When it comes to funding pr iorities, respondents think that government should focus available funds money on road improvements. While they also value expenditure on transit, roads are their priority. TDM policies may be able to shift people from automobiles to transit, but alumni are less willing to use other alternative m odes such as walking or biking than are freshmen. Common bike/ped supportive TD M policies such as auto-free zones and traffic calming did not make those modes more attractive to alumni than freshmen. This may signal that alumni have concer ns over time and convenience. Self-Selection for Transit Use The phenomena of “self-selection” in volves people putting themselves in situations where transit use is more likel y. People may or may not consciously make these life choices with transit in mind. This survey s hows that some people choose their housing based on transportation factors. Ot her people will make housing choices with

PAGE 101

90 other motivations, but later find that tran sit best suits (or does not suit) their transportation needs. The city where a gradua te relocates, the type of housing he or she chooses, and other factors may make transit us e far more likely. For example, a graduate who moves into an apartment in New York C ity may be choosing that lifestyle because of the easy transit connections and the cultural benefits a dens e metropolitan city brings. Another alumnus may choose to live in a si ngle family house in suburban Jacksonville, because he or she values a larger home and an automobile-oriented transportation environment. The individual who moved to New York City is “self-selecting” himself as a more likely candidate for tran sit use. Two self-selection choices were identified where alumni transit use was more likely–non-Fl orida residency and living in a multifamily dwelling unit. Florida-based alumni used transit rarely, if at all. Zero Florida-based alumni used transit daily, weekly or monthly. Zero Flor ida-based alumni commuted to work by riding transit. These are strong indications that transit systems in Florida do not meet the transportation needs of choice transit riders such as college graduates. The percentage of out-of-state alumni who use tr ansit to commute is at or above the national average for transit use. Three percent of out-of-stat e alumni commute by bus, near the national average. Subway/Heavy Rail use is higher than the national average, at 9%. While Florida is a populous state, as ther e are few dense metropolitan areas. Most of Florida is low-density suburban style de velopment, a very poor land use pattern for transit use. A person who wishes to live in a major metropolitan area must leave Florida to do so. In general, major metropolitan areas also implement more comprehensive TDM plans, which level the playing field between tr ansit and automobiles. This explains the

PAGE 102

91 disparity between transit use among alumni currently living in Florida and those living elsewhere. It is also in agreement with exis ting literature that large cities with developed TDM programs have higher rates of transit use (Litman 1999) (Kuzmayak et al. 2003). Alumni who chose to live in multifamily settings also showed a tendency toward transit use. This agrees with existing resear ch that claims transit is more likely to be utilized if it can be comfor tably accessed on foot (Cervero 2001) and if the density of users within easy walking di stance is large (Crane 1999). The two items are highly correlated, as all respondents who used transit daily, w eekly or monthly were both Florida residents and multifamily dwellers.

PAGE 103

92 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This section contains the conclusions findings and recommendations of the proceeding five chapters. This project ha s covered an in-depth discussion of the literature, background research in to the transit system at the University of Florida, and the results of two surveys of UF freshmen and alumni. Conclusions The TDM policies of the University of Florida and the enhanced transit services of the Regional Transit System combine to create a transit-friendly environment for students in the City of Gainesville. By employing student fees the city-university partnership was able to provide an array of service enhancements including unlimited access. Through distributive cost pricing, all stud ents are able to use bus transit at a very low individual cost. Stringent parking rest riction forces students to make value-based decisions about which mode to use for commuting to campus. Many choose to commute by bus, and ridership on RTS busses has risen nearly threefold since the unlimited access program’s inception in 1998. It is clear that riding the bus is a popular mode choice for motorized commuting to campus. People will choose transit over other modes under the right circumstances, and those circumstances have been created on campus. Public transit must give users a time, cost, convenience or comfort advantag e over using automobiles. This study concludes low fares or an unlimited access syst em are the best way to attract riders.

PAGE 104

93 Freshmen indicated that they are more will ing to use free-fare transit, and alumni reporting in hindsight agree th at the fare-free system was the most powerful reason for their transit use while in school. However, fa re cost is not the onl y factor related to transit ridership. Park ing pricing and restric tion is nearly as important. Alumni report that difficulty parking was the second most important reason for choosing transit for commuting. Respondents ranked transit as a top choice when presented hypothetical situations where parking is restricted. Furthe r, if the University of Florida had moved to unlimited access and parking restriction wit hout improving frequencies, the impressive ridership gains would not have materialize d. By coupling high frequency, low cost transit with parking restrict ion and pricing, a community can create a moda l shift away from automobiles. The proper environment to build transit ri dership exists in Gainesville and at the University of Florida. While enrolled, st udents were exposed to high-quality transit while at the same time discouraged from usi ng their automobiles. This study concludes that prior automobile use does not make a pe rson a lifelong automobile user. Similarly, prior transit use does not ma ke a person a lifelong trans it user. Across a person’s lifespan, a number of transportation envi ronments will be encountered. Each transportation environment is unique, and users will make value-based judgments about which mode to use for their trip s. If the transportation environment is altered to level the playing field between automobiles and public tr ansit, people will use transit regardless of their previous experience. Th e transportation environment at the University of Florida is a good model of accomplishing a moda l shift toward transit.

PAGE 105

94 After college, alumni find themselves in different transportation environments– some more transit-supportive, most heavily favoring the automobile. Alumni who chose to live outside of Florida—ha lf of whom moved to major cities—showed a much higher frequency of transit ridership. Given th at major cities have more advanced TDM programs, this study concludes that the im plementation of multiple TDM policies is critical to building transit ridership. Furt her, TDM policies in Florida are weak or nonexistent, and have therefore stunted the abil ity of public transit to gain modal share among choice riders within the State. TDM systems in major metropolitan areas outside of Florida are far more develope d, and therefore effective. This project did not find broad changes in the transit habits or attitudes after graduation from the University of Florida. However, certain subtle changes were identified. Alumni as a whole showed higher rates of public transit use, but most rode it infrequently. Most of the alumni who had ri dden transit after college lived outside of the State of Florida or in multifamily housing. Th ese individuals self-selected themselves for transit use. Temporary transi t use does not automatically translate into permanent transit use. This study found that alumni do not place as high a value on free-fare transit, whereas freshmen do place a high value on it. Transportation disadvantaged or lowincome users—such as college students—consid er the cost of public transit to be very important Choice users—such as college gr aduates—are far less concerned with the cost of riding public transit. College gradua tes apparently place a greater emphasis on the convenience and time advantages of their chos en transportation mode. Despite their slightly higher ridership rates, alumni report a reduced willingness to ride transit. This is

PAGE 106

95 likely because public transit in most commun ities—particularly systems in Florida—does not meet the necessary standards for choice riders such as college graduates. All respondents were une ducated about transit options and local agencies can do a better job of marketin g their service. It is essential to market the available services and benefits to users if an agency wants to attr act choice riders. Student s in Gainesville have ready access to bus schedules, maps and on line routing information. The lack of knowledge about the transit system in al umnus’ new city is likely due to poor dissemination of information. Lack of knowle dge or confusion over fares, routes and schedules is another roadblock to building transit ridership. People will use public transit under the right circumstances, including when parking is restricted and the tr ansit level of service is high. However the transit level of service found in most communities is not sufficient for residents to leave their automobiles behind. Further, transit-suppor tive TDM policies are not being enacted and enforced to entice people out of the cars. When bus frequencies are improved, the fare is reduced (or eliminated), parking is priced or restricted, and other amenities are added, riding transit becomes a realisti c or even attractive option. Experience with transit while in college does not automatically translate in to sustained, permanent use of transit after graduation. However, if communities around the nation, and particularly Florida, enacted the TDM policies that produced hi gh transit ridership at the University of Florida, they would experience a similar rise in public transit ri dership. Policy Recommendations The lessons learned from this project’s research reveal polic y changes that would benefit transit agencies and local communities. This section presents recommendations

PAGE 107

96 to three groups: 1) the Regiona l Transit System; 2) the City of Gainesville; and 3) the University of Florida. RTS Recommendations The Regional Transit System has capita lized on a nationwide trend of colleges and universities offering enhanced transit servi ce to and from campus as an alternative to automobile commuting. However, several se rvice and administrative changes could enhance the efficiency of the transit network, leading to even higher ridership totals and revenue sources. RTS should examine expanding unlimited access programs to other groups in the Gainesville area. The most important is Sa nta Fe Community College. Presently, state statutes do not allow community colleges to charge a Transportation Access Fee. The State of Florida Legislature should amend th e statutes covering community colleges to allow for the fee. As a temporary or perman ent alternative, Santa Fe Community College could divert funds earmarked for parking f acilities—or funds raised by decal sales and parking citations—to RTS. These funds coul d pay for unlimited access on all Gainesville routes instead of just the two r outes that intersect the campus. RTS should also target major employers in the area for inclusion in unlimited access programs. The city and county governments employ thousands of workers in Gainesville’s downtown. As discussed in earlier sections, frequencies on busses to downtown are poor. By partnering with the local governments, th e service quality on busses to downtown could be substantially improved. Employees at Alachua General Hospital and the Veterans Administration Ho spital could also benefit from unlimited access programs. Employers could offer unlimited access as a portion of their benefits

PAGE 108

97 package, or as a less expensive option, offer it to employees if they give up subsidized parking spaces. Depending on the location of Alachua County Public Schools, unlimited access or route-specific passes could be dist ributed to teachers and students. School bus routes that duplicate city bus routes could be eliminated, saving the school system much needed funds. Other major employers in the Gainesville area are not likely to benefit greatly from transit service because of their location on the urban fringe, far from existing bus routes. Examples of these employers are: North Florida Re gional Medical Center, Tachachale Mental Health F acility, Hunter Marine, and Nationwide Insurance. Over the long term, RTS should explore th e possibility of moving to a completely fare-free route system. Other small cities —particularly those w ith university support— have had success with a completely free-fare system. Since fare collection accounts for only 7% of RTS’ budget, the agency would onl y need a small subsidy to replace those funds, and may actually be losing money in th e exercise of collecting and accounting for cash fares. A fare-free system would result in the faster loading of busses, less confusion over fares, and ridership gains. Finally, RTS can continue the slow pr ocess of expanding the route network to accommodate trips that do not involve commuting to work or school. Students and other transit riders will continue to use autom obiles for shopping, and social/recreational trips if their destinations are not served or serv ed by routes that requ ire a connection. Route expansion must be done in close coordinati on with City planners to ensure acceptable levels of ridership on these rout es. Greater levels of City subsidy will be required, since the enabling legislation of th e Transportation Access Fee does not allow for student funds to be used on transportation that doe s not directly involve the campus.

PAGE 109

98 City of Gainesville Recommendations Despite the large numbers of students commuting to campus by bus, there are still substantial numbers of students who continue to own a car. Cars are used for trips that do not involve commuting to the University. While Gainesville is more bicyclist/pedestrian friendly than most cities, part s of Gainesville cannot be safe ly or pleasurably navigated by walking or biking. There ar e precious few mixed-use or dense developments that allow residents to walk to common destinatio ns such as grocery stores, pharmacies, dry cleaners and restaurants. Dense development makes transit a more vi able option as well, particularly if it is designed around transit stops. The City should promote more Transit Oriented Development (TOD) through modi fications to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The area north and eas t of campus, which is within walking distance, are likely zoned for densities far t oo low for their market potential. Allowing denser development there would entice more bi cycle and pedestrian commuters. Housing developments in southwest Gainesville—home to 9,000 students, many of whom commute by bus regularly—are generally not designed around transit stops. Smaller developments more focused around transit st ops would help increase bus ridership. Allowing mixed-use development could also re duce car trips for soci al/recreational and shopping purposes. New transit corridors c ould be fostered along west University Avenue and north 13th Street. The RTS-UF partnership has successfully built a foundation on which to build a citywide transit system. While the Univ ersity’s financial commitment has grown by large amounts each year, the City’s contribu tion has remained stagnant. The largest portion of the University’s contribution comes from the Transportation Access Fee,

PAGE 110

99 which by law cannot be used to enhance transit service that does not directly intersect the campus. For the transit system to grow be yond a means to commute to campus, the City will have to increase its proporti on of transit system subsidy. University of Florida Recommendations The University of Florida Administ ration and Student Government have succeeded in supplying students with a viable alternative to automobile commuting. However, several policy changes could be more effective in promoting transit ridership. One step in eliminating the need for st udents to own automobiles is the provision of transportation for intercity tr ips. Students need to be able to travel out of town for recreational, academic or family purposes. Ot her than automobiles, Gainesville has very limited options for traveling to and from ot her cities. The University could establish intercity busses, or partner with existing companies to pr ovide regular intercity trips during weekends and holidays. Alternatively, th e University could part ner with car rental agencies to allow students weekend rentals. Long term, the University could play a financial or legislative role in fosterin g statewide intercity rail service. While the Transportation Access Fee shoul d continue to be charged, continued growth in the fee is not sustainable. Th e Fee has more than doubled between 2001/02 and 03/04. Student subsidy of transit service has increased twenty-nine fold since 1999. While this increase indicates a strong demand fo r transit service, it substantially outpaces tuition increases and growth of similar f ees over the same period. Continued rapid growth of the Transportation Access Fee will have a noticeable effect on the total tuition bill charged to students. In a period of risi ng tuition costs, the University administration and Student Government should be mindful of the additional burden placed on students.

PAGE 111

100 The University should identify additional source s of funds to continue increasing the total payment to RTS. Potential sources of inco me include parking citations, funds diverted from planned parking lots, and in creased decal sales prices. The University could more stringently implement TDM policies on campus. The most important of which is the pricing of park ing. Parking decal pri ces at the University of Florida remain far below the prices charged at comparable universities. The price of a decal should be raised substantially, or parki ng fees should be charged on a daily basis. If UF raised the price of pa rking, it would accomplish three goals. The first goal is to increase the disincentive to drive to ca mpus. By making parking on campus more expensive, more people will be compelled to us e transit or live close enough to campus to walk or bike. The second goal is to lessen the daily demand on existing parking resources. By reducing the number of outstandi ng decals, the ratio of decals to spaces is reduced. This makes it easier for those who must park on campus to do so. The third goal is to raise additional funds to apply to alternative modes of transportation. The University already applies most of the funds raised by decal sales to transit service. Additional funds could be applied to tran sit routes, new intermodal service, or bike/pedestrian infrastructure. Recommendations for Future Research This project raises several future re search questions about campus transit, transportation demand management, transporta tion policy and the permanent impacts of temporary transit use. The following research areas would yield valuable information to the existing body of knowledge:

PAGE 112

101 A true time series survey would do a bett er job of framing questions about aftereffects of temporary transit use. If a researcher is able to wait 4-5 years for incoming freshmen to graduate, original respondents could answer the second survey. This survey methodology could al so be used to study other aspects of transportation behavior such as bicycle/ pedestrian behavior and route choice. Campus transit may have broad impact s on the housing c hoices of current students or alumni. Current students may strongly prefer to live near a bus line, and could be willing to pay additional mone y to rent apartments or houses near a bus line to campus. Alumni may prefer to live in a multifamily or dense setting, which closely replicates their housing and transportation options while in college. Alumni may also choose housing based on transportation access to work or social/recreational sites, regardless of the mode used for travel. An in-depth analysis of transportation ha bits while in college would give insight into how people behave when high-qualit y transit is available to them. Many students use busses to commute to cam pus, but do students utilize busses for social/recreational trips a nd shopping? Other interest ing questions could be explored about which modes student s choose for intercity trips. An analysis of late-night bus systems w ould be a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on transit. The Later Gator syst em has had excellent ridership, but has it succeeded in its goals of reducing drivi ng under the influence of alcohol? Has it alleviated parking shortages or otherw ise assisted bars and restaurants to flourish in downtown?

PAGE 113

102 One positive aspect of building bus ridership through unlimited access is an increasing share of state and federal assistance dollars for the transit agency. An analysis of how campus tr ansit providers have levera ged additional federal and state funding sources would be an in teresting contribu tion to the body of knowledge on bus transit finance.

PAGE 114

103 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL

PAGE 115

104 APPENDIX B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY Transportation Habits and Attitudes Survey DemographicsQuestions in this section are intended to provide information about your background so your responses to later questions can be put into the proper context. 1) What is your current city and zip code? ___________________________________________ 2) Check One: _____ Male ______ Female 3) Check all that apply: _____ Caucasian _____ African American _____ Hispanic or Latino _____ Asian _____ Native American or Hawaiian _____ Other 4) Please check one that best describes your current primary residence: ____ Apartment (rented) ___ Condominium (owned) ____ Town House or Duplex ___ Single Family house in a Rural Setting ____ Single Family House in the Suburbs ____ Single Family House in the Central City ____ University Housing or Other 5) How many cars does your family own right now: _____ Past Transportation HabitsQuestions in this section are being asked so we can understand the existing transportation habits of you and your family 6) How many minutes did it take your parents to commute to work? ___ minutes 7) How did your parents get to work? ( check up to two) ___ Drive Alone ___ Carpool ___ Bus ___ Streetcar or Trolley ___ Subway ___ Taxi ___ Walk ___ Bike ___ Other 8) How did you get to school after age 16? ( check one) ___ Walk ___ School Bus ___ Public Transit ___ Bike ___ Drive Alone ___ Drive with Parents or Friends 9) How often did you ride public transit in your hometown? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ____ Monthly ___ I have use transit, but infrequently ____ Never 10) How frequently did you walk from home to your destination? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ___ Monthly ___ I have walked, but infrequently ____ Never

PAGE 116

105 11) How frequently did you bike from home to your destination? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ___ Monthly ___ I have biked, but infrequently ____ Never 12) Think about the transit system in your hometown. Check all that apply: ____ I know where the nearest bus stop is ____ I know where the bus will take me ____ I know how much the bus will cost ____ I know the timetable of the bus ____ There is no transit in my city Transportation and Accommodation in CollegeQuestions in this section are being asked so we can understand how you expect to live and get around while enrolled during college. 13) Will you have a car during your freshman year? ___ Yes ___ No 14) Will you live on campus? ___ Yes ___ No 15) How do you expect to get to class? ( check all that apply ) ___ Drive Alone ___ Carpool ___ Walk ___ Bike ___ Ride City Bus ___ Campus Circulator Bus ___ Park and Ride 16) Indicate which type of accommodation you plan to live in during your freshman year. ___ Communal Living ( Dorm, Fraternity/Sorority, or Scholarship House) ___ 1 Bedroom Apartment ___ Apartment with Roommates ___ House ___ Live with Parents 17) Please indicate the three (3) most importa nt factors when choosing a place to live ___ Good Social Life ___ Distance to Campus ___ Cost ___ Luxury ___ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ___ Located on a Bus Line ___ Security 18) What is the maximum amount of time you would be willing to commute to school? ___ Less than 15 minutes ___ 15-30 Minutes ___ 30-45 Minutes ___ Longer than 45 Minutes Alternative ModesQuestions in this section are being asked to gauge your willingness to use alternative types of transportation. Also, they are designed to help us understand the circumstances under which you would choose to get around without your car. 19) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to a transit stop? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ mile ___ mile ___ Longer ___ I would not walk any distance to a transit stop 20) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to campus? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ mile ___ mile ___ Longer ___ I would not walk to campus

PAGE 117

106 21) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to campus? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ 1 mile ___ 3 miles ___ Longer ___ I would not bike to campus Please indicate how willing you are to ride each type of transportation Very Unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willing Very Willing 22) Public Transit in General (bus and rail) 23) Bus Transit 24) Rail Transit 25) Carpool HypotheticalThe following questions present you with a hypothetical situation. They are intended to measure how you would deal with different transportation conditions. 26) You know there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? (check one) ____ Park far away and walk ____ Walk the whole distance ____ Bike the whole distance ____ Take public transit ____ Drive to a more distant destination with similar goods and services ____ Not go ____ Take a taxi ____ Have someone else drive me 27) There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? _____ Yes _____ No ____ Maybe 28) If transit was free of charge in your current city, in dicate your willingness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing: ____

PAGE 118

107 Public PolicyOn the following table, indicate your leve l of agreement with th e statement. These questions are designed to measure your support or opposition to a number of public policy measure regarding transportation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 29) It is important for government to provide public transit 30) It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic 31) Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion 32) Public Transit costs too much to ride 33) Transit takes me where I want to go 34) Transit is not convenient enough 35) Transit does not fit with my self-image 36) It is not safe to take public transit 37) I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving 38) Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk 39) Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike 40) I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit 41) I wish transit was a better option in my city 42) I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit 43) It is critical to own a car 44) Traffic congestion is a serious problem 45) Having slower moving traffic makes me more willing to ride my bike Thank you for taking the time to comple te this survey. I hope you have an enjoyable time here at UF, and as always, GO GATORS!

PAGE 119

108 APPENDIX C ALUMNI SURVEY Transportation Habits and Attitudes Survey DemographicsQuestions in this section are intended to provide information about your background so your responses to later questions can be put into the proper context. 1) What is your current city and zip code? ___________________________________________ 2) Check One: _____ Male ______ Female 3) Check all that apply: _____ Caucasian _____ African American _____ Hispanic or Latino _____ Asian _____ Native American or Hawaiian _____ Other 4) Please check one that best describes your current primary residence: ____ Apartment (rented) ___ Condominium (owned) ____ Town House or Duplex ___ Single Family house in a Rural Setting ____ Single Family House in the Suburbs ____ Single Family House in the Central City ____ University Housing or Other 5) How many cars are there in your household (not including parents’ cars): _____ 6) Are you married? ____ Yes ____ No Transportation Habits Questions in this section are being asked so we can understand your current transportation habits. 7) How many minutes does it take you to commute to work each way? ____ minutes 8) How do you get to work? (check up to two) ____ Drive Alone ____ Carpool or Vanpool _____ Bus ____ Streetcar or Trolley ____ Subway _____ Taxi ____ Walk ____ Bike _____ Commuter Rail 9) How often have you ridden public transit since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have used transit, but infrequently ____ Never 10) How frequently have you walked from home to your destination since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have walked, but infrequently ____ Never 11) How frequently have you biked from home to your destination since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have biked, but infrequently ____ Never

PAGE 120

109 12) Think about the transit system in your city. Check all that apply: ____ I know where the nearest bus stop is ____ I know where the bus will take me ____ I know how much the bus will cost ____ I know the timetable of the bus ____ There is no transit in my city ____ My city has some form of rail transit in addition to busses (streetcar, light rail or subway) 13) What is the maximum amount of time you would be willing to commute to work? ____ Less than 15 minutes ____ 15-30 minutes ____ 30-45 minutes ____ Longer 14) Please indicate the three (3) most important f actors when choosing your first accommodation after graduation: ____ Good Social Life ____ Distance to work ____ Cost ____ Luxury ____ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ____ Located on a Transit Route ____ Security Transportation and Accomodation in College Questions in this section are being asked so we can understand your exposure to walking, biking and transit while in Gainesville. 15) What type of accommodation di d you live in while enrolled at UF? (check all that apply) ____ Communal Living (Dorm, Fraternity/Sorority, or Scholarship House) ____ 1 Bedroom Apartment ____ Apartment with Roommates ____ House ____ Lived with Parents 16) Please indicate the three (3) mo st important factors when choosi ng a place to live while at UF: ____ Good Social Life ____ Distance to campus ____ Cost ____ Luxury ____ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ____ Located on a Bus Route ____ Security Please indicate how frequently you used eac h type of transportation while at UF: Type Daily Weekly Monthly Infrequently Never 17) Campus Circulator Bus 18) RTS Bus to Campus 19) Other RTS Bus 20) Later Gator 21) During your senior y ear, what was your primary method of getting to campus? ____ Walk ____ Bike ____ City Bus ____ Drove Alone ____ Carpool ____ Lived on campus 22) During your senior year, approximately how far did you live from the central part of campus? ____ 1/2 mile or less ____ to 1 mile ____ 1-3 miles ____ more than 3 miles 23) What features of bus transit in Gainesville make it a viable option? (Choose up to 2) ____ Busses are free of charge ____ Busses arrive frequently

PAGE 121

110 ____ Other riders are from a similar age/income bracket ____ Hours of operation ____ Parking is difficult to find ____ Traffic Congestion ____ Busses drop off on campus at a central location Alternative Modes Questions in this section are being asked to gauge your willingness to use alternative types of transportation. Also, they are designed to help us understand the circumstances under which you would choose to get around without your car. 24) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to transit stop? (check one) ____ mile ____ mile ____ mile ____ Longer 25) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to your destination? (check one) ____ mile ____ mile ____ mile ____ Longer 26) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to your destination? (check one) ____ mile ____ 1 mile ____ 3 miles ____ Longer Please indicate how willing you are to use each type of transportation: Very Unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willing Very Willing 27) Public Transit in General (bus and rail) 28) Bus Transit 29) Rail Transit 30) Carpool 31) You know there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? (check one) ____ Park far away and walk ____ Walk the whole distance ____ Bike the whole distance ____ Take public transit ____ Drive to a more distant destination with similar goods and services ____ Not go ____ Take a taxi ____ Have someone else drive me 32) There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? _____ Yes _____ No ____ Maybe 33) If transit was free of charge in your current city, in dicate your willingness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing: ____

PAGE 122

111 Public Policy On the following table, indicate your leve l of agreement with th e statement. These questions are designed to measure your support or opposition to a number of public policy measures regarding transportation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 34) It is important for government to provide public transit 35) It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic 36) Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion 37) Public Transit costs too much to ride 38) Transit takes me where I want to go 39) Transit is not convenient enough 40) Transit does not fit with my self-image 41) It is not safe to take public transit 42) I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving 43) Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk 44) Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike 45) I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit 46) I wish transit was a better option in my city 47) I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit 48) It is critical to own a car 49) Traffic congestion is a serious problem 50) Having slower moving traffic makes me more willing to ride my bike Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Good luck to you in the future and as always, GO GATORS!

PAGE 123

112 APPENDIX D FRESHMEN RAW SURVEY DATA The following pages summarize the raw data rendered by the freshman survey. The following data are recorded, as appropriate: frequencies, measures of central tendency, standard deviation, and range. Questions th at appear on both surveys have the same variable name in both Appendix D and E. Variable Name: Zipcode Question: What is your current Zipcode? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 122 Data Type = Nominal Mode (N) = 33067 (4) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 041051 .8.8.8 076491 .8.81.6 078691 .8.82.5 087421 .8.83.3 115541 .8.84.1 193411 .8.84.9 207551 .8.85.7 218111 .8.86.6 220301 .8.87.4 240181 .8.88.2 275101 .8.89.0 276141 .8.89.8 303421 .8.810.7 320651 .8.811.5 320681 .8.812.3 320731 .8.813.1 322101 .8.813.9 322331 .8.814.8 323172 1.61.616.4 323441 .8.817.2 325361 .8.818.0 325781 .8.818.9 326181 .8.819.7 326431 .8.820.5 326531 .8.821.3 327081 .8.822.1 327461 .8.823.0 327571 .8.823.8 327731 .8.824.6 327791 .8.825.4 328261 .8.826.2 329071 .8.827.0

PAGE 124

113 329261 .8.827.9 330161 .8.828.7 330181 .8.829.5 330251 .8.830.3 330271 .8.831.1 330601 .8.832.0 330621 .8.832.8 330674 3.33.336.1 331331 .8.836.9 331341 .8.837.7 331421 .8.838.5 331431 .8.839.3 331491 .8.840.2 331651 .8.841.0 333161 .8.841.8 333221 .8.842.6 333261 .8.843.4 333311 .8.844.3 334141 .8.845.1 334351 .8.845.9 336473 2.52.548.4 337021 .8.849.2 337042 1.61.650.8 337561 .8.851.6 337591 .8.852.5 337641 .8.853.3 337652 1.61.654.9 337761 .8.855.7 337811 .8.856.6 337861 .8.857.4 338131 .8.858.2 338251 .8.859.0 338731 .8.859.8 338811 .8.860.7 339051 .8.861.5 339172 1.61.663.1 339351 .8.863.9 339571 .8.864.8 341021 .8.865.6 341041 .8.866.4 341051 .8.867.2 341161 .8.868.0 342071 .8.868.9 342151 .8.869.7 342191 .8.870.5 342281 .8.871.3 342331 .8.872.1 342401 .8.873.0 342861 .8.873.8 344711 .8.874.6 346011 .8.875.4 346081 .8.876.2 346771 .8.877.0 346841 .8.877.9 346851 .8.878.7 346893 2.52.581.1

PAGE 125

114 346951 .8.882.0 347341 .8.882.8 347481 .8.883.6 349521 .8.884.4 349571 .8.885.2 349721 .8.886.1 349941 .8.886.9 350071 .8.887.7 370271 .8.888.5 370661 .8.889.3 380161 .8.890.2 467411 .8.891.0 481301 .8.891.8 600051 .8.892.6 604621 .8.893.4 605401 .8.894.3 618211 .8.895.1 630171 .8.895.9 704611 .8.896.7 717301 .8.897.5 774781 .8.898.4 800311 .8.899.2 805171 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 126

115 Variable Name: Sex Question: Check One Available Responses (code): Male (1) Female (2) Valid N = 122 Data Type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (37) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Male37 30.330.330.3 Female85 69.769.7100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Race Question: Check all that apply Available Responses (code): Caucasian (1) Af rican-American (2) Hispanic or Latino (3) Asian (4) Native American or Hawaiian (5) Other (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (92) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent white92 75.475.475.4 black7 5.75.781.1 hispanic15 12.312.393.4 asian7 5.75.799.2 native1 .8.8100.0 Othe r 0 0.00.0100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 127

116 Variable Name: Housing Type Question: Check all that apply Available Responses (code): Ap artment (1) Condominium (2) Town House or Duplex (3) Single Family House in Rural Setting (4) Single Family House in Suburbs (5) Single Family House in Central City (6) University Housing or Other (7) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (82) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Apartment43.33.33.3 Condo43.33.36.6 Town House43.33.39.9 SF_Rural2016.416.526.4 SF_Suburbs8267.267.894.2 SF_Central75.75.8100.0 Othe r 00.00.0100.0 Total12199.2100.0 Missing1.8 122100.0 Variable Name: Cars Question: How many cars does your family own right now? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.21 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 1.12 Range = 6 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 15 4.14.24.2 225 20.520.825.0 349 40.240.865.8 427 22.122.588.3 510 8.28.396.7 63 2.52.599.2 71 .8.8100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0

PAGE 128

117 Variable Name: Min_Work Question: How many minutes does it take your parents to get to work? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 119 Data type = Scalar Mean = 25.12 Median = 20 Mode (N) =30 (22) Std. Dev = 17.72 Range = 89 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 15 4.14.24.2 21 .8.85.0 31 .8.85.9 41 .8.86.7 55 4.14.210.9 61 .8.811.8 83 2.52.514.3 1011 9.09.223.5 1521 17.217.641.2 2015 12.312.653.8 256 4.95.058.8 3022 18.018.577.3 352 1.61.779.0 406 4.95.084.0 458 6.66.790.8 502 1.61.792.4 605 4.14.296.6 651 .8.897.5 802 1.61.799.2 901 .8.8100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0

PAGE 129

118 Variable Name: Means_Work1 and Means_Work2 Question: How do your parents get to work? (check up to two) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Bus (3) Streetcar or Trolley (4) Subway (4) Taxi (5) Walk (6) Bike (7) Other (8) Valid N = 134 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (119) Frequency Table: MEANS_1 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 117 95.995.995.9 Walk1 .8.896.7 Othe r 4 3.33.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 MEANS_2 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 2 1.616.716.7 Carpool3 2.525.041.7 Bus3 2.525.066.7 Subway1 .88.375.0 Bike3 2.525.0100.0 Total12 9.8100.0 Missing110 90.2 122 100.0

PAGE 130

119 Variable Name: Sch_Means Question: How did you get to school after age 16? Available Responses (code): Walk (1) School Bus (2) Public Transit (3) Bike (4) Drive Alone (5) Drive with parents or friends (6) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (75) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk4 3.33.33.3 School Bus 6 4.95.08.3 Public Transit 2 1.61.79.9 Drive Alone 75 61.562.071.9 Drive w/Others 34 27.928.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Transit Question: How frequently did you ride public transit in your hometown? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (100) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.61.61.6 Weekly21.61.63.3 Infrequently1814.814.818.0 Neve r 10082.082.0100.0 Total122100.0100.0

PAGE 131

120 Variable Name: Freq_Walk Question: How frequently did you walk from home to your desination? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (67) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily43.33.33.3 Weekly32.52.55.7 Monthly43.33.39.0 Infrequently4436.136.145.1 Neve r 6754.954.9100.0 Total122100.0100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Bike Question: How frequently did you bike from home to your desination? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (74) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.61.61.6 Monthly1.8.82.5 Infrequently4536.936.939.3 Neve r 7460.760.7100.0 Total122100.0100.0

PAGE 132

121 Variable Name: Stop Question: Check if you know the location of the nearest bus stop Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (65) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 57 46.746.746.7 Checked65 53.353.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Destination Question: Check if you know where the bus will take you Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (95) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 95 77.977.977.9 Checked27 22.122.1100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Check if you know how much the bus will cost Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (101) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 101 82.882.882.8 Checked21 17.217.2100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 133

122 Variable Name: Time Question: Check if you know the timetable of the bus Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (118) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 118 96.796.796.7 Checked4 3.33.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: None Question: There is no transit in my city Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (92) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent ValidNot Checked 9275.475.475.4 Checked 3024.624.6100.0 Total 122100.0100.0

PAGE 134

123 Variable Name: Fresh_Car Question: Will you have a car during you freshman year? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (69) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidNo 5343.443.443.4 Yes 6956.656.6100.0 Total 122100.0100.0 Variable Name: On_Campus Question: Will you live on campus? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (98) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent No24 19.719.719.7 Yes98 80.380.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 135

124 Variable Name: To_Class, To_Class_A, To_Class_B Question: How will you get to class? (check all that apply) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Walk (3) Bike (4) Ride City Bus (5) Campus Circulator Bus (6) Park and Ride (7) Valid N = 265 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (108) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 7 5.75.85.8 Carpool7 5.75.811.6 Walk91 74.675.286.8 Bike5 4.14.190.9 City Bus6 4.95.095.9 Campus Circulato r 5 4.14.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 TO_CLA_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 1 .81.11.1 Carpool2 1.62.23.3 Walk11 8.210.914.1 Bike48 36.948.963.0 City Bus7 5.77.670.7 Campus Circulato r 27 22.129.3100.0 Total96 75.4100.0 Missing26 24.6 122 100.0 TO_CLA_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk6 4.911.511.5 Bike4 3.37.719.2 City Bus9 7.417.336.5 Campus Circulato r 37 25.459.696.2 Park and Ride 2 1.63.8100.0 Total58 42.6100.0 Missing64 57.4 122 100.0

PAGE 136

125 Variable Name: UFLIVING, UFLIVI_A, UFLIVI_B Question: Indicate the three most important factors when choosing a place to live Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 359 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (97) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life43 35.235.235.2 Distance55 45.145.180.3 Cost5 4.14.184.4 Luxury14 11.511.595.9 Amenities4 3.33.399.2 Bus Line1 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 UFLIVI_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life1 .8.8.8 Distance39 32.032.533.3 Cost51 41.842.575.8 Luxury7 5.75.881.7 Amenities14 11.511.793.3 Security8 6.66.7100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 UFLIVI_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Distance3 2.52.62.6 Cost26 21.322.224.8 Luxury21 17.217.942.7 Amenities22 18.018.861.5 Bus Line11 9.09.470.9 Security34 27.929.1100.0 Total117 95.9100.0 Missing5 4.1 122 100.0

PAGE 137

126 Variable Name: MAX_TIME Question: Indicate the maximum amount of ti me you are willing to commute to campus Available Responses (code): Less than 15 minutes (1) 15 to 30 minutes (2) 30 to 45 minutes (3) Longer than 45 minutes (4) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (71) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-1541 33.633.633.6 15-3071 58.258.291.8 30-459 7.47.499.2 Longe r 1 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Walk_Transit Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to a transit stop? Available Responses (code): Less than mi le (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mean = Median = Mode (N) = 2 (56) Std. Dev = Range = Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 mile35 28.728.928.9 1/2 mile56 45.946.375.2 3/4 mile17 13.914.089.3 Longe r 9 7.47.496.7 Not Any4 3.33.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 138

127 Variable Name: Walk_Campus Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to campus? Available Responses (code): Less than mi le (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (42) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 Mile15 12.312.412.4 1/2 Mile42 34.434.747.1 3/4 Mile31 25.425.672.7 Longe r 28 23.023.195.9 Not Walk5 4.14.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Bike_Campus Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to campus? Available Responses (code): Less than mile (1) 1 mile (2) 3 miles (3) Longer (4) I would not bike any distance (5) Valid N = 119 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (40) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/2 Mile9 7.47.67.6 1 Mile40 32.833.641.2 3 Miles35 28.729.470.6 Longe r 18 14.815.185.7 Not Bike17 13.914.3100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0

PAGE 139

128 Variable Name: Will_Transit Question: Indicate your willingness to ride public transit in general (bus and rail) Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.73 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (54) Std. Dev = 1.14 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 10 8.28.38.3 Unwilling6 4.95.013.2 Neutral21 17.217.430.6 Willing54 44.344.675.2 Very Willing 30 24.624.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Bus Question: Indicate your willingness to ride bus transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.8 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (53) Std. Dev = 1.18 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 11 9.09.19.1 Unwilling6 4.95.014.0 Neutral15 12.312.426.4 Willing53 43.443.870.2 Very Willing 36 29.529.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 140

129 Variable Name: Will_Rail Question: Indicate your willingness to ride rail transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.2 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 and 5 (34) Std. Dev = 1.23 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 10 8.28.38.3 Unwilling12 9.810.018.3 Neutral30 24.625.043.3 Willing34 27.928.371.7 Very Willing 34 27.928.3100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Carpool Question: Indicate your willingness to carpool Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.73 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (34) Std. Dev = 1.24 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Very Unwilling 11 9.09.19.1 Unwilling7 5.75.814.9 Neutral26 21.321.536.4 Willing37 30.330.666.9 Very Willing 40 32.833.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 141

130 Variable Name: No_Parking Question: You know there is no parking at your s hopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? Available Responses (code): Park far away and walk (1) Walk the whole distance (2) Bike the whole distance (3) Take public transit (4) Drive to a more distant location (5) Not Go (6) Take a Taxi (7) Have someone else drop me off (8) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 4 (42) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Park Fa r Away 26 21.321.521.5 Walk Whole Way 1 .8.822.3 Bike Whole Way 7 5.75.828.1 Public Transit 42 34.434.762.8 Drive Elsewhere 17 13.914.076.9 Not Go8 6.66.683.5 Taxi2 1.61.785.1 Catch a Ride 18 14.814.9100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Direct_Transit Question: There is a direct transit line from your home to your work. Will you ride it? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Maybe (3) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (71) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent No4 3.33.33.3 Yes71 58.258.762.0 Maybe46 37.738.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 142

131 Variable Name: Free_Transit Question: If transit was free of charge in your current city, indicate on a scale from 1-5 your willingness to ride it, 5 being very willing Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.13 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (60) Std. Dev = 1.06 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent 14 3.33.33.3 25 4.14.17.4 322 18.018.225.6 430 24.624.850.4 560 49.249.6100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Transit Question: Level of Agreement: It is important for government to provide public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.15 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 0.86 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree4 3.33.35.0 Neutral13 10.710.715.7 Agree57 46.747.162.8 Strongly Agree 45 36.937.2100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 143

132 Variable Name: Roads Question: Level of Agreement: It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.37 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 0.697 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .8.8.8 Disagree1 .8.81.7 Neutral6 4.95.06.7 Agree57 46.747.554.2 Strongly Agree 55 45.145.8100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Congestion Question: Level of Agreement: Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.96 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (53) Std. Dev = 0.93 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree7 5.75.87.4 Neutral22 18.018.225.6 Agree53 43.443.869.4 Strongly Agree 37 30.330.6100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 144

133 Variable Name: Cost Question: Level of Agreement: Public transit costs too much to ride Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 119 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.56 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (63) Std. Dev = 0.766 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 7.47.67.6 Disagree42 34.435.342.9 Neutral63 51.652.995.8 Agree2 1.61.797.5 Strongly Agree 3 2.52.5100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0 Variable Name: Where Question: Level of Agreement: Transit takes me where I want to go Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.98 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (73) Std. Dev = 0.85 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 6 4.95.05.0 Disagree20 16.416.521.5 Neutral73 59.860.381.8 Agree15 12.312.494.2 Strongly Agree 7 5.75.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 145

134 Variable Name: Convenient Question: Level of Agreement: Transit is not convenient enough Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.22 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (55) Std. Dev = 0.91 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 4 3.33.33.3 Disagree18 14.815.018.3 Neutral55 45.145.864.2 Agree34 27.928.392.5 Strongly Agree 9 7.47.5100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missed2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Image Question: Level of Agreement: Transit does not fit with my self image Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.54 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (37) Std. Dev = 1.07 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 22 18.018.218.2 Disagree37 30.330.648.8 Neutral43 35.235.584.3 Agree13 10.710.795.0 Strongly Agree 6 4.95.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 146

135 Variable Name: Safe Question: Level of Agreement: It is not safe to take public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.54 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (50) Std. Dev = 0.88 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 12 9.89.99.9 Disagree50 41.041.351.2 Neutral42 34.434.786.0 Agree16 13.113.299.2 Strongly Agree 1 .8.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Time Question: Level of Agreement: I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.16 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 4 (42) Std. Dev = 1.13 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 7.47.47.4 Disagree29 23.824.031.4 Neutral29 23.824.055.4 Agree42 34.434.790.1 Strongly Agree 12 9.89.9100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 147

136 Variable Name: Autowalk Question: Level of Agreement: Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.48 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (48) Std. Dev = 0.98 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 4 3.33.33.3 Disagree14 11.511.715.0 Neutral38 31.131.746.7 Agree48 39.340.086.7 Strongly Agree 16 13.113.3100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Paths Question: Level of Agreement: Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more willing to walk and bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.88 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (66) Std. Dev = 0.90 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .8.8.8 Disagree12 9.89.910.7 Neutral15 12.312.423.1 Agree66 54.154.577.7 Strongly Agree 27 22.122.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 148

137 Variable Name: Vote Question: Level of Agreement: I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.07 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (59) Std. Dev = 0.79 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 5 4.14.14.1 Disagree15 12.312.416.5 Neutral72 59.059.576.0 Agree25 20.520.796.7 Strongly Agree 4 3.33.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 System1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Option Question: Level of Agreement: I wish transit was a better option in my city Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.50 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 0.85 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree15 12.312.412.4 Neutral44 36.136.448.8 Agree49 40.240.589.3 Strongly Agree 13 10.710.7100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 149

138 Variable Name: Opinion Question: Level of Agreement: I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.68 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (67) Std. Dev = 0.93 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 18 14.814.914.9 Disagree21 17.217.432.2 Neutral67 54.955.487.6 Agree12 9.89.997.5 Strongly Agree 3 2.52.5100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Critical Question: Level of Agreement: It is critical to own a car Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.84 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (50) Std. Dev = 1.05 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree16 13.113.214.9 Neutral17 13.914.028.9 Agree50 41.041.370.2 Strongly Agree 36 29.529.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 150

139 Variable Name: Problem Question: Level of Agreement: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.02 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (47) Std. Dev = 0.97 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree13 10.710.810.8 Neutral16 13.113.324.2 Agree47 38.539.263.3 Strongly Agree 44 36.136.7100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Slowbike Question: Level of Agreement: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.21 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (51) Std. Dev = 1.01 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 7 5.75.85.8 Disagree24 19.719.825.6 Neutral33 27.027.352.9 Agree51 41.842.195.0 Strongly Agree 6 4.95.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 151

140 APPENDIX E ALUMNI RAW SURVEY DATA Variable Name: Zipcode Question: What is your current zipcode? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 32607 (4) Frequency Table: Zipcode Frequency PercentValid Percent 021711 .6.6 033011 .6.6 070061 .6.6 070441 .6.6 100161 .6.6 100251 .6.6 112111 .6.6 112131 .6.6 126011 .6.6 191281 .6.6 201911 .6.6 217011 .6.6 222021 .6.6 222031 .6.6 282161 .6.6 282261 .6.6 283111 .6.6 296151 .6.6 301441 .6.6 303081 .6.6 303181 .6.6 303192 1.31.3 303271 .6.6 303292 1.31.3 303451 .6.6 306061 .6.6 307011 .6.6 320041 .6.6 320551 .6.6 320731 .6.6 320801 .6.6 321591 .6.6 321681 .6.6 321741 .6.6 322052 1.31.3 322551 .6.6 322571 .6.6 323081 .6.6 323091 .6.6

PAGE 152

141 324591 .6.6 325032 1.31.3 325041 .6.6 325781 .6.6 325791 .6.6 326011 .6.6 326031 .6.6 326052 1.31.3 326062 1.31.3 326074 2.62.6 326083 1.91.9 326091 .6.6 326151 .6.6 326181 .6.6 326431 .6.6 327011 .6.6 327711 .6.6 327891 .6.6 328041 .6.6 328111 .6.6 328171 .6.6 328221 .6.6 328251 .6.6 328261 .6.6 328351 .6.6 330201 .6.6 330291 .6.6 330681 .6.6 331291 .6.6 331301 .6.6 331562 1.31.3 331691 .6.6 331831 .6.6 331861 .6.6 33301 .6.6 333091 .6.6 333142 1.31.3 333172 1.31.3 333191 .6.6 334101 .6.6 334111 .6.6 334281 .6.6 334331 .6.6 334411 .6.6 334441 .6.6 334861 .6.6 335491 .6.6 335691 .6.6 336071 .6.6 336091 .6.6 336161 .6.6 336242 1.31.3 336251 .6.6 336291 .6.6 336472 1.31.3 337011 .6.6

PAGE 153

142 337041 .6.6 337071 .6.6 337701 .6.6 338091 .6.6 338251 .6.6 341191 .6.6 342121 .6.6 342211 .6.6 342361 .6.6 344421 .6.6 344791 .6.6 346771 .6.6 347111 .6.6 347611 .6.6 347721 .6.6 349521 .6.6 349832 1.31.3 379191 .6.6 483221 .6.6 532111 .6.6 594011 .6.6 606131 .6.6 618211 .6.6 660491 .6.6 685031 .6.6 701231 .6.6 701301 .6.6 722021 .6.6 750011 .6.6 761061 .6.6 786641 .6.6 787311 .6.6 787481 .6.6 787521 .6.6 803011 .6.6 806011 .6.6 844051 .6.6 891031 .6.6 921031 .6.6 944011 .6.6 982701 .6.6 996151 .6.6 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 154

143 Variable Name: Sex Question: What is your gender? Available Responses (code): Male (1) Female (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (102) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Male52 33.833.833.8 Female102 66.266.2100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Race Question: Check your ethnicity Available Responses (code): Caucasian (1) African-American (2) Hispanic or Latino (3) Asian (4) Native American or Hawaiian (5) Other (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (121) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent white121 78.678.678.6 black7 4.54.583.1 hispanic19 12.312.395.5 asian4 2.62.698.1 NR3 1.91.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 155

144 Variable Name: Housing_Type Question: Check one that describes your primary residence Available Responses (code): Apartment (1) Condominium (2) Town House or Duplex (3) Single Family House in Rural Setting (4) Single Family House in Suburbs (5) Single Family House in Central City (6) University Housing or Other (7) Valid N = 152 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (63) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Apartment6340.941.441.4 Condo127.87.949.3 Town House106.56.655.9 SF_Rural95.85.961.8 SF_Suburbs5133.133.695.4 SF_Central74.54.6100.0 Total15298.7100.0 Missing21.3 154100.0 Variable Name: Cars Question: How many cars are there in your household? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 154 Data type = Scalar Mean = 1.69 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (72) Std. Dev = 0.795 Range = 5 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 03 1.91.91.9 163 40.940.942.9 272 46.846.889.6 311 7.17.196.8 44 2.62.699.4 51 .6.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 156

145 Variable Name: Married Question: Are you married? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mean = Median = Mode (N) = 2 (119) Std. Dev = Range = Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes35 22.722.722.7 No119 77.377.3100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Min_Work Question: How many minutes does it take you to commute to work each way? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 22.81 Median = 20 Mode (N) = 15 (24) Std. Dev = 16.41 Range = 90 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 04 2.62.62.6 25 3.23.35.9 31 .6.76.6 57 4.54.611.2 61 .6.711.8 74 2.62.614.5 81 .6.715.1 1016 10.410.525.7 123 1.92.027.6 131 .6.728.3 1524 15.615.844.1 181 .6.744.7 2020 13.013.257.9 221 .6.758.6 231 .6.759.2 2513 8.48.667.8 3022 14.314.582.2 355 3.23.385.5 402 1.31.386.8 4510 6.56.693.4 502 1.31.394.7 605 3.23.398.0 751 .6.798.7 902 1.31.3100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 157

146 Variable Name: Means_Work Question: How do you get to work? (check up to two) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Bus (3) Streetcar or Trolley (4) Subway (4) Taxi (5) Walk (6) Bike (7) Other (8) Valid N = 163 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (136) Frequency Table: MEANS_1 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 136 88.390.190.1 Carpool5 3.23.393.4 Bus1 .6.794.0 Subway3 1.92.096.0 Walk5 3.23.399.3 Othe r 1 .6.7100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0 MEANS_2 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Carpool7 4.558.358.3 Bus1 .68.366.7 Subway2 1.316.783.3 Walk1 .68.391.7 Bike1 .68.3100.0 Total12 7.8100.0 Missing142 92.2 154 100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Transit Question: How often have you ridden public transit since graduation? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (98 Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily42.62.62.6 Weekly53.23.35.9 Monthly31.92.07.8 Infrequently4327.928.135.9 Neve r 9863.664.1100.0 Total15399.4100.0 Missing1.6 154100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Walk

PAGE 158

147 Question: Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (97) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily106.56.56.5 Weekly95.85.812.3 Monthly42.62.614.9 Infrequently3422.122.137.0 Neve r 9763.063.0100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Bike Question: Daily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Available Responses (code): Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (128) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Weekly31.91.91.9 Monthly63.93.95.8 Infrequently1711.011.016.9 Neve r 12883.183.1100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 159

148 Variable Name: Stop Question: Check if you know wh ere the nearest bus stop is Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (87) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 67 43.543.543.5 Checked87 56.556.5100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Desination Question: Check if you know where the bus will take you Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (124) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 124 80.580.580.5 Checked30 19.519.5100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Check if you know how much the bus will cost Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (133) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 133 86.486.486.4 Checked21 13.613.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 160

149 Variable Name: Time Question: Check if you know the timetable of the bus Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (148) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 148 96.196.196.1 Checked6 3.93.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: None Question: Check if there is no transit in your city Available Responses (code): Checked/No Tran sit (1) Not Checked/Transit Present(2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (142) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 142 92.292.292.2 Checked12 7.87.8100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Rail_City Question: Check if there is some form of rail transit in your city Available Responses (code): Checked/ Rail Present(1) Not Checked/No Rail (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (111) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 111 72.172.172.1 Checked43 27.927.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 161

150 Variable Name: Max_Time Question: What is the maximum time you would be willing to commute to work? Available Responses (code): Less than 15 minutes (1) 15 to 30 minutes (2) 30 to 45 minutes (3) Longer than 45 minutes (4) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (72) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-155 3.23.23.2 15-3062 40.340.343.5 30-4572 46.846.890.3 Longe r 15 9.79.7100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 162

151 Variable Name: Factor_Living Question: Check the three most important factors yo u considered when choosi ng a place to live after graudation? Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 438 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (133) Frequency Table: FACTOR_A FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidSocial Life 4428.628.828.8 Distance 8555.255.684.3 Cost 1711.011.195.4 Luxury 31.92.097.4 Amenities 31.92.099.3 Security 1.6.7100.0 Total 15399.4100.0 MissingSystem 1.6 Total 154100.0 FACTOR_B FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidSocial Life 21.31.41.4 Distance 2717.518.419.7 Cost 8957.860.580.3 Luxury 74.54.885.0 Amenities 1610.410.995.9 Security 63.94.1100.0 Total 14795.5100.0 MissingSystem 74.5 Total 154100.0 FACTOR_C FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidCost 2717.519.619.6 Luxury 1912.313.833.3 Amenities 138.49.442.8 Bus Line 42.62.945.7 Security 7548.754.3100.0 Total 13889.6100.0 MissingSystem 1610.4 Total 154100.0

PAGE 163

152 Variable Name: Accommodation_UF Question: What type of accommodation did you live in while enrolled at UF? Available Responses (code): Communal Living (1) 1BR Apartment (2) Apartment w/Roommates (3) House (4) Live w/ Parents (5) Valid N = 229 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (104) Frequency Table: ACCOMODA FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Communal Living 5535.735.735.7 1 BR Apartment 1912.312.348.1 A pt w/roomates 5636.436.484.4 House2214.314.398.7 Live with Parents 21.31.3100.0 Total154100.0100.0 ACCOMO_A FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Communal Living 21.32.72.7 1 BR Apartment 42.65.38.0 A pt w / Roomates 4831.264.072.0 House2013.026.798.7 Live with Parents 1.61.3100.0 Total7548.7100.0 Missing7951.3 154100.0

PAGE 164

153 Variable Name: UFLiving Question: ) Please indicate the three (3) most importa nt factors when choosing a place to live while at UF Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 452 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (134) Frequency Table: UFLIVING Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life45 29.229.229.2 Distance86 55.855.885.1 Cost12 7.87.892.9 Luxury5 3.23.296.1 Amenities5 3.23.299.4 Bus Line1 .6.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 UFLIVI_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life1 .6.7.7 Distance30 19.519.720.4 Cost88 57.157.978.3 Luxury9 5.85.984.2 Amenities16 10.410.594.7 Security8 5.25.3100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 UFLIVI_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Distance2 1.31.41.4 Cost34 22.123.324.7 Luxury14 9.19.634.2 Amenities24 15.616.450.7 Bus Line27 17.518.569.2 Security45 29.230.8100.0 Total146 94.8100.0 Missing8 5.2 154 100.0

PAGE 165

154 Variable Name: Campus_Circulator Question: How frequently did you use: Campus Circulator Busses Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (49) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily4931.831.831.8 Weekly2314.914.946.8 Monthly74.54.551.3 Infrequently3422.122.173.4 Neve r 4126.626.6100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: RTS_to_Campus Question: How frequently did you use: RTS busses from City to Campus Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (56) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily5636.436.436.4 Weekly1912.312.348.7 Monthly63.93.952.6 Infrequently2717.517.570.1 Neve r 4629.929.9100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 166

155 Variable Name: RTS_City_to_City Question: How frequently did you use: Other RTS bus Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (113) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.31.31.3 Weekly63.93.95.2 Monthly21.31.36.5 Infrequently3120.120.126.6 Neve r 11373.473.4100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: Later_Gator Question: How frequently did you use: Later Gator busses Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (81) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Weekly127.87.87.8 Monthly149.19.116.9 Infrequently4730.530.547.4 Neve r 8152.652.6100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 167

156 Variable Name: ToClass Question: During your senior year, what wa s your primary method of getting to campus? Available Responses (code): Walk (1) Bike (2) City Bus (3) Drive Alone (4) Carpool (5) Lived on Campus (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 4 (63) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk24 15.615.615.6 Bike14 9.19.124.7 City Bus42 27.327.351.9 Drove Alone 63 40.940.992.9 Carpool7 4.54.597.4 Lived on Campus 4 2.62.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Distance Question: During your senior year, how far did you live from campus? Available Responses (code): 0-1/2 Mile (1) to 1 Mile (2) 1-3 Miles (3) 3+ Miles (4) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (60) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-1/2 Mile26 16.916.916.9 1/2 to 1 Mile 20 13.013.029.9 1-3 Miles60 39.039.068.8 3+ Miles48 31.231.2100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 168

157 Variable Name: Question: What features of bus transit in Gainesville make it a viable option? (choose 2) Available Responses (code): Free of charge (1) Frequency (2) Other Riders (3) Hours of Operation (4) Parking is Diffic ult to Find (5) Traffic Congestion (6) Busses drop off at a central location (7) Valid N = 303 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (107) Frequency Table: VIABLE_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Free o f Charge 107 69.570.470.4 Frequency21 13.613.884.2 Othe r riders 5 3.23.387.5 Hours2 1.31.388.8 Parking17 11.011.2100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 VIABLE_B FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Frequency2314.915.215.2 Other riders53.23.318.5 Hours63.94.022.5 Parking7951.352.374.8 Traffic Congestion 74.54.679.5 Central Dropof f 3120.120.5100.0 Total15198.1100.0 Missing31.9 154100.0

PAGE 169

158 Variable Name: Walk_Transit Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to transit stop? Available Responses (code): mile (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (84) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 mile84 54.554.954.9 1/2 mile49 31.832.086.9 3/4 mile15 9.79.896.7 Longe r 4 2.62.699.3 Not Any1 .6.7100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Walk_Destination Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to your destination? Available Responses (code): mile (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distance to my destination(5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (50) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 Mile22 14.314.414.4 1/2 Mile50 32.532.747.1 3/4 Mile38 24.724.871.9 Longe r 43 27.928.1100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 170

159 Variable Name: Bike_Destination Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to your destination? Available Responses (code): mile (1) 1 mile (2) 3 miles (3) Longer (4) I would not bike any distance (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (65) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Valid1/2 Mile 159.79.89.8 1 Mile 3925.325.535.3 3 Miles 6542.242.577.8 Longe r 3120.120.398.0 Not Bike 31.92.0100.0 Total 15399.4100.0 MissingSystem 1.6 Total 154100.0 Variable Name: Will_Transit Question: Indicate how willing you are to use public transit in general (bus and rail) Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.19 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (59) Std. Dev = 1.26 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 23 14.915.015.0 Unwilling22 14.314.429.4 Neutral30 19.519.649.0 Willing59 38.338.687.6 Very Willing 19 12.312.4100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 171

160 Variable Name: Will_Bus Question: Indicate how willing you are to use bus transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.01 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 4 (45) Std. Dev = 1.23 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 25 16.216.316.3 Unwilling24 15.615.732.0 Neutral44 28.628.860.8 Willing45 29.229.490.2 Very Willing 15 9.79.8100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Rail Question: Indicate your willingness to ride rail transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.41 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (54) Std. Dev = 1.21 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 17 11.011.111.1 Unwilling14 9.19.220.3 Neutral40 26.026.146.4 Willing54 35.135.381.7 Very Willing 28 18.218.3100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 172

161 Variable Name: Will_Carpool Question: Indicate your willingness to carpool Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.49 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (51) Std. Dev = 1.24 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 14 9.19.29.2 Unwilling20 13.013.122.2 Neutral32 20.820.943.1 Willing51 33.133.376.5 Very Willing 36 23.423.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: No_Parking Question: You know there is no parking at your destination 3 miles away. What will you do? Available Responses (code): Park far away and walk (1) Walk the whole distance (2) Bike the whole distance (3) Take public transit (4) Drive to a more distant location (5) Not Go (6) Take a Taxi (7) Have someone else drop me off (8) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (50) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Park Fa r Away 39 25.325.525.5 Walk Whole Way 4 2.62.628.1 Bike Whole Way 2 1.31.329.4 Public Transit 24 15.615.745.1 Drive Elsewhere 50 32.532.777.8 Not Go23 14.915.092.8 Taxi1 .6.793.5 Catch a Ride 10 6.56.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 173

162 Variable Name: Direct Transit Question: There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Maybe (3) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (69) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent No19 12.312.412.4 Yes65 42.242.554.9 Maybe69 44.845.1100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Free_Transit Question: If transit was free of charge in your curre nt city, indicate your willi ngness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.19 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (46) Std. Dev = 1.34 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 122 14.314.614.6 223 14.915.229.8 346 29.930.560.3 425 16.216.676.8 535 22.723.2100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0

PAGE 174

163 Variable Name: Transit Question: It is important for government to provide public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.24 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (63) Std. Dev = 0.78 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree6 3.93.93.9 Neutral14 9.19.213.1 Agree70 45.545.858.8 Strongly Agree 63 40.941.2100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Roads Question: It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.51 Median = 5 Mode (N) = 5 (86) Std. Dev = 0.62 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree2 1.31.31.3 Neutral4 2.62.63.9 Agree61 39.639.943.8 Strongly Agree 86 55.856.2100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 175

164 Variable Name: Congestion Question: Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.01 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (67) Std. Dev = 0.95 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.31.31.3 Disagree12 7.87.89.2 Neutral20 13.013.122.2 Agree67 43.543.866.0 Strongly Agree 52 33.834.0100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Public Transit costs too much to ride Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.68 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (75) Std. Dev = 0.90 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 17 11.011.211.2 Disagree39 25.325.736.8 Neutral75 48.749.386.2 Agree18 11.711.898.0 Strongly Agree 3 1.92.0100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 176

165 Variable Name: Where Question: Transit takes me where I want to go Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.18 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (71) Std. Dev = 0.94 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 7 4.54.64.6 Disagree22 14.314.519.1 Neutral71 46.146.765.8 Agree40 26.026.392.1 Strongly Agree 12 7.87.9100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 Variable Name: Convenience Question: Transit is not convenient enough Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.42 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 1.05 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 5 3.23.33.3 Disagree27 17.517.821.1 Neutral41 26.627.048.0 Agree57 37.037.585.5 Strongly Agree 22 14.314.5100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 177

166 Variable Name: Image Question: Transit does not fit with my self-image Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.78 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 2 and 3 (46) Std. Dev = 1.15 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 20 13.013.213.2 Disagree46 29.930.543.7 Neutral46 29.930.574.2 Agree25 16.216.690.7 Strongly Agree 14 9.19.3100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0 Variable Name: Safe Question: It is not safe to take public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.79 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 2 (59) Std. Dev = 0.99 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 5.85.95.9 Disagree59 38.338.844.7 Neutral46 29.930.375.0 Agree31 20.120.495.4 Strongly Agree 7 4.54.6100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 178

167 Variable Name: Time Question: I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.34 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (50) Std. Dev = 1.21 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 11 7.17.27.2 Disagree32 20.821.128.3 Neutral31 20.120.448.7 Agree50 32.532.981.6 Strongly Agree 28 18.218.4100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 Variable Name: Autowalk Question: Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.15 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 1.08 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 11 7.17.37.3 Disagree30 19.519.927.2 Neutral49 31.832.559.6 Agree47 30.531.190.7 Strongly Agree 14 9.19.3100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0

PAGE 179

168 Variable Name: Paths Question: Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.61 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (73) Std. Dev = 0.98 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.31.31.3 Disagree24 15.615.717.0 Neutral30 19.519.636.6 Agree73 47.447.784.3 Strongly Agree 24 15.615.7100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Vote Question: I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.05 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (77) Std. Dev = 0.94 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 10 6.56.56.5 Disagree24 15.615.722.2 Neutral77 50.050.372.5 Agree32 20.820.993.5 Strongly Agree 10 6.56.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 180

169 Variable Name: Option Question: I wish transit was a better option in my city Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.36 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (55) Std. Dev = 0.96 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 3 1.92.02.0 Disagree26 16.917.019.0 Neutral55 35.735.954.9 Agree51 33.133.388.2 Strongly Agree 18 11.711.8100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Opinion Question: I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.84 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (74) Std. Dev = 0.91 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 14 9.19.29.2 Disagree32 20.820.930.1 Neutral74 48.148.478.4 Agree30 19.519.698.0 Strongly Agree 3 1.92.0100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 181

170 Variable Name: Critical Question: It is critical to own a car Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.25 Median = 5 Mode (N) = 5 (82) Std. Dev = 1.00 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .6.7.7 Disagree15 9.79.810.5 Neutral10 6.56.517.0 Agree45 29.229.446.4 Strongly Agree 82 53.253.6100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Problem Question: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 149 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.27 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (69) Std. Dev = 0.86 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .6.7.7 Disagree8 5.25.46.0 Neutral10 6.56.712.8 Agree61 39.640.953.7 Strongly Agree 69 44.846.3100.0 Total149 96.8100.0 Missing5 3.2 154 100.0

PAGE 182

171 Variable Name: Slowbike Question: Having slower moving traffic ma kes me more willing to ride my bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.64 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (65) Std. Dev = 1.03 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 15 9.79.99.9 Disagree65 42.242.852.6 Neutral39 25.325.778.3 Agree26 16.917.195.4 Strongly Agree 7 4.54.6100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 183

172 REFERENCES Abdel-Aty, M., Kitamura, R., and Jovanis, P. (1996) Investigating effect of advanced traveler information on commuter tendency to use transit. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1550: 65-72. American Public Transit Association. 2003. Public Transportation Fact Book. Washington, DC: The American Public Transportation Association. Selected portions available from: www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership Accessed 06/10/2004 Allen, J., (1991) Revenue and ridershi p impacts of DART service and fare adjustments. APTA Western Educat ion and Training Conference 1991: Austin, TX Baites, M., (2003) Statistical estimation of the importance pl aced on specific elements of bus rapid transit by customer s. Paper presented to the 82nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Re search Board: Washington, DC. Balsas, Carlos J. (2002). Su stainable transportation pla nning on college campuses. Transport Policy 10: 35-49. Ben-Akiva, M., and Morikawa, T. (2002) Co mparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transport Policy 9: 107-116. Beyard, M., Bond, A., and Pawluciewicz, M. Ten principles for rebuilding neighborhood retail. Washington, DC: ULIthe Urban Land Institute. 2003. Brown, J., Hess, D., and Shoup, D. (2001) Unlimited access. Transportation vol. 28, 3: 233-267. Brown, J. Hess, D., and Shoup, D. (2003) Fare-free transit at universities. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 60-82 Cambridge Systematics (2003) Characteristics of state funding for pub lic transportation2002. Research Results Digest, No. 60. (July 2003) Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program. Census 2000. United States Cens us Bureau. Available from http://www.census.gov Accessed 8/25/2004.

PAGE 184

173 Cervero, R. (1990). Transit pricing re search: A review and synthesis. Transportation vol. 17, 2: 117-139. Cervero, R. (2001) Walk-and-ride: factors infl uencing pedestrian access to transit. Journal of Public Transportation vol. 3, 4: 10-19. Cleland, F., and Cooper, T. TDM in Eur ope: A Synthesis of Research Findings. National Center for Transit Research. 2003. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 6/14/2004. Cleland, F., and Thompson, B. (2000) 1999 Transit Customer Satisfaction Index. National Center for Transit Research. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 6/23/2004 Conklin, J., Halvorsen, R., Fleishman, D., and Oram, R. (2001) Employer-based annual transit pass programs: A survey of cu rrent practice in the public transit industry. Paper presented to the 81st Annual Convention of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Crane, R. (1999) The impacts of urban form on travel: A critical review. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Pa per, Product Code WP99RC1. Cambridge, MA. Dixon, Linda. Master Planner, University of Florida Office of Campus Facilities Planning. Gainesville, FL (2004, March 10) Personal Interview. Downs, A. (1992) Stuck in traffic: coping with peak-hour traffic congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Evans IV, J. (2004) Transit cooperative rese arch program report #95Chapter 9 Transit scheduling and frequency. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available from: www.trb.org Accessed 5/29/2004. Evans, J. Perincherry, V., and Douglas III, G. (1997) Transit friendliness factor: approach to quantifying transit access environment in transportation planning models. Transportation Research Record 1604: 32-39. Ferguson, E. (1990) Transportation demand management: Planning, development and implementation. Journal of the Americ an Planning Association Vol. 56, 4: 5274. Fujii, S., and Kitamura, R. (2002) What does a one month transit pass do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Paper presented to the 81st Annual Conference of the Tran sportation Research Board: Washington, DC.

PAGE 185

174 Gantvoort, J. (1984) Effects upon modal choi ce of a parking rest raint measure. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 25, No. 4. Gutkowski, R., and Daggett, J. (2003) Univ ersity transportation survey: Transportation in university communities. Paper presented to the 82nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Research Board. Hardin, J. (2001) Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use: Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transporta tion Research. Available from: http://www.cutr.usf.edu Accessed 7/20/2004 Hess, D., Brown, J., and Shoup, D. (2003) Waiting for the bus. Paper presented to the 82rd Annual Conference of the Tran sportation Research Board. Hensher, D., and Button, K. Handbook of Transport Modeling Vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon. 2000. Hodge, D., Orrell III, J. and Strauss, T. (1994). Fare-f ree policy: Costs, impacts on transit service and attainment of tr ansit system goals. Washington State Department of Transportation. Report Number WA-RD 277.1. Hodgson, F., Tight, M., 1999. Raising awareness of transport issues : the potential to bring about behavioral change?. International Jour nal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6, 281-292. Johnson, A. (2003) Bus transit and land use: Illuminating the interaction. Journal of Public Transportation vol. 6, no. 3. Keniry, J., 1995. Ecodemiacampus environm ental stewardship at the turn of the 21st century. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. K.T. Analytics, Inc., TDM status repor t: parking supply and management. Prepared for the Federal Transit Admi nistration, Washington, DC. 1995. Kuzmayak, J.R., Wienberger, R., Pratt, R., and Levinson, H. (2003) Transit cooperative research program report #95Chapte r 18 Parking management and supply. Washington, DC: Transporta tion Research Board. Levin, J. (2000). Distributive cost pricing: An effective strategy toward building transit ridership quickly among targeted markets. APTA 2000 Bus & Paratransit Transit Conference Proceedings Paper: Washington, DC. Li, Y. (2003). Evaluating the urban co mmute experience: A time perception approach. Journal of Public Transportation Vol. 6, No. 4.

PAGE 186

175 Litman, T. (1999). Reinventing transportation: Exploring the paradigm shift needed to reconcile sustainability a nd transportation objectives. Transportation Research Record 1670. Transportation Research Board Litman, T. (2003). The online TDM encyclopedia: Mobility management information gateway. Transport Policy Volume 10 Issue 3. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and Liggett, R. (2000). On bus-stop crime. Access No. 16, Spring. Mierzejewski, E., Ball, W. ( 1990). New findings on factors related to transit use. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal February: 34-39. Miller, Bob. Vice President for Finance a nd Administration, Univ ersity of Florida. Gainesville, FL (2004, July 17) Personal Interview. Miller, J.H. (2001). Transit cooperative rese arch program synthesis #39-Transportation on college and university campuses. Wa shington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available from www.trb.org Accessed 5/10/2004. Moreau, A., (1992) Public transport wa iting times as experienced by customers: Marketing research involv ing the Grenoble system. Public Transport Internationa. vol. 41, no. 3. Morrall, J., and Bolger, D. (1996) The rela tionship between downtown parking supply and transit use. ITE Journal vol. 66, no. 2. National Transit Database [NTD]. (2002) 2001 National transit summaries and trends. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration. Available from www.ntdprogram.com Accessed 6/28/2004. Oram, R., and Stark, S. (1996) Infrequent riders: One key to new transit ridership and revenue. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1521: 37-41. Perone, J. Advantages a nd Disadvantages of Fare-Fre e Public Transit. CUTRNational Transportation Research Center, 2002. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 5/28/2004. Perteet Engineering. (2002) Gainesville Regional Transit System comprehensive operational analysis. Prepared for th e Gainesville Regional Transit System. Available from www.go-rts.com Accessed 5/10/2004. Pisarski, Alan E. (1999). Cars, women and minorities: The democra tization of mobility in America. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC.

PAGE 187

176 Project for Public Spaces, In c. [PPS] and Multisystems, In c. (1999) Transit cooperative research program report #46The role of transit amenities and vehicle characteristics in building transit ridership Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Pratt, R.H., and Copple, J. (1981) Traveler response to transportation system changes, second edition. Prepared for the Fe deral Highway Administration, Washington, DC Pucher, J., Evans, T., and Wenger, J. (1998). Socioecomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 1995 NTPS. Transportation Quarterly 52 (3) Reed, T., Wallace, R., and Rodr iguez, D. (1999) Transit pe rceptions regarding transitrelated crime reduction measures. Transportation Research Record No. 1731 Reese, R., Daley, J., and Stanton, W. (1980) Differences in percepti ons and attitudes of bus riders and non-riders in a southern city. Logistics and Transportation Review vol. 17, 4: 416-427. Robinson, Doug. Transit Planner, Regional Transit System, Gainesville, FL. (2004, June 25) Personal Interview Salazar, C. (1996). “Busing Proposal to be Presented to [UF President] Lombardi” Independent Florida Alligator Newspaper, Available from http://www.alligator.org/edi t/issues/96-fall/961211/b08park.htm Accessed 7/20/2004. Siegel, J. (2000). An evaluation of the carpoo l program at the University of Florida. M.A.U.R.P. Final Project. University of Florida. Shoup, D. (1997) The high cost of free parking. Journal of the American Planning Association. 17 (1) 1-18. Shoup, D. (1999) The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transportation Research Part APolicy and Practice, 33: 549-574. Stangeby, L., “The dream: A seat on a bus that is never late!” Norwegian Scheme for Public Transport (May 3, 1993). Thompson, B., Perone, J., and Gabourel, K. ( 2002). Transit non-user survey: Restful riding rather than stressful driving.” Tampa, FL: Cent er for Urban Transportation Research. Report to the Florida Department of Transportation. Tolley, R. (1996). Green campuses: Cutting th e environmental costs of commuting. Journal of Transport Geography vol. 4, no. 3.

PAGE 188

177 Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Van Knippenbe rg, A., and Van Knippenberg, C. (1994) Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 285-300. Willson, R. (1995) Suburban parking requirements: A tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (1): 29-42. University of Florida Office of the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Minutes of meetings of the Tran sportation Access Fee Committees 2001/02 through 2004/05. University of Florida Student Gove rnment, 1998/99 through 2001/2002 Budgets and Student Senate Meeting Minutes. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2004) Online TDM Encyclopedia. Available at: www.vtpi.org/tdm Accessed 5/28/2004. Vuchic, V. (2001) Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick: CUPR

PAGE 189

178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexander Thomas Bond was born April 9, 1979, in St. Petersburg, FL. He graduated from St. Petersburg Senior High School in 1997 and moved to Gainesville to attend the University of Florida shortly thereaf ter. Alex graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from UF in December of 2001 with a major in geography and a minor in history. He enrolled in the urban and re gional planning program the following semester, completing all degree requirements in May of 2005. Alex has a long history of extra-curricular involvem ent at the University of Florida. Between 1997 and 1999, he was a Univ ersity of Florida cheerleader. Since 1999 he was active in Student Government, serv ing three times as a Student Senator and as Cabinet Director for Academic Affairs. Alex served in the Student Senate during the creation of the Later Gator program and late r served on the Transportation Access Fee Committee. He is a member of Florida Blue Key leadership honorary, Gamma Theta Upsilon Geography Honor Society and Phi Delta Theta fraternity. Alex plans on pursuing a Ph.D. in the near future. His research interests include transportation’s implications with gr owth management, land use and economic development. He also has research interest s in transportation policy and the historical development cities.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAACG INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T12:33:43Z PACKAGE UFE0009440_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 46482 DFID F20110320_AABDQL ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bond_a_Page_172.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b950556e0c4a6ca075b6f639714e42a5
SHA-1
52c637799357348abb0eb040b5914fca1f04f68a
12061 F20110320_AABDPW bond_a_Page_142.QC.jpg
ecb9a3728a867eb121ea5c09d9f4c2c5
414bd86182d454eef73de64d2dd3215fa8359b32
41654 F20110320_AABCPS bond_a_Page_136.jpg
778f4023e30dff774abe18144f7726e8
cc4002aca88f680a91a15fa83537215971357194
84284 F20110320_AABCQG bond_a_Page_062.jpg
129023cccd77e242d0a6c7975d202d62
08d738c81475eadc5fc7d79c893b62954d0497d0
103458 F20110320_AABDRA bond_a_Page_057.jp2
8fceab480ac7dffd47b45ea7c4853806
85af1ab316f07f4e0956cdc84f73846b453de839
11707 F20110320_AABDQM bond_a_Page_181.QC.jpg
25373b5bf74d117fe2c7dc7f23c2266c
ccdfda4835cd34341b84db208ec664834e25c3ce
41048 F20110320_AABDPX bond_a_Page_143.jpg
32658122ae639f10ec023c9f21a6fc97
5ced95cb951dce952a6c06b1f8a132c9b3003541
1306 F20110320_AABCPT bond_a_Page_167.txt
2019a5e85a4ec4569d6fe6910c6e2c66
bd82d756d004165927be89139f112c5fddd92492
4115 F20110320_AABCQH bond_a_Page_135thm.jpg
4ed8e93e49b38d87553d70766c02f1ef
df7d8b9cd4f38ac8f813f818b2a9f56db4655b9a
101307 F20110320_AABDRB bond_a_Page_059.jp2
f3672fdecf865827ee3ef2ee1dcb93ce
802179922d5b34b8c21e452074c91d8d0ab68c92
24547 F20110320_AABDQN bond_a_Page_184.QC.jpg
dab6cd5eab83c8cacb4f906cd6210ff4
564cb82dadbf11ff5f9763f5bd7828d143a2c33b
12226 F20110320_AABDPY bond_a_Page_144.QC.jpg
e5b1961469105d9f5b4de1548a372bb1
9beaa5ac13a81203076c38aa449f2662c4ef236a
12684 F20110320_AABCQI bond_a_Page_141.QC.jpg
535e1e0cfd198493563d0d3d4230ab86
416406118448f7fe897cd6b01335004947dbb545
1051982 F20110320_AABDRC bond_a_Page_062.jp2
c207a8069832d9a15dd745667c48da7b
8de888d9628b0412baa491ea074058f135c07240
11742 F20110320_AABDQO bond_a_Page_188.QC.jpg
974231ae6aa372b4f982840503121001
a5b7e52b0dd9f1367393fd725abb922d0fd9c059
41240 F20110320_AABDPZ bond_a_Page_149.jpg
0cfb47d986829346985740e79ba5ebfc
75e54e3df41cdd1cfe940bdd77c5b74774eff4db
2001 F20110320_AABCPU bond_a_Page_106.txt
c65e9ea1bfb2b222bc4f64aa98d18285
ab59a4abdf7940ad7c5ff6baccb53bf5410893a4
1968 F20110320_AABCQJ bond_a_Page_081.txt
df807a008db2d1ec4f1f4dcf138d5d39
50763756e1979a33e928d6ebb60d98f311098876
100929 F20110320_AABDRD bond_a_Page_063.jp2
bdd95986312170413729d249b9ef55e3
e9f2f3f6cdfc3403bbcd2bdd03d33d2a904dca9d
30858 F20110320_AABDQP bond_a_Page_001.jp2
67f7a1b738de8504df8d34fe03ad137b
18625884e9a600f0499097b9d64149d70b86da92
98197 F20110320_AABCPV bond_a_Page_040.jp2
46154fcb4535283cb74ae58f06093c30
29b119331b5145f49ee8926ccbd5c0befa1761ef
37597 F20110320_AABCQK bond_a_Page_118.pro
b1977f3eb7cb5248996653021629b475
df6c6a2df339b88ae3ce2173257dd48dab0e8ed8
69599 F20110320_AABDRE bond_a_Page_064.jp2
ed5ebdebd2c2ac7f96d46aeec281c519
8ab392dea216715d478a58591f9c123f30320fce
925141 F20110320_AABDQQ bond_a_Page_008.jp2
40a9c9da9556f395b9678fed7f8405df
a6667bbfad0fbd629dc16ad85798849ae3aa2eba
6164 F20110320_AABCPW bond_a_Page_011thm.jpg
b4fecdb42742e70b1c8e82b46be9e0e8
078ad45198aa7c0e2c9ebc39b55e9cf7bdcba4d5
1851 F20110320_AABCQL bond_a_Page_071.txt
c583afaf372f3c7fbd24d00322d8de36
27a6440b2246e536fdb30dcbd72dab31e0ff612e
1051954 F20110320_AABDRF bond_a_Page_065.jp2
a8849f048143bdd1181893e550cab960
be77ef55f1bbabb553cad4c0d77818973ae1bc0e
110526 F20110320_AABDQR bond_a_Page_018.jp2
bd6450773f878f97c2716e31e3a60972
5ce6fc21cf4fc3a0d3f169623da1a6bb72eed2f1
5024 F20110320_AABCPX bond_a_Page_119thm.jpg
9ab4ffafcedf5488efcf590fcbfc70af
9787a6a51144cd839677cbcdbf08b9906eadeaf1
1053954 F20110320_AABCRA bond_a_Page_109.tif
9806e199f6ada77be2cf5d2a49efb43b
aebcdd31b158fd84d7e9ed2063c1f40d1350f44d
39381 F20110320_AABCQM bond_a_Page_026.pro
4c7f579d98ae094441c4cbc50d797c20
4c7da4cdeb39c7ae166ad87cad1cf50e35a310ef
102725 F20110320_AABDRG bond_a_Page_071.jp2
1a538eb196ee4180301c14ed8748bb49
8d50ab7aab230153e29eee772fe57b839508fbe8
106174 F20110320_AABDQS bond_a_Page_019.jp2
af91d6617de5c89c4dedfaeda06ec332
b1718cfacbaeb1e723755b9f697cfaedeb21cb23
73307 F20110320_AABCPY bond_a_Page_053.jpg
c689ea26fb1295cc87255a7d667b2d3c
55d89bf855f6703ce42307e46894ec64941832b0
2410 F20110320_AABCRB bond_a_Page_185.txt
95f88d74d28bcc3e91573f8697484a61
77459236c7a94290ba904daaf747c679e6440aa3
22556 F20110320_AABCQN bond_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
092fc4ad36a20a0e5074d1e5a3ed303d
0bce4e81714558828ec8cbdfa36c27054b72a261
1051909 F20110320_AABDRH bond_a_Page_075.jp2
fdc2fde5b7bfea7879c39f540f9538e2
f0102e3906530b2fadac0cc6c4a742ccaf2750e9
1051921 F20110320_AABDQT bond_a_Page_025.jp2
6c89d41d8e0bdf800fb5cd995aec0968
e4ac6dddd2b793c1ad2a7db5dab98b057ebcf601
59270 F20110320_AABCPZ bond_a_Page_148.jp2
2aed1dd9f697633e89949f4fff3e5687
20ec9ae51f7ce80072475ee7bce93e19860331e0
5980 F20110320_AABCRC bond_a_Page_183thm.jpg
3f30996f1942c6bd5ac262d5b02cb2b0
ebe329a654c83ca881945f09bb0d8eb1927561d2
F20110320_AABCQO bond_a_Page_168.tif
583458c078cb5c37ff9833c0accbb2e3
5fd47ba2a529886631d75ba517554af5f3415fa2
1051962 F20110320_AABDRI bond_a_Page_084.jp2
d1bbbb6f965374ece49e1cadf85696e2
46cba06716688f630409f3464aa1be5519af46c5
F20110320_AABCRD bond_a_Page_165.tif
b7c69425de8dcba5e6ad087945f14d49
d1aaf39cbd6c0330e2291c39031b859ac4d3f06f
F20110320_AABCQP bond_a_Page_161.tif
1e9833ea29d44f94d3c1e2194a533419
e236c125960b30e0ec863e426e0f90e8a03d5fcf
1051951 F20110320_AABDRJ bond_a_Page_087.jp2
1cdfa10e2d71fbcf59fa00cd6aa73b21
7c0a84de09692acff9526f507f505585f78a3d32
1036854 F20110320_AABDQU bond_a_Page_027.jp2
2903decd481131fb9584cba2e08c272d
b458c80fac8d4efd91d58013ecf184f56849761e
17257 F20110320_AABCRE bond_a_Page_189.QC.jpg
b657d1ae116fd7b8500a01902090292e
9d8a61e55fa193fe3ee48abe4e170d8b66e76cea
10382 F20110320_AABCQQ bond_a_Page_124.pro
cca8f011801e3fb2d4ad2cf0a7409a66
9a5b7527a4003ef060b4d9011cf2fc5290c1d553
1051975 F20110320_AABDRK bond_a_Page_090.jp2
436549a97593f6cc3e39c3f83efff944
f411ce2c968d6b382c460d215bab9f7a12ec6a79
108379 F20110320_AABDQV bond_a_Page_030.jp2
dc4dbf10635fbdc550af138c4c36c004
3b6a28e47e5f2bcdff1c970976c3d2c273451ba3
67118 F20110320_AABCRF bond_a_Page_071.jpg
47f9eed41b096a8a390254011c4b11ec
3b8f5b0f2844cbcf4c6d9a2b6d0a389158ac88bd
F20110320_AABCQR bond_a_Page_022.tif
afbbebc7c021800bc986137c5dd74a6c
5dfa173b6d0c0a3ada4564b133f735de0e3da2c3
1044222 F20110320_AABDRL bond_a_Page_092.jp2
ae8fd6816d287cf343c201e00c84b873
dbb783319d49eea9ca813b8e7129da67ea40cfeb
105015 F20110320_AABDQW bond_a_Page_035.jp2
d9f33509e280b2bdbf1260428d2ae7c0
8d7788b319518c33db12b79dc5dd803a26acf2ba
6382 F20110320_AABCRG bond_a_Page_073thm.jpg
a97a68526523f932708b1e800dd402af
8ce4607011cc79609f40905cb91f63852f5ed940
2621 F20110320_AABCQS bond_a_Page_072.txt
afce220603cf535349fb11b58bf836f7
0f427fe7aae66067585a76fddb816710b68a61ec
48908 F20110320_AABDSA bond_a_Page_130.jp2
8e885af58182099f2d930db1c54ca9ae
f46c085ed956672193a437a44647fb8b039c6ed8
1051976 F20110320_AABDRM bond_a_Page_093.jp2
96c59ea6e185e90eea3830bfa770a78d
3b76ed38c9c4a6255d6538d9522e95eaa416979a
105588 F20110320_AABDQX bond_a_Page_036.jp2
486647b405d58cca1e663a85f14b78cf
b48dd5198943291cedbbed48f3c7e9e17c8c1e18
1051956 F20110320_AABCRH bond_a_Page_089.jp2
522d71ad8a1d2c7313cf44222f530cbb
d6b056eccd6ed2441e5ced0ec8afcbce1d4208a4
29562 F20110320_AABCQT bond_a_Page_174.pro
50e923f38f3fc1f507b1adcf55556269
dd167caf9078b97982ff0af5dfefd95ef962ca9d
33916 F20110320_AABDSB bond_a_Page_134.jp2
f5e21db1b3972dc13743e482c574babd
5921859ced928c4ec840f4570060e50c527a332c
930629 F20110320_AABDRN bond_a_Page_096.jp2
9fdfa8ed22b9a6c98eed3b491b477f2d
8be2b675ad00ba3b8dca5d9eb6f17a0de3748e9e
98289 F20110320_AABDQY bond_a_Page_047.jp2
7dc0f7030b350f3f4ea23825f64aff52
7cbc8d7bd9c748bb4a4baa237d854bb1e73f7408
33491 F20110320_AABCRI bond_a_Page_067.pro
fa57538b44c8c63dc094a8f073593ff0
c841af71bb97165fa607a51f8614d57d95aac696
11280 F20110320_AABCQU bond_a_Page_169.QC.jpg
5824d7ecfc6fca140e35af98787d3dd0
53f12bf37132a5ee596b9a2dbe5557d2046a1122
52057 F20110320_AABDSC bond_a_Page_137.jp2
339d18720857921048e2a24bcb34e126
e0822cb5ccfe05cbb2473d0eec7f56455c3ec661
44609 F20110320_AABDRO bond_a_Page_102.jp2
fbfdf4a9972f52a2b37c64596984c676
403ca601a8146bc74a5dd6e276cd0f6cf33a4648
111915 F20110320_AABDQZ bond_a_Page_053.jp2
e64bcf95f1ae8551c12457efa2d6c290
75445e4844af4dbeb5800d1d0526b74000f05dbf
21096 F20110320_AABCRJ bond_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
3533eea8dc45d457cb60e742aa330b99
cfaf5651ff2207636177711e7a7c79b907c48489
53537 F20110320_AABDSD bond_a_Page_138.jp2
4e5266fa2d7e2539739b03985647682c
e77b0dbfeb0ec8f502b76c32e454e38a89132f20
102180 F20110320_AABDRP bond_a_Page_104.jp2
9af718476d129b5e5a016f6bf3cc2a4a
095128e1740e98be5442bd70e005de63c204ed62
19651 F20110320_AABCRK bond_a_Page_133.pro
ed963edaa6e0f1ad1ce93e372ef8a9ee
05f026056f2a733107beefb89f8f540a262f4de6
F20110320_AABCQV bond_a_Page_102.tif
e03891756aeb08d540dfe03ed4fee5d3
177301d3cf4db2bd097b7f5675c1736a46c962ea
55055 F20110320_AABDSE bond_a_Page_140.jp2
4357d7bcdf0700f036a26e63ac19cb65
e8156e66083ec55e55675e2d134d8ced8a77032a
105697 F20110320_AABDRQ bond_a_Page_105.jp2
267599c8bbf0028add8c44af3fde4ae0
7a3c041e87451062679e54b62aeff0ec2f2b6392
70960 F20110320_AABCRL bond_a_Page_030.jpg
beacbbdc1bd6064acf0c6ffffb49fc2d
f26ce461ef72fe15a29275202a50d311ae779f27
18416 F20110320_AABCQW bond_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
030abe651b5f70a69ae95b82c8382015
5b6217e7b4a122588bb556d8042cc4bb397e5605
58559 F20110320_AABDSF bond_a_Page_149.jp2
c02fbea28be1aed9ba388b68ab798c15
e1c710c68d92b80107a1a88823352696504693c6
106047 F20110320_AABDRR bond_a_Page_106.jp2
a2199a3748d95ecd6544ba4d625a107e
3fce367658890f7a124688148d5d25ad461e66ce
28339 F20110320_AABCSA bond_a_Page_153.jpg
7fd2895da723a9a40fd7c63613eae178
f503a7bd382c86af0b9c68363ecf5628e0db20e5
5127 F20110320_AABCRM bond_a_Page_080thm.jpg
e500c8ef424930e42e1eb178102db51d
5e0b7f8d935ca511525f62b0f41d4047b315c9a2
111265 F20110320_AABCQX bond_a_Page_069.jp2
52a87a0d1fa24c5f02bf0e7b08f63838
429ef044d9416e02b90f70c8933e2e3d5c8e4562
56727 F20110320_AABDSG bond_a_Page_150.jp2
62d15714feaadbb16b15585a0505b502
2e70e9be8e30f61864eff8b063bb73f363be025a
101305 F20110320_AABDRS bond_a_Page_107.jp2
3043d33b2362715b1de520dcf7042bf9
783b89b07b12680509f23e67eb25dc4ca7c3103e
32017 F20110320_AABCSB bond_a_Page_132.pro
2da09aa12ed917fc18f4377b13d4d655
d82556c3ae884f3f5340df511cd1020db9ebf6a2
41802 F20110320_AABCRN bond_a_Page_164.jpg
f81e1b1360529f4b9993b741131d654e
54248c48c0cf849f1a9647dac790f673beeec6ac
6440 F20110320_AABCQY bond_a_Page_034thm.jpg
d172d81b93bf18b8da2bca7391caf63c
3b4fc223e600d4a8610f818bb9cf129fd61405a3
39560 F20110320_AABDSH bond_a_Page_158.jp2
9b541997dd5e09298a61be72787c5709
dd61d427d3ad49925ec30c66959309c42b039382
106601 F20110320_AABDRT bond_a_Page_109.jp2
d023ae4c8763af41348df4775bb592aa
12b164fd1eb191494a1804a5bf9208c90da4fc14
F20110320_AABCSC bond_a_Page_101.tif
bc4c300ddac9c312a965e6bcb89cfbbc
a5469c604ddb0cc5c1aa367cc0299e21f31ec0e5
31097 F20110320_AABCRO bond_a_Page_160.pro
7026cf05baf26fbaa949b6e8ceb1e5a9
b4466ebdbb863682b0101e890b85fd50dc50a418
6241 F20110320_AABCQZ bond_a_Page_038thm.jpg
3f7758d564b28f0e74ed6b78b90af700
957b3c558092d8c6ef659518a7caac97968d242c
54978 F20110320_AABDSI bond_a_Page_159.jp2
b48d67c9067d08c00b008d0865629bc7
d9ea434b0b9d73a3f3007ea0af59ac8972b14d35
731680 F20110320_AABDRU bond_a_Page_114.jp2
24a770258c13b9d1f7c3961a7aba0809
531fa909e1f8ceefeeac247921e2ef100416d3d7
6557 F20110320_AABCSD bond_a_Page_082thm.jpg
a422edcd94840dc009a619f1b3d7c981
3fc3846c0afedb392ee66b87b0663a5e5f205b0b
107428 F20110320_AABCRP bond_a_Page_031.jp2
3a2e448baeb0eb9a25e5a6de0b43c8cb
06f0087c13d2e178bed6d0f047ac142bc73e64bb
55201 F20110320_AABDSJ bond_a_Page_160.jp2
ada8fbf737790bf4b3e6b028fed1f00f
1462a82befec0af1581432ec040f94933238a5c6
30407 F20110320_AABCSE bond_a_Page_117.pro
249726b4defc96c866687e8ee22dfcec
95d9005a181538c50eda5034f469d8b09f42857b
F20110320_AABCRQ bond_a_Page_174.tif
5a0a063e70dd4b7f707006d4d0b35102
0936929e1c2a289cf4da8cabc503f7f46abc1c1f
25137 F20110320_AABDSK bond_a_Page_161.jp2
211778e654828fde5c689d766705cb59
2fca88f3ece5386b1e73ffb7647018832f83a97a
75870 F20110320_AABDRV bond_a_Page_115.jp2
604b1429264ccc349da8452e3e4f8014
34af1821021d910940486a0f54456b403fe92bb2
F20110320_AABCSF bond_a_Page_054.tif
7f1f9ed8c9cc68916aa5a6fd62559ae0
e9d36fc3eaf6e2146d3fc3b24fa9799ed11e0239
2139 F20110320_AABCRR bond_a_Page_069.txt
e8444b7a54cdf013578dfc1aedec95a1
a93d6b737da6d59b7c571952fb9e91d92124049b
51626 F20110320_AABDSL bond_a_Page_169.jp2
60aa900a64b64db05df93f4c860b4040
ecd061b07e0e97ac42e80081bb65350476fc0f0b
79377 F20110320_AABDRW bond_a_Page_119.jp2
e008d4c49e61330bc33e1a44f7e59588
7258e34a654c27e632dabeb77724b0d5397f249a
95522 F20110320_AABCSG bond_a_Page_074.jp2
7c80dccc1b3d038605bb14b848c18280
d8f8460335dec354d197246678d53ca77f05cd9b
30541 F20110320_AABCRS bond_a_Page_127.pro
af6792b3ee6aeb374e543d1b5e5de448
b020083084543410a9557dedbdcea1a6674bb0c3
6063 F20110320_AABDTA bond_a_Page_040thm.jpg
3c2bf470dede7d00c3fd054c8cdf67ad
6f592969494c5bd61833d591e09279d97e40d682
55663 F20110320_AABDSM bond_a_Page_170.jp2
3dc7da11934dfdc09aef84a0010e84d3
16c43d810e9f1d7b700c152b9e4e4c926bd6cf78
93156 F20110320_AABDRX bond_a_Page_120.jp2
59c7edfb4275a47854c5511c2858cae6
632a0554b7b96dce206cadf64718fb797736eb02
F20110320_AABCSH bond_a_Page_151.tif
df583a9dc04a9221de538d50f2942817
fb2240c33462c5cfb6cded5ed2abfd3816c201ab
6602 F20110320_AABCRT bond_a_Page_048thm.jpg
bd78165c1ba07ef02944f6fd1975fc84
aa325fd6fad79070985e846fb1d67a3e939509f0
6950 F20110320_AABDTB bond_a_Page_041thm.jpg
37d233cc88b8a0d81c5c7974cde57b08
36edc8ded29752e715ecefcc4800fbe3226f4def
54653 F20110320_AABDSN bond_a_Page_174.jp2
558c50b57a18ae239a1bb9d84b0ec15b
4c3f885988b6bccf2c94c4c840eec0f70b92b7aa
36666 F20110320_AABDRY bond_a_Page_128.jp2
db7d09159df36aa1f9e122f603f00c6b
c418e946fcd95e1e1f43367c1ca417aded3684e6
1738 F20110320_AABCSI bond_a_Page_054.txt
7a4e61d93bad9c7b702dfa7a7179377a
2d0c165754d2a8472331a0ed9b78a681117e8f48
6221 F20110320_AABCRU bond_a_Page_057thm.jpg
5d500959ee6202ecd1a36e8b75f3ac0b
a877d5af33ff233e61cb2efd049eb03ffadf4c0b
6640 F20110320_AABDTC bond_a_Page_046thm.jpg
23c913a8c6194097e82303cd28cb6e45
9f9d0a47c39caf352a816d652f34ceadc00cc843
1051968 F20110320_AABDSO bond_a_Page_183.jp2
a6a6cc9e83c52ecace2d9aba5ebb600e
154d66ed5ad210313547dd3f281cc563c5674eee
37314 F20110320_AABDRZ bond_a_Page_129.jp2
f0d89ad0e37e5139593aa399b1de5765
a26b5ddf5cf48f3785d347f619b3c8ac46fa3c0f
107988 F20110320_AABCSJ bond_a_Page_029.jp2
e15f256ac86d77dfcfa9b1f5a89a301e
03c2bf70804e5b49a0081982d264d982f4a8188c
39851 F20110320_AABCRV bond_a_Page_150.jpg
9bd26ba7bfa6198443f762a9cba2f512
20ac3c7198660fb2d66706252d17ba81454dba70
5779 F20110320_AABDTD bond_a_Page_051thm.jpg
8c72f062aaabd86b837b3759d76e685f
060b65bea119f14d9e238aa3d669a1f1e788821d
1051980 F20110320_AABDSP bond_a_Page_186.jp2
d2055e332ad18b685d401e9ba3853d6c
6772850472149116f8d96560dce5f255c7790abb
F20110320_AABCSK bond_a_Page_171.tif
3bb1881e06d416d46acd671d87d4c63d
a5ee7da25b1be97c8484fd834f242030d232f55a
6672 F20110320_AABDTE bond_a_Page_053thm.jpg
6e687518f68a3fd8687da037e9948b46
9b8002cf73aef7eeaff7f1e669e9cfeba9b72dd9
539130 F20110320_AABDSQ bond_a_Page_188.jp2
7549f6edb01eff0adb908396d7da4471
2205d8d38661d163581dc326b1c7902327d7ac73
1716 F20110320_AABCSL bond_a_Page_026.txt
0cbb2c81f6bae3de443a26ed54b54fdf
fe0da778cd258d19e73c28110f835cb2d3d4f6a7
1859 F20110320_AABCRW bond_a_Page_032.txt
885a9d09eef9c0be73bc3cad3b97b5cf
f0cf85388444908f93d4d7c1ef73a3499f43cadf
6213 F20110320_AABDTF bond_a_Page_059thm.jpg
30b74a4b3eea4630188652b86fd256c2
1c2dcbb80666bebb6ae9931c6206772f0fd7e0fa
5644 F20110320_AABDSR bond_a_Page_005thm.jpg
b5e7074a5d532e4204df8d481235b76a
daf834bad38d6f19cd9401faec6c3a0503e62007
27359 F20110320_AABCSM bond_a_Page_080.pro
63651104eea9d5b112c523e9b4d71cef
3725ffd80d7329d78e18f01b5918999b316b102e
47964 F20110320_AABCRX bond_a_Page_104.pro
748dbf762438e2e7b173c3ea39947b95
511fa62813acd533326058d294f6184f09bdf3bf
36907 F20110320_AABCTA bond_a_Page_124.jpg
89653fab8521fc1f0751f83b660db655
9a2e3e7ad598211acc89cdb17baf408328419f4c
6243 F20110320_AABDTG bond_a_Page_060thm.jpg
aeb8e9fe0e700c4eba5604b06e1b5159
c183e7c518240be5d7989f1f737c3618c3be6f74
5269 F20110320_AABDSS bond_a_Page_014thm.jpg
727b51aa1d0e16ebaae8451e5597cbab
3c8257904b7cfbc5b05fdb98b0426f3034c614af
107299 F20110320_AABCSN bond_a_Page_043.jp2
212d2e2c2718d1c6e4dbc46cc588a12c
8e47f1967085a1a78d125a308d2ae1c067710a2f
3380 F20110320_AABCRY bond_a_Page_049thm.jpg
f6828217aa46b072a3a4f821bd548d91
602105b4e546b83b3e40167982fb4026f2b703f5
2027 F20110320_AABCTB bond_a_Page_029.txt
2380f38b32f59ca578a9669a7538d685
df9f61b59a1edfeb652ff53a06ece9fa68c083c3
4871 F20110320_AABDTH bond_a_Page_061thm.jpg
e6fe78e6605649b9374ed1e27362c946
736a7954a35c78dc581da0fa392e23b0cbcd8ed5
6582 F20110320_AABDST bond_a_Page_020thm.jpg
f39c328efe31815cd8b1183c0c2785bc
6d9a56416d9ea2a604e38f9dc9762e99df1c1742
F20110320_AABCSO bond_a_Page_059.tif
3e150f86c3a3c17c835578c0e5a8bfd1
601119d49c05abfe3e1c0842738add7edd32a6a9
44272 F20110320_AABCRZ bond_a_Page_040.pro
a4a31f2e49e4c16376f0514c06d5ac9f
04f7001e6324d03c2056f25fd2083d3d2f07f458
61758 F20110320_AABCTC bond_a_Page_076.jpg
889b274bf1bf7b6b48d719d3317f311f
29fa10ee3e3ae49fb9c990e6205faafcc8be612f
6097 F20110320_AABDTI bond_a_Page_063thm.jpg
5fcacaeed85b6a6b1e1d3fd22d6ea4f3
f401326e45327011e7878fb3222882e3476d2b47
6538 F20110320_AABDSU bond_a_Page_022thm.jpg
f4737772e2402f0250fb061e7a76c930
2bd3935de886e52348085577cc7835bc475ba2fe
F20110320_AABCSP bond_a_Page_015.tif
cd3f61f7d6cabd64386d3cf442d51c60
e3faa96c32c0b7f0e91f1e8f5ecfb224b904a863
54008 F20110320_AABCTD bond_a_Page_066.pro
65e9769d632d9cc9d0feefebc3b72d36
a030a12d3f60919a20a1ec7e852003e76a2ab48b
5341 F20110320_AABDTJ bond_a_Page_067thm.jpg
04ce05bd9437296426dc575500db0997
b9b1833c327fa31a4a7e0de5b0addb1d97ef2787
4794 F20110320_AABDSV bond_a_Page_024thm.jpg
051547ffa6abe49d40e5f20c1989cf70
0b693a4c0c9a911362eb2d68afd928b79eff6966
1892 F20110320_AABCSQ bond_a_Page_172.txt
cd8980af5abb716b3b45a672eb5c1370
94fcfc80a2a56a481c40c45db84f4d644617f429
F20110320_AABCTE bond_a_Page_153.tif
ca34af7659ef2beadefffe88c401df8c
f03b74eb796a6d85cf3533f1800c48e29856c73a
6501 F20110320_AABDTK bond_a_Page_069thm.jpg
c6f3b9ab40f8466a5d40ce53d335ba99
684558844c3324c96311299c61a78a083f0a46d4
1569 F20110320_AABCSR bond_a_Page_050.txt
53148da58c9f57c5d84403a2b96b46e7
ee4919e1f8edbb847806fd971e11e2d5d1cffd31
19385 F20110320_AABCTF bond_a_Page_102.pro
2075cf8ad3827568ca4d975198acffdb
37171facdef31353b380499b3f497f33b6dfa7ed
7451 F20110320_AABDTL bond_a_Page_072thm.jpg
fe048f445259d2235457af4db29c19ce
8f73f6d2a22c009b0b900548f3653ffb765a8f36
6821 F20110320_AABDSW bond_a_Page_025thm.jpg
91abe72d1881309a5ffc0a018ce4265f
3592dbf577275248606e707f58b0eddfed2e9319
39159 F20110320_AABCSS bond_a_Page_159.jpg
14dacfed41a57a75e617b2a6d1f8e40d
92604bf33f52915f317b655f81643cd4f73f8034
11789 F20110320_AABCTG bond_a_Page_132.QC.jpg
bc6427cccfad4ec1941035d36fe52ad8
6a90a04d8633b1962f7a673091bf8703ea89761b
3750 F20110320_AABDUA bond_a_Page_127thm.jpg
105779ec7c271daf2b226993ab96060a
ac3b70bfbf7a40dd0fd6b903f903af834ef260e9
7034 F20110320_AABDTM bond_a_Page_075thm.jpg
f6f8a992e4a414b02927aa71c66326e7
493df8e3ceb7873fb2442eaa7bc5cf016c23a932
6600 F20110320_AABDSX bond_a_Page_029thm.jpg
ded971c8388f0cb779ab48527517649c
c9f706eb5567485673cf6936a7abb711e238fe18
1379 F20110320_AABCST bond_a_Page_138.txt
289f28b9f6e5997803803471eed89a38
0fa47c1170bdd49709d656460e31961dc5f68f3e
25271604 F20110320_AABCTH bond_a_Page_094.tif
925acacb6503cc5c73fe1eec9f24bd63
3f95890a1229bdebbb69ece3696cd564cfb5089a
3571 F20110320_AABDUB bond_a_Page_130thm.jpg
0522e90013ba87fb047a8f98fcd8cdba
28c52c244d6f9bc8f78f6c49035050908b659e75
7044 F20110320_AABDTN bond_a_Page_077thm.jpg
9dcb87857556e2da9558d3336c8b3b42
5127970fdb8b5d334a62a56b46ce6a008c41da81
F20110320_AABDSY bond_a_Page_035thm.jpg
872b7793d20a7418722d56b5c5a489ab
745bcf63e8ccf6466e19ce5e7be50307151054fc
90845 F20110320_AABCSU bond_a_Page_054.jp2
6a57118f80490e12eb961f71618137ce
b5ae280fb68f0b18c93918a278be2c410d242a3f
10913 F20110320_AABCTI bond_a_Page_124.QC.jpg
127a1966d834c4118d9cbe47fd294d86
d5a75d9e8eaa8f5797b23aed6ea648cb6d706c1c
3326 F20110320_AABDUC bond_a_Page_131thm.jpg
eb7475f1cb6572e100adc5dc2080eada
9898f250ae1d15f965a8e4f91e627f261f72e8d7
5819 F20110320_AABDTO bond_a_Page_081thm.jpg
7ae92e8051136e75e8d224e3a53fd271
43c319d3d3b824caa4af60fd7835d979bc9d15a3
6541 F20110320_AABDSZ bond_a_Page_037thm.jpg
4efd59eab14f5a14ee476742c9090a04
f28526879216d38bcfe69397f9e341506cc3995a
11473 F20110320_AABCSV bond_a_Page_174.QC.jpg
8e3dec358c9c839f5e9b45e78e250f6d
5572fef6c6963698e71a188a44ff8435d965b63d
1051933 F20110320_AABCTJ bond_a_Page_085.jp2
e150434be58bcac209f2042affa7111a
2d882e53c1a8d11b8d5a71c09361c76bdf282a06
2648 F20110320_AABDUD bond_a_Page_134thm.jpg
94db8ffd10f666d78fd64484a89c504b
cc588e7e9f2c390796311feeb64197b96bd66bbe
6152 F20110320_AABDTP bond_a_Page_083thm.jpg
9b2af8336674c8d2662ee2dced3eeb3e
84865e618f7543c9e348cb09922eda84bcf53644
1831 F20110320_AABCSW bond_a_Page_107.txt
9b91bdb4b09107ca92913ff300206846
84486e002d76f35d7074e58866809fde095509a4
451 F20110320_AABCTK bond_a_Page_124.txt
dea1f5ab1fe85baa7ec0275a8b3d4216
92d8a5c33258d5d1d1018b919bd0f4d47279cbf2
3833 F20110320_AABDUE bond_a_Page_146thm.jpg
4149b072a2b0ab2d4679d35cb322058d
9c497221fd9f60f379092eac165e75bebc70b1f8
5822 F20110320_AABDTQ bond_a_Page_086thm.jpg
2c8a5fab5bdb65713955b285f9a027f7
9b0786826b8f3f4e31699a32168380f9d76a4921
4139 F20110320_AABCTL bond_a_Page_143thm.jpg
77f097c64a3e2aba035fb49e1c6aea8c
d27db09eb131d6045d74bd5c27514c6ffc01476d
4004 F20110320_AABDUF bond_a_Page_147thm.jpg
5664bdf01507557a494ac9840e8b381c
488e7e06e7e4ac948f5705b652421097192a2507
6519 F20110320_AABDTR bond_a_Page_101thm.jpg
2b05df0b3e9d598cb722e00fa76b246b
1424dd275d46f96e5c32d14586f3c670511593f8
41498 F20110320_AABCUA bond_a_Page_152.jp2
9e6c51207daf8dfc51fa89ebe5ce75b4
1b703674f0ab8730ddee6c1d2566f489b56f04ce
6325 F20110320_AABCTM bond_a_Page_104thm.jpg
abf5f8eb16afe876439505227796cc5a
8d4856edc77fe0e5e1664c4e481c9a3b5b275d46
3812 F20110320_AABCSX bond_a_Page_140thm.jpg
193d6ddbd480aeaa3a837f6f866677f0
3361ba8fdcf13450d6bef386037a73f4b0430f75
2638 F20110320_AABDUG bond_a_Page_153thm.jpg
85a91fb40606c67f71131da4616305c5
384996513014598332930c521c77eee43f4a7de9
6524 F20110320_AABDTS bond_a_Page_105thm.jpg
10a47d6032a4d522e7c4d8c124c2b3f7
c8eaa6db0fb16808401689b6ecdcb25c101d2fbe
2003 F20110320_AABCUB bond_a_Page_045.txt
d0da6e33c568aa3582f04460d7eee22a
02ee8d2c62b8f97903683bbbf66db03d4a7f3ac4
45518 F20110320_AABCTN bond_a_Page_047.pro
5b6e9cbea7c91ac75664acb03081d2a0
e963faeb36bdc9aab676704c0d36543c3bc074c6
61834 F20110320_AABCSY bond_a_Page_023.jpg
d59191e2242e092ded4b9cdc79d22935
f6bbad0c13d4a6735adccbff3708d327aaa1cbea
3122 F20110320_AABDUH bond_a_Page_154thm.jpg
17f83bcaeb9f8e5d7103e08f41f04662
b8ce91af53ce4a951119c313402e119329350939
6484 F20110320_AABDTT bond_a_Page_106thm.jpg
afe473ba3271d569f2cb626c6c38dc5b
b17c969bf7dd1a6be852807296164ae5948b3acf
F20110320_AABCUC bond_a_Page_180.tif
a5434b106e2836371079d874b6ebd81a
ba11266a099d8391d9373d4d73e27bf2a6e9185c
32725 F20110320_AABCTO bond_a_Page_155.pro
4e1f87ffac9cca9cc0b4ec31c5e224ea
cc3ef2f8a03a9e2c63fdd75ffc6be9569316632a
1805 F20110320_AABCSZ bond_a_Page_112.txt
9c74834e8cf1b6d29a41523cda5491dd
98f2eca6865947760e752eab4698fa0bd6dc2926
3990 F20110320_AABDUI bond_a_Page_156thm.jpg
41befd9d2a62466d633db0497b8d859f
b6f1835256010e91e29b0ce8bd491da52841cd45
6521 F20110320_AABDTU bond_a_Page_109thm.jpg
a8f2926f032c316e43cf19107dd95c40
dc5d2a83b39bafd60dbd54325a17f106de1351cf
46112 F20110320_AABCUD bond_a_Page_107.pro
9880f71a2d0cac52d3fdb0b504d514f2
fd320f062ef8974f52572ae857d1f29e009e1aa3
F20110320_AABCTP bond_a_Page_183.tif
c9f52c717d332c29b374f7a15417ef49
301d94eb554d643862cda97f1a5db08ec57c4663
4372 F20110320_AABDUJ bond_a_Page_157thm.jpg
89e74bdea0d321d201fd4b165f6d5d40
ef868bc9599f20e2ef011852db008ebf6f4ea64a
2988 F20110320_AABDTV bond_a_Page_114thm.jpg
737e91c3d755e3e56e5735fb6dad999c
7a2b5a1b5b216367c76ebe0dd2dc9c1943f0f032
5817 F20110320_AABCUE bond_a_Page_054thm.jpg
b52217ddc86edfd5990f095c2fe30565
b17ac725ac927a6f74b31bfa7d80d009bd52de8f
12072 F20110320_AABCTQ bond_a_Page_148.QC.jpg
e1c08d01e2bb895b07c9b44958216ddb
71fa96dfb82e636ac7e3694a3ec21ae4b2182ea4
3755 F20110320_AABDUK bond_a_Page_159thm.jpg
2ad8f2b784863927821fea8d67c409eb
a729fe9392f6c197644b308511c4760eb0495f77
4624 F20110320_AABDTW bond_a_Page_115thm.jpg
634de245e559a219f4be4bf4b967029e
bb87e4e1ffa6ae52236c099e91b0ef0db0e07955
991 F20110320_AABCUF bond_a_Page_134.txt
e957c10481e7e5e5407cc8eeeab8a611
00b7e971f2786e1cb41a61900e4d84beb64e176b
25176 F20110320_AABCTR bond_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
c259a6fc2503528522ed779f03b9bf4b
f89acb4545e2819527ddc6b5177bcd1a8b67d1f1
2221 F20110320_AABDUL bond_a_Page_161thm.jpg
807553e0da6ae10add56e349f1fa860f
93a989f9b31cdb16b3eb7d228b1499c6b00bd94f
17241 F20110320_AABCUG bond_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
5f9a34d63c656fba9384c3e642640a59
225129a8ab4860a31784b7096d88b4ba59d887db
1051973 F20110320_AABCTS bond_a_Page_185.jp2
5165fb485f918a5bad76353e1daf8dd0
225620627fec4e5cc5f20821e178da2575d4ac4c
3491 F20110320_AABDUM bond_a_Page_163thm.jpg
0ca430ec188a61bd0a72757056266126
47b1067a4d4db818089d1a15bf4306db808c9f3e
4389 F20110320_AABDTX bond_a_Page_122thm.jpg
6f55cccbee60d8b60f895e9092edb01a
71417eb71fdeb2485ce323073270f78630f0709c
18399 F20110320_AABCUH bond_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
773dede99e864611ae25015e48607c07
eb461766b4d53152734c5f01d425d153fae04b8b
5143 F20110320_AABCTT bond_a_Page_003thm.jpg
b579b7caa8161a6b18c7e67b6f24c76c
02b133f489cb95f7a8bf41eb7382c7d387bef79f
4026 F20110320_AABDUN bond_a_Page_164thm.jpg
da25c5ed0aa2d52db469de898715d76c
d731fbe5f1a62d45c8d847f7284d73b71bc04ce2
3781 F20110320_AABDTY bond_a_Page_123thm.jpg
d889876c94f75ff202f2a0e491766ea0
85edf9be1a6fa8e4399b644dd93b9cce3427beb0
20990 F20110320_AABCUI bond_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
86e496c43b600b43d8b79313ab587391
b0025e885672b5c2ea79134654d178d1ca9a15bc
12239 F20110320_AABCTU bond_a_Page_180.QC.jpg
3eeb555405aa02256fbe43af1649128c
87b28d712797ab335caf5f7673f6f0fa48691d6f
3505 F20110320_AABDUO bond_a_Page_165thm.jpg
ba733c884295d3a3849e6282fe1a552d
12851ff603a8eedfd055e0b9ed540cb80964ecd3
3005 F20110320_AABDTZ bond_a_Page_126thm.jpg
eb7fc6142584772e4751684f122a53f1
a0e680d5d6d160a7aa2224c2ca55629adac4261f
20479 F20110320_AABCUJ bond_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
b6896ae800f012710a8ef5c54b4fe652
38d3d67765fd2b7fac59a73347309ad0f1902cd8
F20110320_AABCTV bond_a_Page_065.tif
b67dcca914b7fede69e500920eb120a2
da486ec66c1d4b83fb369f7b1d8d5d2bd9dce92c
3474 F20110320_AABDUP bond_a_Page_168thm.jpg
ecd34806348a435aa3c4db39376be1cd
61134361d61207f6b9fb30877e42a361c2cd4cf4
44873 F20110320_AABCUK bond_a_Page_074.pro
a5635641c3de81ef2af53068526ce6e2
627e35fba91554e3ae049f1b7438a482d290a016
37201 F20110320_AABCTW bond_a_Page_008.jpg
4241078800ef6763cdc44dacd1c9e106
b8fe3d9089904777b5dbb27584b41628fc16a4a9
3921 F20110320_AABDUQ bond_a_Page_170thm.jpg
7b82f85d6c454fcdd33eeecc4e2a1edb
289128c0fcbab2f9923d2756ca5801e0eec2536a
F20110320_AABCUL bond_a_Page_128.tif
7e007ee7668d083f3154622e9ea11df5
5bbea99606dc6cd771819a487f7f7321df8bb66c
F20110320_AABCTX bond_a_Page_146.tif
b9430c7f884b4a29926e06dedddb5f04
a096720f86aba0a8398a60afcc31a19e464c7e8d
4407 F20110320_AABDUR bond_a_Page_172thm.jpg
113f9007f67c15fa08243e1d53c1a25d
013c17bcbf6e9883c1eca3b6c2cc9ba911511738
2224 F20110320_AABCUM bond_a_Page_089.txt
5ad496f1c8d99e71f55b3d85c49f41ae
51d170cc2bbed72d27c5fecd1fbaa7df400ae78c
47485 F20110320_AABCVA bond_a_Page_098.pro
d6b1a48a3b06a7676599f8af01ee17e6
41d566b63b0833fa2cad2ff6a7c7ebceb4a3dc62
3935 F20110320_AABDUS bond_a_Page_174thm.jpg
2753de9c9e73dcaa5b2b08216960da05
232703b73c00aa78eb8a7cff7042d02e5d0839bf
F20110320_AABCUN bond_a_Page_141.tif
d2287180cedb40fe5549fff411190726
4d7e0aff507ed9e092c0557f2d279d88aa376ece
71372 F20110320_AABCTY bond_a_Page_109.jpg
c9c911e3fd6464b156dd53549427330e
60974c5f1485260ff5dae28eaac1297eefdee8a7
75568 F20110320_AABCVB bond_a_Page_070.jpg
18bba5369d47e66f520c91a989a628dd
8b0d664f4725ce2fb4f8389336eaa6edf9e4b3de
3837 F20110320_AABDUT bond_a_Page_181thm.jpg
62aba08000d237dd7fce3a7efc1953f0
9ead163dc8b699d91cf963740e1ba4c6fa753cac
55412 F20110320_AABCUO bond_a_Page_116.pro
cf1757d7ee6210afc6334875ff16fec3
6bbd95f156d341102e5951d18587978ba55116dc
F20110320_AABCTZ bond_a_Page_187.tif
5edf277ae98fc5beb5f0fbcc68b4005f
ed53b3fa322695150967bdbecdc6817201415ade
54754 F20110320_AABCVC bond_a_Page_136.jp2
c34d78581f63eac4098b32c980c7c0ec
8c3e3f85a814b92ebf7e31dde6268063f94f2ffd
6936 F20110320_AABDUU bond_a_Page_185thm.jpg
2ca164d6cc357a4d481523da0b79e291
170300df174d03d987100a77a1261885c55ea37b
71983 F20110320_AABCUP bond_a_Page_039.jpg
693640843f36d35c093b38dde03c9dd4
d235d155d6d8e261454d98a73c8d3b6c84bd1730
2615 F20110320_AABCVD bond_a_Page_066.txt
9cb17ff7d79ed0fd66e853d5426cdc1e
d893fddb1d898f8de9625ae90ea7bec1c76708bf
6952 F20110320_AABDUV bond_a_Page_187thm.jpg
21183a7c095a08d4c2b37de26d8f07e3
9a98da4dc7b5c762422fd2720a906ba5a5e1874c
21164 F20110320_AABCUQ bond_a_Page_125.jpg
9ef9124cc135cd4a5f4cd556c14660f7
64851b0e063f133837fe15fd2167b6ba40671abb
110753 F20110320_AABCVE bond_a_Page_108.jp2
d47f247d7e6887307d009ae821c64f30
6a795b3a4c356c1ef250b7ef8d990c66429702c2
215454 F20110320_AABDUW UFE0009440_00001.mets FULL
c9bff321cf1aa10238b39d4e3a031dab
dbf441f981aae0ab86cb70de467818ea4d0017de
12396 F20110320_AABCUR bond_a_Page_149.QC.jpg
cb4f64e64d3a32a865ce2a07b58a2d4f
13e5e78bf39ad2c46400bb666b72dc1428aad5b6
14571 F20110320_AABCVF bond_a_Page_161.pro
6b418270f4f8e3f78b75549d49e44dcb
5494c382c9e145a4b3c4f70d5022169bcc8cd780
F20110320_AABCUS bond_a_Page_031.tif
a8a520b9d2e10052d55c77ccd3eb7d7e
aa464eb05de33cd8ea1d20add0a36f08104f5ad5
F20110320_AABCVG bond_a_Page_001.tif
33f569e3a9f43b8f958e7ab3aaf073c6
3015a36b5a7b58380433a3c39cfda51abdef3b97
31773 F20110320_AABCUT bond_a_Page_178.pro
138fc065cf00a79870f5be87ce59f50a
6e53cb09069b24f33093922d76d40280716ce280
54279 F20110320_AABCVH bond_a_Page_070.pro
5fb9914b7a37a48dc3d59df6d9870b64
a85cd70865cd9cbde960aecf6087176ef12bc3d5
39564 F20110320_AABCUU bond_a_Page_177.jpg
a3884edf3ec6ccf7ef14ce88b5c3f959
4bc0847d27984b5786f9e67d479001a04df40ed0
1537 F20110320_AABCVI bond_a_Page_140.txt
024c21f75ed433bce55e44bf4e74ff7d
791de965c96984c854e1ecbaaaf215fb138eceaa
3851 F20110320_AABCUV bond_a_Page_176thm.jpg
fa00898aa2e5e7ca409bbeea0063ce17
3aa0fe37cd1ed3ed2094c22c4308276c43f05cd3
35700 F20110320_AABCVJ bond_a_Page_168.jpg
672b067665978a40ed79cdd2ab370706
710f1d5a0d639ddc225faf7c0a8aa79c43950da4
F20110320_AABCUW bond_a_Page_173.tif
966ff3239414e321059f2590c1a3ff56
9ba9290f0ec7ffb96431d6d2de754fd1609da7fa
23021 F20110320_AABCVK bond_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
43e67d51cf74e25c3468a9072dec2e90
cfd92d3aa538b0a710b3131282b02e7d1050ebf9
F20110320_AABCUX bond_a_Page_105.tif
db49629a9c1bf4ef7d631e22e2d7aa42
ecd03041207cf160c4a435a7291c028f694e29a2
107997 F20110320_AABCVL bond_a_Page_101.jp2
da70b206ff9fca31fc8415b5e30fe332
e4bb60186947075710f41814f1fe2402f4c52d41
62945 F20110320_AABCUY bond_a_Page_100.jpg
cf512a7814abbd104c5da5ef10692274
a8351e35c1ea8529b3211b0270b16ff81715a9a3
54780 F20110320_AABCWA bond_a_Page_077.pro
f8c01c2a22257cd50d19bd2e55c27092
08e1faf089c462b3d8cf0eca0a287237977f91a7
F20110320_AABCVM bond_a_Page_147.tif
b664da88b966254cd1ae0b502a0d0e15
740fe49a57571a0dd055f3fbe1fde8d31cab3627
42311 F20110320_AABCWB bond_a_Page_135.jpg
ed9dd76e326b8e8e20e4d88ed444266a
286350451e781e6175dba87cfda4d4cdfad81c6e
F20110320_AABCVN bond_a_Page_014.tif
9a8567784b7af39a5e9763d1cbded1c9
f6ef6d47109698b18a3473d3c7d85ecef570a299
22876 F20110320_AABCUZ bond_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
f1a6344b00d29a45082b455da3fa98db
83e42d52afc537aeb9490161c8324cfe090f9d76
1216 F20110320_AABCWC bond_a_Page_080.txt
1c21c128b0f17c1a44a9d4c7dcc6ccda
8a102a7571d9651fe0bee8a15cd3b931a3edccfc
6472 F20110320_AABCVO bond_a_Page_018thm.jpg
a23118b1a4d91af180bed21e25af5176
d733ce1ed10f1bb6039bcc51e952b66f25703636
640804 F20110320_AABCWD bond_a_Page_024.jp2
8cd8d69796b9395074ef6038973f6dbe
b46bf0e24eb1ae7bec370ce622dc01c19614431f
10701 F20110320_AABCVP bond_a_Page_165.QC.jpg
1b68821b83eee40f597fe54a7bcd0394
4d2b82a69e528fb83a47db7a42ce53ce77b68895
2675736 F20110320_AABCWE bond_a.pdf
ae9ba5710b82036a0a3b75be61d96a25
16fabbc1e12090f468677ca3dac5c5e7d93dc3ee
18387 F20110320_AABCVQ bond_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
b12dccabce3a9bec18a36c79f959da55
b60b1d24b922b697dbdc6fbca837b6f2cd4e8b99
3933 F20110320_AABCWF bond_a_Page_149thm.jpg
375b38a72b7d4239870c90cd3f5a5317
8ee39f0a262c4aaa8220b5e8f578fbbae22de230
F20110320_AABCVR bond_a_Page_050.tif
d1abfb0cfe194305b61a9a197ec07c8a
ff2aba2674a31b600f21041544b5b4fe25e44111
48939 F20110320_AABCWG bond_a_Page_044.pro
c8b6a3114467e37ab2f33a6488e51edd
9c9aec0b3117e813de8060c0c85f7a8a0d4e00f6
12277 F20110320_AABCVS bond_a_Page_145.QC.jpg
dcdab932251bf68f8af3b935716fe9bb
14da69121e34fea63aec4d3940f733706c1062a0
55278 F20110320_AABCWH bond_a_Page_119.jpg
584047f5e1041758f5fce63216af30af
5f6668810dce5eabb3056de40c74bf5b236bdb16
F20110320_AABCVT bond_a_Page_037.tif
294caa2c683d2aa385603904a4a365bb
a8314f9029db579780ba0e055315752773d56d0e
8423998 F20110320_AABCWI bond_a_Page_122.tif
34e3d93ed337c3d4af345fa172db00db
606585911c0057e75bacdf871a8a058a4433ce9f
F20110320_AABCVU bond_a_Page_082.tif
6e8e79827d9126395b2d527595316466
a193662412b15d7398b74b71f8bd1ea5b0e71a52
15874 F20110320_AABCWJ bond_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
7edf4b2f1a5877ccc69d8726975b82bc
175726f6fdade9b1805e01d12ffcc43957a6fa19
45804 F20110320_AABCVV bond_a_Page_183.pro
3a8c85bb27edbd24a8cd3c361cbba10f
b0593b9b331f33c2cc895df66a522003bd3ab295
2630 F20110320_AABCWK bond_a_Page_114.txt
61e2e726a0ee9cf22df349a10b96a1a3
9471724092d16313f51f531d4291bb5518803dc5
84712 F20110320_AABCVW bond_a_Page_025.jpg
1b9b82921848a6363e65862859c10b5e
555cfeeef3c8e69ec47de42516074df64521b852
54884 F20110320_AABCWL bond_a_Page_062.pro
8dca7f4d242c902e1254f7cf51e7feeb
85866c3bd4d07ef9d7f3135040c359a54bda3f88
22591 F20110320_AABCVX bond_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
a7a0af15690c4cc7f1d38d4cf1055822
6dbe17d0203e7b46405119c6d0e99adeb7c58e52
11327 F20110320_AABCXA bond_a_Page_002.jpg
777b29d2cce8998dfc975da1da28b3a7
f203dcf10db0b67b9f168715f42fdde2bbc7842d
24900 F20110320_AABCWM bond_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
e86ffca716b7a9352665bc23ef151889
a3537cd2b21908e63ce4775cce23f12ca96fef6b
17937 F20110320_AABCVY bond_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
73fbfa7772be085c7c556fd874ddfcec
0da2fc4a28ab1ea70c81623ea1780bfdf562f978
F20110320_AABCXB bond_a_Page_019.tif
04a8675422eb0a4d0f2fe4ef03489c95
f5173bfec0253c5b01180406bbdaab049a6175c5
2467 F20110320_AABCWN bond_a_Page_119.txt
cddf8476ea4c0f5148a7dced1b514fe8
7e27ede04683b7e069bbfdcb9dd437508ac03917
12565 F20110320_AABCVZ bond_a_Page_164.QC.jpg
df542079aff53bd93c51b8e347e2370c
cc2ba6461ddd1ed27d6a23b8bb4edabe58efb020
40625 F20110320_AABCXC bond_a_Page_144.jpg
fc7746909f1c59ec3f0e3a22f94be4c6
fec16cdae6cabeca6bd7952ef13f7de3d94d0212
19978 F20110320_AABCWO bond_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
56e677718fa6b7207a177d3b24851265
40447d7c80f5322d74c03c2895cb07b15aab952d
3450 F20110320_AABDAA bond_a_Page_188thm.jpg
c8bbd652a51fe1732c098f4ec12c954a
0a5e6a6b7fa08600cf2b7707247ce0c61c49f212
57722 F20110320_AABDAB bond_a_Page_146.jp2
17c2050d584b1b605b106cee21ccf1fb
584c219f37c66daddc2912fd1e64c28c7632a3e2
20700 F20110320_AABCXD bond_a_Page_183.QC.jpg
7b2bb9c446660258e9f99852e0f3c97f
a21c5700f340381e0b225538d957a5e997210a74
26098 F20110320_AABCWP bond_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
f55c0a96dd80d0e80fc6f6ee5bfd6b18
500ff9938f5b7ae3e37c8415ff0baf7d4ac2aba0
11004 F20110320_AABDAC bond_a_Page_001.pro
bdaaae9a3414b8b1628256496ec82a66
af6cb529473ab978f500494dcbe6b063a97207b1
11775 F20110320_AABCXE bond_a_Page_127.QC.jpg
9962c287f24e3c62612790f7516741fb
3e92a65b9c7e9fcb4c31c8d9ef09d1fb873a3f56
7549 F20110320_AABCWQ bond_a_Page_182.QC.jpg
091980c9781cefb373c96ef20dccfe74
a182ec25fc6b475c4dd86237b32a74c8b873cbd1
21817 F20110320_AABDAD bond_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
9409124d76ef097c962354403e53f207
33b1c6a9492e9c83dcc6ab7dac79de9d9a21140f
72705 F20110320_AABCXF bond_a_Page_092.jpg
0c414dfc41d59021e3a4f71ca2fa1b2a
668afba15379e717dc3e58c6564f271d3d9b1251
F20110320_AABCWR bond_a_Page_158.tif
18b7675b4a28efcd47cb33b53e185c20
22d17b776255214fa8d8c37af264459dbca31e4e
715316 F20110320_AABCXG bond_a_Page_122.jp2
475177f6f58db57edd29ec016c7a1c80
0ea52c1dadd2ea7fee917c66f09592e97797096e
1788 F20110320_AABCWS bond_a_Page_023.txt
6b626e70ee561dfdc88a1eeb5ea06bd4
4cdf10bce873f9117f79aaa30436f8cbf6125826
70576 F20110320_AABDAE bond_a_Page_031.jpg
05e5d5507e1fa87a24c66725968250bd
3b53485544122ee2eed2878d755270f94ac5f5e5
106192 F20110320_AABCXH bond_a_Page_016.jp2
c830be374506f63ac5c1fe3fc000a20c
79b6a1e16aac727f95006158279db78db530c714
F20110320_AABCWT bond_a_Page_170.tif
742f102b235e18510a43b57a7fb69fab
a745ddfa11b0e82bd40a8d4be901735322082c46
F20110320_AABCAA bond_a_Page_016.tif
efd5b11c6761c8fc60d8af9fc5d70607
8b9005d5fd5fb845fb02aff2999863645e9d0b76
86167 F20110320_AABDAF bond_a_Page_075.jpg
cad48a10e42d5709fe7dcfcfdad17849
c6c41392862fb625e44bf7b65ec993ec16c228df
26076 F20110320_AABCXI bond_a_Page_055.pro
c6370f8c5e4c7d4d1e3840b6e0d98d84
95e3e4d25c4e94b7576b4fc07a8c2dbdec026efc
F20110320_AABCWU bond_a_Page_162.tif
7a09f9591f9b84efa662d8f5cdb06c94
416b707eebf31146dc925f262c6b308066874432
1051931 F20110320_AABCAB bond_a_Page_060.jp2
8a0d0b61aa4c2cf1f060467e8aab3582
6eef065a20285f47d077a072b3d52655de71aee0
47670 F20110320_AABDAG bond_a_Page_016.pro
94102a9ccb746d22953ce275bdc59b33
1849892de6f8620293a9bf4033cccc6ae5f262ad
84979 F20110320_AABCXJ bond_a_Page_085.jpg
e75468e2140d23445130ec9ea733d6a8
3001934f789b9cad2005e217df3d09b5e1b5afd9
F20110320_AABCWV bond_a_Page_051.tif
344b77525444a2fa2c6e2bb346b5d508
572cdb0ca421fb0b5790cf8953d159db03942eb6
23632 F20110320_AABCAC bond_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
a9ad323c1fbc1049f60203e27c03d4a4
9529fd3fe3e4da9f0d7b3405658572c27a3eab90
F20110320_AABDAH bond_a_Page_021.tif
b0865f4856e1aaf29e3e489c14de3e82
29d2dc0e4127fe9b43891327784c3f92b8dd9ea3
F20110320_AABCXK bond_a_Page_096.tif
eab664d4ad4c17bcb09e8740904205d9
443efbf3230cebea6fb51b6ca523c4d12cb174c7
789747 F20110320_AABCWW bond_a_Page_086.jp2
1b808ae4d8e9722967548673e168552e
cb563923cfdea1855241429f2b3c7d988f49066d
11734 F20110320_AABCAD bond_a_Page_159.QC.jpg
19d9490dddbc4f04e25b362346e7bd13
8cb962718d8b1d8eb82d2ee57beb965401d5268b
39712 F20110320_AABDAI bond_a_Page_171.jpg
39c08fed341eb864b50cffdca78524bc
2eb4adb79cb00b91f6daaecf996ca438a799095d
1587 F20110320_AABCXL bond_a_Page_177.txt
2038263ae120c8fe2096ed9c4dd357ec
4727b5dff585372b9a1a7d70ea614aad18c7e024
51932 F20110320_AABCWX bond_a_Page_173.jp2
991eeeb6a69a5c581f97d3c2e225bb4a
8b894c24eb96d771eb3104d0b077172207d4117a
1517 F20110320_AABCAE bond_a_Page_145.txt
2974641a5919bf9057e01ac47beefeab
0082ead4bf4d91beead26d1831fcad5803c56f9c
6544 F20110320_AABDAJ bond_a_Page_044thm.jpg
e219773f03fc238187169612f17b01ba
ae4bf8ab1ec0c55b22e6256bb5e355f9869c88d9
1617 F20110320_AABCXM bond_a_Page_142.txt
c48e7f5ea08790ffff7b8d37b885c894
d0e60ab2129f55c76ed08e4ceb4df45338855124
56602 F20110320_AABCWY bond_a_Page_120.pro
4bd71252b781316863cc27c0c833a3f1
51a49f192282405ce0726415120ac8ceaba74390
F20110320_AABCYA bond_a_Page_118.tif
3aaedc2b4fc44e00ccec4d7b0a8e0415
267dab8ac42d2241ef76b36109e92603c51d40cd
1551 F20110320_AABDAK bond_a_Page_014.txt
6d8053e419ae268e1e58da4a6d3de6a6
53534a7a305a3b0235bc2c5cae8ad71a50beddca
9210 F20110320_AABCXN bond_a_Page_129.QC.jpg
216fd074def77be6958c48a60b3121bd
79e5f173f12b58367a6336fd271b3269203f8b2e
48321 F20110320_AABCWZ bond_a_Page_078.jpg
02afce5d41c941532d2f7b9075494a2c
e0bab5ef2228fcd1237981c1f52033839e70b7a6
30784 F20110320_AABCAF bond_a_Page_064.pro
0b271ebac73af8f2a327c4b8b8ec0d18
49fa6abefb040e84382c0964b246b15314b2cd8a
33697 F20110320_AABCYB bond_a_Page_139.pro
44eacb04a131e2d862d81821789e213e
dfce6b93fc3135a5370afe657deadc632998b12b
40128 F20110320_AABDBA bond_a_Page_178.jpg
648bf3a5cb6c2a4404af5f836d5a0493
ca3c2509c27817a9de1d26d8901dac6ad3f34354
50826 F20110320_AABDAL bond_a_Page_101.pro
b1bcd19615e6596d0c7f85efdbe88967
1c945fd89ef27b9a7b063402d73b3a0248a20d55
32718 F20110320_AABCXO bond_a_Page_102.jpg
3405b98b8af5bf45cc35c6139de28ad3
6b06e82ed4f186d8de747b304bc1cb54c36555c1
55901 F20110320_AABCAG bond_a_Page_175.jp2
34b47c96cbcdb1e54c929d8a683f6d0d
65488cdfabb4fd7b2cb91767b5bb8a6f5f00732a
53598 F20110320_AABCYC bond_a_Page_155.jp2
0bca00259eb459af02475f680c2e3608
d4ce721cf0c2516a11ad46e6f8e91f54990790d0
F20110320_AABDBB bond_a_Page_028.tif
c61602bd29f239b3f92365ef685c8bdf
cbdbdbeb0b843c3dbbb95c961c5fcda2fc010f5a
23123 F20110320_AABDAM bond_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
5090540178c7279869e9232cb2292d5a
353426a0778b6730c78e7548e5030a430199b0ee
48185 F20110320_AABCXP bond_a_Page_019.pro
0d135bb3c2a6c7e3d9317d554d22e582
00d20a462491ea56d11e9090ab35da50dee417ff
F20110320_AABCAH bond_a_Page_002.tif
0f7edbd6043ebeb7c74259316f7351ee
8532c1d76026a5baca5a0cfc60830e8edf8456b2
50697 F20110320_AABCYD bond_a_Page_110.pro
d1557926c29f783d35ff6ed239f2f967
693a35ce2ea733374ce69d84a54afddaa1e1e200
F20110320_AABDBC bond_a_Page_157.tif
6fb42fa051a1014765b26997bb93ef61
a0891448d91cbf7e979d2bdb676aad61c29b2a58
5497 F20110320_AABDAN bond_a_Page_120thm.jpg
c6073fd097353582f6c20857a45cc3d5
800a4d01d2beb1babd1279ddf4f319c5e25e0a75
14915 F20110320_AABCXQ bond_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
98a5eea1a5c9b0411a6c37b50ffc5946
8295916b274d3b2277585ca515131017a52a83a5
1849 F20110320_AABCAI bond_a_Page_148.txt
040db403b55a6bc8b994e047d1a4020e
0b06ec2211f24b0d4b72e73f4adc8adae798808b
3040 F20110320_AABCYE bond_a_Page_151thm.jpg
5929e391f8c235bd457c387b08b22c43
e3ac83d9be890f4862dfc1d8c04a51c4baf8dba5
F20110320_AABDBD bond_a_Page_184.tif
befceb715710a8511d88c9c12e3fe225
73ce73976200a7d7ea38d84a4d8c5cb75ed121ee
1938 F20110320_AABDAO bond_a_Page_035.txt
67dd4d16af03013a3f10c87b07b8d951
92df2a5e2570e74a2366f06e093a7497d72a505a
37607 F20110320_AABCXR bond_a_Page_133.jp2
c5c9a063415bf4b3ea3c8ffb1164403e
c37577433521e85a6f9a17f589e229b40449bbed
24327 F20110320_AABCAJ bond_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
6244eb68a6c9a9855c7fe72278abd5b9
99a2df3b144335191b3f777669c3d20c269da602
51447 F20110320_AABCYF bond_a_Page_124.jp2
8f3583babb320a858dd5880306cf0cb4
015a2b25389632e5659630f6b37b21b629a451b2
1515 F20110320_AABDBE bond_a_Page_144.txt
ce1614250cbbea1d0d4eeab4cadd1c0e
d8491f685248a545c12fecfbe0a168e3f7fda47c
F20110320_AABDAP bond_a_Page_003.tif
98a2e871a5bb8b3f5bc7dafe7c90dcbb
8d0d07892851c37150c7e255f6e9e4058f779b14
114865 F20110320_AABCXS bond_a_Page_070.jp2
01f694ae59b651911952ecdaa484cf42
4565a3e04eb4b98b01e11568a8763a931b46004c
56420 F20110320_AABCAK bond_a_Page_184.pro
4f1c456a7e034fbf2c69f1a8e03bb1dc
2ee243e5f7bd8d77a83fb4be78c35ab0c6311de8
49594 F20110320_AABCYG bond_a_Page_106.pro
3932a4a6e2236b1419822a3fc5401903
5d453c2d3df468a0bfcf02e5f9a772c7f8ad6af7
40419 F20110320_AABDAQ bond_a_Page_148.jpg
3aa99aa30390622d96f1da7c7fce84f3
aec0e4e072f6526445b4359ebaf4480873017a70
55906 F20110320_AABCXT bond_a_Page_178.jp2
3f6daa130ef33b38ff0ba4cabf895a90
b34e9e3dc20fc4e341cddef45402dc83a482f211
110275 F20110320_AABCBA bond_a_Page_039.jp2
8a722663bd294315e48a25fcb3ac11c7
a0401f50602e4a84a242c5baae6c25618d186318
16473 F20110320_AABCAL bond_a_Page_121.QC.jpg
92898a684351098500bf4967d4d64101
1619c1a0359446f8955d561de576da6dc2507b4d
1496 F20110320_AABCYH bond_a_Page_178.txt
734ecaaa40972f51f2c51a2ed28ecdc3
2dbeaf0b81d5fb18db798cf1d282d3c58b487a21
80288 F20110320_AABDBF bond_a_Page_089.jpg
e0e2ff6e6a03af5afd8b6ca3fd48e56f
dc848a2ace645f65cd38a3cfa34e4f94a7394168
3866 F20110320_AABDAR bond_a_Page_132thm.jpg
85931197733fa4d9cf1557002f5756e7
1c5336465be2a08cc5af58f238fae678ca83268c
52893 F20110320_AABCXU bond_a_Page_056.jpg
70af59863b395537da82bc0ea1bb43ba
59309639e0e76cfadf3fe21de55a69e19eb0ee3d
110819 F20110320_AABCBB bond_a_Page_045.jp2
eacd1ccaab717ef6c61b60ac3e864b39
93aa5688d9de9b7f15f28e0b44d24628e44d9b5c
34844 F20110320_AABCAM bond_a_Page_189.pro
dcf44a9c760170d37b516d3bba522531
73b4442e4d936e05604f130dfe3864ecce14149f
F20110320_AABCYI bond_a_Page_060.tif
dd34447d45798240e576ab6652e4ab61
b282b440900707bf113cfdbea4ad46cbedc2fbb5
48758 F20110320_AABDBG bond_a_Page_033.pro
2faf049ca19b370bc5382c3dc5bc07cc
c29c92e5c0078567b77c0f26b5560a0d0b558d5c
21822 F20110320_AABDAS bond_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
102fa769193d198cbce10ce961cbe18a
e557d97e4bd9fa81cef0926d32f2b948b2d3b19a
2018 F20110320_AABCBC bond_a_Page_034.txt
49c62dcc31bf40b342c2563369c847ba
716d9219b05f643971a11c37d3043ce73df3b6e0
76435 F20110320_AABCAN bond_a_Page_121.jp2
d62b7cfa1da65fe6e4286bcac69248d4
834faf65bdf1e87922de031bc80ea71722c792e1
23288 F20110320_AABCYJ bond_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
0b561a455e290e37ac125b2f5f5ee2cd
561621fbf3424e832fbee891d869b13976426252
41766 F20110320_AABCXV bond_a_Page_151.jp2
d6db6fa977c3a9dee6435e235449ebe0
1addaf356d7b9b5bb10821e7bd731fcaa752fba9
1051984 F20110320_AABDBH bond_a_Page_088.jp2
8c66fc3a8100228c56463c09d3dba406
bf031000a6467c451c8acb72a7664d9304fd3440
46387 F20110320_AABDAT bond_a_Page_071.pro
75ca58e1b55bd73cf516ebb553bf3340
99263fc1e81a8fafb1adacede33dbfc29464c700
1680 F20110320_AABCBD bond_a_Page_103.txt
219d8577ea585360dd3ce06d5594a703
49f0e0cbd5735c6a0666ae734a661438188e1d20
6726 F20110320_AABCAO bond_a_Page_184thm.jpg
018c0bdf0f61ec57003d6225fb5e813a
341140fe0db70171f52d9efe411d56f5663af154
F20110320_AABCYK bond_a_Page_033.tif
eeb0d48b00f02e33a5cbfb92ead41d73
2d1146b58e57bf8f6617f7de2848a1a7b54578db
657910 F20110320_AABCXW bond_a_Page_078.jp2
593d1085dad1ee1528c5354e587f4e3e
c768c2e49fb31ab91a11abeb759ad8d773df4b3a
F20110320_AABDBI bond_a_Page_094.jp2
cd3358d0388fcaf765a69882d185ceec
d9870b0688d852016757f2e567500cea789812cd
39385 F20110320_AABDAU bond_a_Page_160.jpg
50a8408abe3b82318ac7a1302ae1eef8
55c6b8ef5be63e02775acea1c4559f3127a5a318
F20110320_AABCBE bond_a_Page_159.tif
ca1c1e3f10d2f68064832f498b0a4c95
750d9b0b2943716584d267de1d2bf7653cd08189
53744 F20110320_AABCAP bond_a_Page_189.jpg
65e4a04dfe98ee89355d85a52df00ac4
d3a3fc89c7cf87f6c042c3137b54a3ba2991c155
6510 F20110320_AABCYL bond_a_Page_087thm.jpg
812e57b2d67d3171ae8b8b4d6a11f792
6dfdcae932207a7e3188b910606b03d1945c79c9
3936 F20110320_AABCXX bond_a_Page_139thm.jpg
4ae66e1f36fd82111b10f4a2c4fa1870
88e19754b56bb35bf9fae40da38599cae1fb0c68
43200 F20110320_AABDBJ bond_a_Page_100.pro
a82bcb3816eaa565a50b3fa54d8e897b
c4ee35acd92eabfa6d22cf1efdce67cf28f868ca
F20110320_AABDAV bond_a_Page_005.tif
b86d3c266a5d7783b9d0942c696989d5
97ee9de00b3b077ae4bfc49f480351def437de5c
F20110320_AABCBF bond_a_Page_020.tif
048505577c0bab72934c78450643fb6e
a755c7ff6811f3bf4c7e3bc3d90422b9eb2ad608
108735 F20110320_AABCAQ bond_a_Page_028.jp2
f6e90eb9d41af0257b0a2134826433a0
1979c206dd7006b85597e4337f93c58acce373a9
55711 F20110320_AABCZA bond_a_Page_127.jp2
7e61620f62355c2733472d78ca69bde7
4671df8220145449921199beb044752a173e16bf
49722 F20110320_AABCYM bond_a_Page_043.pro
f63a0a1d9628afe63ca8eb12b957599e
18ebd99e31ca413fda1ca21fa14c9a42e8360969
44971 F20110320_AABCXY bond_a_Page_097.pro
795c56953ecc994aaa0d95aae5c73286
b4bae8aac8afc13ecb36c9c814be81641dc7b338
1753 F20110320_AABDBK bond_a_Page_141.txt
15c82772f403e4f334cd8a79c10755c8
7f5c0894b8b7f7ebffcb72745a44992e8ac69f35
F20110320_AABDAW bond_a_Page_084.tif
25fadc830faa463431aa59b8a07a8e74
b54185bde40e7ea9a9998f7b0659032cb8fa4325
1966 F20110320_AABCAR bond_a_Page_092.txt
f3a8986fa5e1518a50725a526c22cc51
43a352b820912f146de5f8ee807d8a352204f4d8
916 F20110320_AABCZB bond_a_Page_188.txt
a0e0c14463a22313f73499034e48bf1d
f78efdaf65c122d1480fb0ffcaaa702a40878761
1762 F20110320_AABCYN bond_a_Page_095.txt
10cf6cdc88b4b4b85276460ef5782eb0
c1e9be641011e90f597e4b5fd0057d11442c3fa4
1816 F20110320_AABCXZ bond_a_Page_047.txt
98abd47fea5eb777bc50badb84dc14c2
392a3b5220fda83bbde9dcbb73c621e9482e9bf7
29132 F20110320_AABDCA bond_a_Page_138.pro
fca1053d8dd5079c58e8af0d54426bd8
8e6cdd2c1ec6cd32f729518de473f2f2c5a931fe
1889 F20110320_AABDBL bond_a_Page_027.txt
59764a081c26518e413cf76b28830974
23f54b129149d8e6103f37f77b7a365fbbaf17ca
1641 F20110320_AABDAX bond_a_Page_180.txt
7518a1ff6c2379bad1c2be5b03605944
63b56635ecffce49a4502c0f179a2931aa5d5060
12717 F20110320_AABCBG bond_a_Page_136.QC.jpg
eeba25b921d39d5b269c8a07edca9e66
1430bd4a9ec8a251f8a68115bfe91f525d645cbe
5828 F20110320_AABBWA bond_a_Page_074thm.jpg
fcc961be0e36ad535660af17e823b887
2187c07884e3a0ada20a909363092971cbecef7d
49493 F20110320_AABCAS bond_a_Page_058.pro
af9bbb4490251e862e19363da5ab1d88
2fe2ff85d31f7721dc1c2af235e6d5ee6665eebb
1495 F20110320_AABCZC bond_a_Page_150.txt
a111da274f8ba1a6307e0fe897d653da
6753776c6ff965b1ac623c7810ef738d89f834d7
55635 F20110320_AABCYO bond_a_Page_187.pro
830aabf10f4d7b9a9ca59e8cba08fe30
d5a4b29752ea5e7bc9c77e4b2093427f2365f3eb
19638 F20110320_AABDCB bond_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
d93b2d3dd7f4d3491a9634a0aca79c22
3d1e622c5fd27b59cfae28ce3d0e5e22427a4254
5979 F20110320_AABDBM bond_a_Page_096thm.jpg
1b6bee1c6e79fa7a150cdc91f030c268
992d1b34977cc0c2318d04ec8156c6a8b22df6f6
105437 F20110320_AABDAY bond_a_Page_044.jp2
0bc1c744f33d9b33ba2fb302fe5bdebc
abf456ce2eea3394949a64c685f1c9e13ed53503
50379 F20110320_AABBWB bond_a_Page_115.jpg
2c29ab516d6b8d23448f06478afb149f
24e0f461068211487bd46fac08ac0f32e3b85511
43682 F20110320_AABCAT bond_a_Page_163.jp2
402659377884b070ba2d550b92ac338d
544c10b2bb20315e2dd977b423f4d4ea7991a15f
101918 F20110320_AABCZD bond_a_Page_032.jp2
deb604f3cdb018538a777f2b69f9eb00
820812622a73bf0604926feb076857877204a8c5
10630 F20110320_AABCYP bond_a_Page_168.QC.jpg
d591bbcbd9c16b44c542bdadbfc16841
753b5a9e475d71b60be7b89308b8fb2cf1012ad6
680465 F20110320_AABCBH bond_a_Page_080.jp2
4c21dd66121c57cfad1a2f60850bbfd6
1c3eca0a4ee9c4528b6714e9a16b770a3beba9cb
6368 F20110320_AABDCC bond_a_Page_039thm.jpg
c759439ee2f92c1634a586899b0785f1
c8521d3929984fd17f5881e9087bab7e109b2083
46375 F20110320_AABDBN bond_a_Page_092.pro
a88cdd6ffe2b261bc697fbbdc150746e
72383f6b7c6ba768b53e6e43412e6ce6d6537c35
F20110320_AABDAZ bond_a_Page_092.tif
95a291b3f9dbb58d465b79735d8b39bc
712013e337acbcd12298df80a1c33168a67a84cf
F20110320_AABBWC bond_a_Page_099.tif
b0809e86d5cff0c89240a4239e42a0cb
d6a012c77933b86d2167cfed7fdda73b0ff302c5
1704 F20110320_AABCAU bond_a_Page_086.txt
4a5b5b54b496eb5eb963f406c264668c
c83e39be963e5dd50f56694ac2fdf3dc93219428
70972 F20110320_AABCZE bond_a_Page_110.jpg
a41316bacffa23395e99486a452ed860
955a0988f7ea7db96bee87552fff97b2f47b20cc
46924 F20110320_AABCYQ bond_a_Page_021.pro
0033b8ee72f14e1b3ac48384a4a2231f
e855b505d128ac6eccb61fb09a2c0c6cfa91570a
92195 F20110320_AABCBI bond_a_Page_051.jp2
a942a6047f0a9fec8f30fa60c1301f1d
c4b42e1a26238b4bda9024c12cf40c01e2df9ea5
41579 F20110320_AABDCD bond_a_Page_096.pro
5b40f061de8bd9a990f965bf6c3cd982
a9f77d18403d3aafd8e4d6397f82c8be8094c109
F20110320_AABDBO bond_a_Page_045.tif
d32a16cfc44f3ad50496d02e0bc94a11
2ee96256e33f25e5b87d7688a877da14a24e1d8a
6245 F20110320_AABBWD bond_a_Page_043thm.jpg
c2ba23d39adaa744f8776fc4d82edc74
b70849d16a817a117c28a2c1159db77787271cb3
68822 F20110320_AABCAV bond_a_Page_036.jpg
ceb06080d7fca121a4ca91faae33fa80
0367d7c093f946064084b3e6e2ad6bf2ade54731
25794 F20110320_AABCZF bond_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
b35e4a59dde05ac7c0ea83219798d7a0
66a19361b0a212c03c5ae8b0548c3e73f75199dc
71232 F20110320_AABCYR bond_a_Page_048.jpg
e01c4636cb00dc3464747cb837f1eb93
4469ad7410c4825d69c587c72d795d7234c0895e
50809 F20110320_AABCBJ bond_a_Page_088.pro
9627e0fce5489f63660d1f698b90b615
eb1ca49da69cfd60eca6a75dd113edd066198fa7
23141 F20110320_AABDCE bond_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
b794b5a9368e639ae225ea9ce3348a91
7e77fad4cb1f9cc2b6796210a47de65817311b17
1914 F20110320_AABDBP bond_a_Page_019.txt
53c689b1d8108a05e920921dc4bc509a
e19bd12ed84e1e92c17c07f45a566ab85c89f457
F20110320_AABBWE bond_a_Page_071.tif
da3e953e41bfa8b7f550fe0b5caa8848
a51aab70e2069416278beb71c9533c8a8b5616a1
9916 F20110320_AABCAW bond_a_Page_152.pro
a8763075fa3e85d99d766bae67201b6a
7e1685ca49d84457c3eff4b59de6c0f11a4c8ec5
48105 F20110320_AABCZG bond_a_Page_042.pro
4427e32c39bc47294ddb7c3791c891f1
b001b1f77fce294e3fbed9c4788d2f05885054cb
36622 F20110320_AABCYS bond_a_Page_014.pro
dc12c25c99427ea86d0b94d08824816f
40855da194d62ba58425a606a355a13282dff2ba
1927 F20110320_AABCBK bond_a_Page_033.txt
6ae584bb833d7ee29c662076301acebf
870dc9be63de89e20b05968783c2d6bacc3a7a9a
5999 F20110320_AABDCF bond_a_Page_047thm.jpg
66b8a63e90b92a17ce9e6ed2528b8d3b
60ad94d8313c0bdc10dbf364bd6863e4f303a990
57809 F20110320_AABDBQ bond_a_Page_144.jp2
1e915285d70fdc13404dfd693c8982a6
96043f2d33208bc8d0fa82340d2b49bb5a9a8b70
21773 F20110320_AABBWF bond_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
4e887418a88c3e1317b92818aa225b89
5e5138b2a46386a6492d72aa3fe25fd17d2dd882
3914 F20110320_AABCAX bond_a_Page_117thm.jpg
84207d074eda71bba899b944e84d9f60
176ce7afce1fd1c418452d6f2a462de3ff603c90
9529 F20110320_AABCZH bond_a_Page_113.pro
09ab5de61a90b5cc706379c4e7b94e92
44cce5974a83d62bb1597361ccecb96bbb12dff6
12115 F20110320_AABCYT bond_a_Page_123.QC.jpg
0e7bc8f42e78cc3e75a099c3e6ea34ae
4df2cf113b92157ef896cc214e31cfccdc1646c3
3888 F20110320_AABCCA bond_a_Page_175thm.jpg
e3f5280dd534eb03eaca11c0a7f3df5b
2ddfaa8d9561331a371b3708c4ee602fc7783798
61823 F20110320_AABCBL bond_a_Page_074.jpg
7f0745cec904be0db892be4cade087bd
5c40e6e3fa089f4849f1300f39be82bc85d4bc33
F20110320_AABDBR bond_a_Page_156.tif
93244c384ba9d10db2c8eb3db406287f
066b4f7f1273bc2eb25e8df8999a228275833b58
1238 F20110320_AABBWG bond_a_Page_064.txt
a9f61745a4073559af18cebfcf8f3c25
0ac9136d125b48403dd45b29de5122e1124c18c0
2420 F20110320_AABCAY bond_a_Page_025.txt
9b46327a0c017082adee649441c609bd
fe0235356dacd8a2aa7e832859ecfc3ec931d649
72517 F20110320_AABCZI bond_a_Page_045.jpg
86577d5977c2f97110457adfe1a7ed5b
3a93fd6ead579f89bc65031314debea30f69eadf
4959 F20110320_AABCYU bond_a_Page_056thm.jpg
1974a5ba61509528f39eaefbbbe7fe94
42cbb342431a2108890f7e1038596f8785c7c3b1
12118 F20110320_AABCCB bond_a_Page_146.QC.jpg
1156873cb735d536158f0a705db6b84a
9c1f4ec85407795d852a9098e50c6163a81e6237
44220 F20110320_AABCBM bond_a_Page_112.pro
7b4a4b8441a060c9df963ba4c44815c3
694de1e2f9376b1df1757533e4a9370da710b963
6200 F20110320_AABDCG bond_a_Page_058thm.jpg
863f35952dfb26929a8f54e5b1648f9b
4c4d4e00ca01cac218b898b432ad08eba5ef5c60
67195 F20110320_AABDBS bond_a_Page_063.jpg
d2f6c30a129ed5f3957a4bed7a2499ee
052d6a732d4fe6641d7f0bc23845050819ecd016
F20110320_AABBWH bond_a_Page_121.tif
fdd222591ad43be42bf0ec9646e02075
5b033714fa88a34785d5f5f2eeeeda839018a6fc
3804 F20110320_AABCAZ bond_a_Page_150thm.jpg
1bf9e4cec2b26fc87380832cb8808c9d
03710c325ff38fd03aa9dde2cf043b9937405e75
102103 F20110320_AABCZJ bond_a_Page_042.jp2
3335c0089076fac16597b190dbe0fd88
0fb61ec3b9997edd0903e47f5a20305c16395fc1
F20110320_AABCYV bond_a_Page_056.tif
e4dc95d35a09dd7db5f8bec0a164620c
f6612979ef697e38353133e8c16d061fe87d96cc
F20110320_AABCCC bond_a_Page_058.tif
afcd0f09f027d14080c91fd205330c75
72e177cf2c3102a0424e48f2f54509ea301f1e0d
102415 F20110320_AABCBN bond_a_Page_011.jp2
b95446c992721c12f3c759b01f297c8b
9f03392f8e4c464052e5a3b34ee083fc761af041
36021 F20110320_AABDCH bond_a_Page_003.pro
32bce443883d02880324ce24b59084fb
861d6279fcc983314b460873712ac31ec1325a83
6102 F20110320_AABDBT bond_a_Page_013thm.jpg
0275887538fcb5f9d449424f390c1707
9d41681ed0011c7fa05708d39ec025f3a1fd2dd2
5895 F20110320_AABBWI bond_a_Page_095thm.jpg
f65ae1151dab3689df4f4b7534eb509d
ee3ebe49a10bf22c9bad68b4d3b6ad1d1821bf2a
F20110320_AABCZK bond_a_Page_078.tif
6b34facd194c0ad75f2adb077fe1e1c3
b9961828696c5cf7a92c51fb8ca33ab3e2d02a36
1354 F20110320_AABCYW bond_a_Page_159.txt
fe19bc138d442f811d94818928bcf525
3b895908cf966de406793d3fc51356aa0089488a
67907 F20110320_AABCCD bond_a_Page_104.jpg
be0de88b1ad2f3fe22a9d0bee109a823
3d6d84a5fe5498968d45c9533e6fd76e837d4465
31710 F20110320_AABCBO bond_a_Page_175.pro
525db393019544a37614818591428e7f
a77a76844692f4f4c89a66d7c230480a6000b52f
F20110320_AABDCI bond_a_Page_132.tif
3ef1c1f70f44e03576c9f352eeab8c77
55779156bea30a7581634a13c715f38ed5b101b4
1433 F20110320_AABDBU bond_a_Page_176.txt
36d71e9f0e5c3cdc226aeaf1fc025dcd
85a43ce7a749706285f0f747cf9b406594998fb5
33726 F20110320_AABBWJ bond_a_Page_151.jpg
a6770af8410d00818dd44aff14262f6d
fec2919146410ad4ba63aad12f6b964804322f6b
F20110320_AABCZL bond_a_Page_062.tif
ebee3b99daf6d6b5de26378ebcb0b980
37e5a5fa11be739b7e85cdfdbd67b0e36373bdc2
99877 F20110320_AABBVV bond_a_Page_098.jp2
c9530237e90a2e5688b2f1ce5e420d89
c7879b4f60a220644399e068adcda322b1b57750
36753 F20110320_AABCYX bond_a_Page_157.pro
54b57c2172830a19ab03034b8eb50776
1d4bca82f65f3db184a855c16186fdd1a1db9fdc
24373 F20110320_AABCCE bond_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
eb72272f617b62f501e1569993ded679
80a5b199a67590d81d4907fcb1b04d068aaa9078
2974 F20110320_AABCBP bond_a_Page_152thm.jpg
9c47a20c543458811e4c3a4e4b5cadb5
e9983bb7eabaf6e4088e2e3fa8ebecb799c174ad
40337 F20110320_AABDCJ bond_a_Page_127.jpg
9cd34783c52eb6f25d0972912d147db8
92131315f7eefb421773db7d0bd129173fff4333
16176 F20110320_AABDBV bond_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
47e255a70b11127eb9a2dabb1501491a
413c3a81b670ca12c30abb1f9ddd12ae9d536371
5130 F20110320_AABBWK bond_a_Page_050thm.jpg
338943c1fc4b60c3161d4b2d8007bfc6
601617788b4f0b945ba0a2a154d32888113725c3
66372 F20110320_AABCZM bond_a_Page_013.jpg
f60248563dce5abacf02756e5c9bb5dd
f0b44d8aebdba1e5160f2cf0dbf5c1f52a3a3d0c
107615 F20110320_AABBVW bond_a_Page_048.jp2
37fed33f2f3122fd1ffd2d0453e9430d
152179453d627edd55b5f3183196820e89ffc77b
5795 F20110320_AABCYY bond_a_Page_023thm.jpg
e774cf4a801aaa2dae1eb65efc267448
18f1f1c9057d7c8dc76128116c6b02cb155bd862
1051960 F20110320_AABCCF bond_a_Page_091.jp2
9f1cfb3e1db7e4280e9feebc8a11c881
7729bd29a3456c221ffd66def92fa801da9b5be1
F20110320_AABCBQ bond_a_Page_044.tif
ed6a3765b919a32297313a6ea7916917
171d529b05f10b067a789c714ec017e350ee2fe6
85315 F20110320_AABDCK bond_a_Page_184.jpg
5cbe2e2251f2304c45d49674288f3e77
9dcec3060d128fc004044ec9a9c25b695e051969
49459 F20110320_AABDBW bond_a_Page_037.pro
b957a49da3ac0ce541bc23722bf7bde6
e295b46eea3cf6d9264c9974cd2ef62a97e9d914
23439 F20110320_AABBWL bond_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
149b1237ca3bde321f3e5dd49d2f154f
828bb91f33cae8259437fe491b2dc5959c01fd5c
F20110320_AABCZN bond_a_Page_073.tif
cee9c6653eb4bb89448ff6f59c076334
a147b7bb83f29112aa7e5390e5a98f595c7883e3
F20110320_AABBVX bond_a_Page_137.tif
998ada478ef871ea30f341c0cae12d14
962e7c74b4059c0f7ea517f43fc94b1165b92526
24584 F20110320_AABCYZ bond_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
bc49d00164b965eedd7643c9690f5546
2a5a519edf4fc6bf69bff93ecf187f41cee29e8e
86336 F20110320_AABCCG bond_a_Page_010.jp2
fe58869d25c51338727dcde40849c8c9
fd611a2c4662e3473ca3de0e7fdba33eb66ec6bb
F20110320_AABCBR bond_a_Page_011.tif
24908444b156e128e19375811c9539e4
a8fbab76c110837aa674aa53ee32fd3eed384f34
11331 F20110320_AABDDA bond_a_Page_173.QC.jpg
6e1efa7ff1b3aab705dc44a6fd533442
145f6c625740bb8a0091be7d04b06c6f7b825af3
6287 F20110320_AABDCL bond_a_Page_021thm.jpg
e6a9b01101b1299010d6b8225041583b
3ff106c400af587014a2db47b6fbf0af8c02bfc6
95546 F20110320_AABDBX bond_a_Page_112.jp2
6e0b66f09d3f7410a681e52f9fc9ec2b
dd382250b1679c7b9b5fb493726123a6d8ea5f71
46985 F20110320_AABBWM bond_a_Page_032.pro
0dfb3b1e50d1db00416fdc4f08d571f7
413dda4121262c1d5dc2bbd1c45d149eb427ed61
F20110320_AABCZO bond_a_Page_143.tif
572bb60bb5bd245ba169d5e8825a60bc
3585e3db4c31eeac6575e1938dabfa50e8c95fbc
18458 F20110320_AABBVY bond_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
dd561a4b24954fd383375d048e64a4c2
eb1c47507c26be67b7f9fc497c0be257e705a15f
6700 F20110320_AABBXA bond_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
e383703774d1f825bd05164b002657ce
927b92705e2239c43eb17a46301a699dfcfd6df6
42792 F20110320_AABCBS bond_a_Page_117.jpg
babfdf459316a517d503b97ba3e14ea8
497e3724b549f7d077c4c2e7f82c89a6e6b076ef
15432 F20110320_AABDDB bond_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
ca216b6c81110beca61313266e0ef6fa
19a47b71c68dd7f7d2b80e0284eec22e84ec098e
61074 F20110320_AABDCM bond_a_Page_054.jpg
779b33c0badfd3d566c4bc1eba634a90
bda2a6294770e0a5a22d1d8f27ba931e1021c1b6
55368 F20110320_AABDBY bond_a_Page_135.jp2
d3aa876b6a534a832099384d054f3213
3640d38473eb70d420345b526935d077a1531b91
F20110320_AABBWN bond_a_Page_120.tif
cda449ed4a1e2ce68efc5a4390a298ff
ead4440ad002d2c4e062b7331db5f0f6bfb10d6e
1031 F20110320_AABCZP bond_a_Page_129.txt
e54bf115aa87f81cd469d4b3284c72c5
e44366f41321b4bc7918da9381614aab7b2126f4
74364 F20110320_AABBVZ bond_a_Page_046.jpg
6f7e82edaeadfb41d1618ed2fb818d0d
ae63ba1e7d2ec5625d3f09f8e451e1a7db2f0b37
960 F20110320_AABCCH bond_a_Page_009.txt
a636b0d2d9553c6f2a9500ac42c9ac90
d04e5f899c06db903d768f0602a583761444f7eb
2096 F20110320_AABBXB bond_a_Page_083.txt
85ed2b00b315ed4349512386ec2dc660
37cd36feabefa54c9b28749fff24b8e76af88111
69578 F20110320_AABCBT bond_a_Page_029.jpg
5c49e5d5cf8459096aec43bd0fc12ce3
b9fdbbd9a87c5b674756c7f58c260dba1ea88915
60869 F20110320_AABDDC bond_a_Page_143.jp2
752616a5b5ff144997531b515de67e35
da2989263305d776645ac1485c2c52c1b0b43226
36267 F20110320_AABDCN bond_a_Page_086.pro
0bdd7d5f8dfcfe41f5b2dde251cda2e6
bfe31b14893123d1d0380cb62036b68d4ad6da8f
33638 F20110320_AABDBZ bond_a_Page_149.pro
7df8decc1f9b4ae3490edfa432171765
bd985eaa97fa292cde5ab70ec5e322b7aa50de8a
3384 F20110320_AABBWO bond_a_Page_124thm.jpg
aaf0619e351ed08b694229808c261092
a4f3768047b163271c5774f33223eb315e5cc325
3670 F20110320_AABCZQ bond_a_Page_167thm.jpg
c714946c0f95392c2481dfe44676b920
480ab8f623615a9a208682d2fec7ad2509104f57
38665 F20110320_AABCCI bond_a_Page_164.pro
8e25e9b56ff2c1c75220e05ae2952788
6b06b3aad962e6c6e262de2529921d9a59a40c4e
74056 F20110320_AABBXC bond_a_Page_088.jpg
d2d0c28eb197bdebc045dd3650b8b5ff
987afa5c77c3150343ae203f6c283fea742d9187
77950 F20110320_AABCBU bond_a_Page_189.jp2
bdd33c6f0fa7574276168c01a55109fd
f9c266c7927d0dda669cc3ea4b8255cc00e9426b
2938 F20110320_AABDDD bond_a_Page_129thm.jpg
b203b40ff564848c97bbc89839ae9062
48ee3a4128ea55bf39f31d2e0c581ec2c6ee82f3
2249 F20110320_AABDCO bond_a_Page_113thm.jpg
be7895ed3ea1404ce3788b9e03ce3cc6
bc561996dc6b370d9fce59244dacd87afbf1fa42
F20110320_AABBWP bond_a_Page_115.tif
486d2f5c15ac29f2af973d0e6098b1de
22ad293c169ed6aed28a4ad30549c5fa43b31c59
24981 F20110320_AABCZR bond_a_Page_182.jpg
e58c559678f9fd9918a2c3f8d898f04b
15543d490e74495fc112455394f08de1e4841312
1913 F20110320_AABCCJ bond_a_Page_143.txt
279d48f6f104ee9612cbaca5101bc9de
4f546abcdc71b1693b1e2ac9581886df6086cb03
22523 F20110320_AABBXD bond_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
bff93d21012c095e1e269ab3958f8920
712611c9f20c241602396db152bc0c4a2824e449
F20110320_AABCBV bond_a_Page_110.tif
9fb7b8b30d43890ae793267f62e88ea6
2643c8d9da46f7a85e4644ba006fbc02477f6a9f
94954 F20110320_AABDDE bond_a_Page_052.jp2
b94abb6794c334ef067d71d7fc879f23
5eab1b364067f47ba35e2b1a7ac85e2cacb7b4ba
56063 F20110320_AABDCP bond_a_Page_075.pro
d141b1f281b3c327c493ae437cdc3e6b
d69603d8e33831144f6ac5b867a956ee815aa759
50983 F20110320_AABBWQ bond_a_Page_018.pro
d3ddf177c77f6a4604241e9af127570b
7d40877503bb865109a61010d5ab04ce0968da1f
91376 F20110320_AABCZS bond_a_Page_116.jp2
9fb34c20dde12ea0596d2dd4a9af127d
b950a6a100f456c93676e4f15e392121ac579252
1555 F20110320_AABCCK bond_a_Page_006thm.jpg
6adeaf01b5f29a3cac5ba781dea548ca
7f527293e1650b3c2b3a2a68a4a5c9eefc2f323d
73432 F20110320_AABBXE bond_a_Page_018.jpg
4aad8958eaeccbc5ec7a0ce1d20453b0
a30a4a55ddbdd252999088f4bc4691a9c2d3e053
7560 F20110320_AABCBW bond_a_Page_002.jp2
25f7b5e7325353f233e75ef570770465
53a42f7eb5c519f363919dfc09641016bae68bb5
36540 F20110320_AABDDF bond_a_Page_173.jpg
1d8b34993f0395522548c882d1cd8be3
9f98180a0a1a421847d0a14c7e4a47487bb2cbfe
F20110320_AABDCQ bond_a_Page_114.tif
240e82f9964648ac481e6c109602c8a2
481e14613272048ccbd2ca1008673d114ea3e797
3742 F20110320_AABBWR bond_a_Page_138thm.jpg
df1ee43bbb826dd1b6b9028a25c6c156
9653137ea04994b483d74f34e0f243e156701ff3
1263 F20110320_AABCZT bond_a_Page_078.txt
4a3f4b978c6300a1a6fb99141cf710ea
127a6a079f63c06bd73f2601b499bf3919a9097b
4705 F20110320_AABCDA bond_a_Page_078thm.jpg
dbc2b1ed277980e4ed36b5012d3106f3
e0c9e15fb4e104405ed437c0aa66d368b613aac5
88624 F20110320_AABCCL bond_a_Page_187.jpg
ef81772284402c1d710af0f4005bba03
9543f2cf84785851e4704063e91e08ea93899e57
63511 F20110320_AABBXF bond_a_Page_112.jpg
06d85d60f5eafc045a7acd0096683fc3
1be6f08c823b50698caad8c2dde76e8a6ff20650
21315 F20110320_AABCBX bond_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
9786c82db4cbfb55eb449669dbb78ae8
605c47f01bb43bf3e06cf85d05524d5929449a39
2297 F20110320_AABDDG bond_a_Page_007.txt
ad92676fb8bf59d510a3bb8fbf69c755
9e6b1d247945ddaecf411160bcb84beac6cff5a2
9361 F20110320_AABDCR bond_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
73ca2a2b63eb7d7b4b291d587327487d
af1b73f2770aa05652555d961bab9bf56bbf1545
1897 F20110320_AABBWS bond_a_Page_002.pro
a8bf6f51e2e6eb3304180479e8be0c66
3b2922d892a16fa668c973a93e1d04ce128f66d2
6604 F20110320_AABCZU bond_a_Page_110thm.jpg
74402acca1e035366a9d5d06cca84abb
74413d0b094b3228317911b2cd0eac80d7050822
F20110320_AABCDB bond_a_Page_057.tif
fadf7f49254506cd8976b03cb608fb12
6332a4201eb96ad957576e57d2bf83792fff79da
26015 F20110320_AABCCM bond_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
f85d0194e36eaca65fb404e68971fc43
061d23998e8b7ab367f91d181c7b4ed879bf2c45
4071 F20110320_AABBXG bond_a_Page_055thm.jpg
3f68430ea4b5f0d75309c29614381f6e
4c8a872981e50c22f0ed9f62f3fd02368c215ad1
F20110320_AABCBY bond_a_Page_112.tif
373d857899e707532ffa84314574f080
4e812dcb73e615eb822fd25dc254e6c1ec101b88
4081 F20110320_AABDCS bond_a_Page_136thm.jpg
224c57592b6b1e79386fb2dd7c43bdd9
fef07040c0cacd62adfbdd252c27465bdbf51292
1457 F20110320_AABBWT bond_a_Page_003.txt
a3bb2e6a16190677d0af3d6c89aac302
7d9dacfc08db6af891703b3e19204d36a51153a2
55796 F20110320_AABCZV bond_a_Page_186.pro
f60037f144769fb48c97f16d4ab6125a
4e4cbde20cc80e4872a523614e5623119d10fe20
12267 F20110320_AABCDC bond_a_Page_139.QC.jpg
e0625b096cfa1e13ba28fd22cea49cb5
24deba4fe3814f0604f3f922472c3b30e26d8d79
1003 F20110320_AABCCN bond_a_Page_154.txt
2680447f86c9ffe52c461fb20872defd
2aae948799a9d77c1f621578581e65c280365436
21676 F20110320_AABBXH bond_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
1d821499e29db4b3c39807b8dc58f1ee
57fd60cf82c6ead3c720f9ec23019318cd36b96c
905889 F20110320_AABCBZ bond_a_Page_026.jp2
44e335d49b71663e86fe3422e295ca35
ff811475077bf450e0558b8ab865267ce5714d5b
F20110320_AABDDH bond_a_Page_100.tif
923bd2b8744ca6db51ab6960379bcd67
5accfccdbce9c254bdfafc661c1884d95ae01a32
F20110320_AABDCT bond_a_Page_080.tif
a1e9c3a9dc55006d2a4b4b47ec819289
44da877ff2417bbca24bb3a1caa8bcdbe814c3c3
5904 F20110320_AABBWU bond_a_Page_112thm.jpg
61dd07e19051f678d224c856efee7f42
03e0dc24d34d41978816e03478674a5148e6bc2e
41184 F20110320_AABCZW bond_a_Page_076.pro
1e4d89940a1c2600616e17fb523ede79
280a544f1f75292e57fd80d2392a01d9120e918b
73598 F20110320_AABCDD bond_a_Page_022.jpg
0e52309fe010d09921cfdb491012b1ad
d806ad20369593939de637d60449a871c58e68aa
F20110320_AABCCO bond_a_Page_125.tif
50159737b1771b1f48ff2eba4f03be83
a221259bdde295e4a76ba9169963858d806457aa
1963 F20110320_AABBXI bond_a_Page_105.txt
6d01bae06c4114e6c8830cc8f82368cb
c634690c4d825f0ca85cbae0460fa8955759d7f5
47529 F20110320_AABDDI bond_a_Page_011.pro
4d26bc018d84933c50d8240651411f78
564719bd9ab6cc7641d3cf3598044ec0690f4765
5129 F20110320_AABDCU bond_a_Page_189thm.jpg
bbf5d79222fdc9eae7dd35a2911fcccf
98423176be174517378a4e9f5cd40a42e35c3a10
33069 F20110320_AABBWV bond_a_Page_142.pro
be20c292ade7bc9ecc72f00672cd1a37
10f7b62c4ad0fc96529c9e492a3090a96d91e2a9
9861 F20110320_AABCZX bond_a_Page_152.QC.jpg
38848110c546df1913b287905cd7ca3d
69123d0a29ef4c3663bd2800e9303d7aebe804be
18553 F20110320_AABCDE bond_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
3eed583efc7f756e790169985d354c09
1b7552d0a7699a81f45ba085e8a5330a7bd6ed79
4602 F20110320_AABCCP bond_a_Page_064thm.jpg
cfa50affed900387b79c8613ffe87af9
ec0446ba352c2976a62a3c70acadb97a760412fc
14173 F20110320_AABBXJ bond_a_Page_172.QC.jpg
8bb05ba3a56050d3162900e8aea84a48
6c312a6560b69ed89ea2eedf6a19b43e18521f5b
98618 F20110320_AABDDJ bond_a_Page_111.jp2
cb29515e581c401ae03f038c2682cc4c
976974b9eb4b7b9f84b363e570bd46131e2203eb
1282 F20110320_AABDCV bond_a_Page_163.txt
aa83d09cd449cdc1c2fa2280cb565313
f673e1e5f0366155de889b8be241f7acbea7d4f7
F20110320_AABBWW bond_a_Page_160.tif
97d1e7b06a77e435a78b74d5570f4c14
5d18e0fc1d27a0b0ac76dcbe9dea1bd6c882e603
23418 F20110320_AABCZY bond_a_Page_128.pro
20ab61007cad96aff6344a2fd96ad1c6
6140361d4c8b9e6c91c69f185fe2021341ec1ffc
23705 F20110320_AABCDF bond_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
f9e47e9c3dc77429f11007c99ef67b15
2bcb1b74020141b9f78f558630cd26eeb434df28
6338 F20110320_AABCCQ bond_a_Page_098thm.jpg
d04f655a97d036b0b025bf1227f307b9
f2c8ac8677426061a0055cd78079e5c803592352
1598 F20110320_AABBXK bond_a_Page_067.txt
b04b917ade2de2284035add8baa3de19
127d37e2f9f9ab8a57d1897dde5dc19285d39fd8
39526 F20110320_AABDDK bond_a_Page_095.pro
05f2e5fab7b41b0b9d9f69e15426c9bd
b199b8bc4a07159a98b8cbe982b5835665a8fa7b
68276 F20110320_AABDCW bond_a_Page_035.jpg
ba63bf663518842b20ef12bd0e796768
6004a5d2171b5b8c3cb98e29f2a0e950644b97b1
71233 F20110320_AABBWX bond_a_Page_058.jpg
ede9cea984097aec254ed309bd77f372
7699405cf7c8545d32633427606938c69f111fd9
74177 F20110320_AABCZZ bond_a_Page_090.jpg
a1af495d95f86a80b9c26dced9ecbc5f
ab9b4a8d6380f69b0d1995c51062ac4c39725713
93139 F20110320_AABCDG bond_a_Page_023.jp2
d4f672f9668fb9d0490e51dcf3e4f4f7
8968895b2fea48ea9d3b8365627f3af1d1ffb009
5411 F20110320_AABCCR bond_a_Page_010thm.jpg
3991f851225f4ea7a8aff75c8d97f655
1fa1f6f6843e4f6901e9af339dfaac1b526afd95
30661 F20110320_AABBXL bond_a_Page_079.pro
fd724d91cb3c9c94fc7ed232c4ae4cc9
2947f0e163e8a33df486aa78c940128f55de64f0
12439 F20110320_AABDEA bond_a_Page_147.QC.jpg
897a44cd5c4123d9ff6624a32b3c5197
1e48ab259a071f64510722c9e0d56ea39a9ea816
F20110320_AABDDL bond_a_Page_008.tif
30f1643d4c54e9cf1a2b6328827e3cc3
46cc4b386244d12b15bdab725bd15ead7b6a82e2
F20110320_AABDCX bond_a_Page_154.tif
d7be3523fa4ed66b579be4d38ab85a75
1688b276c7252022880602d54917cb61eac02282
20978 F20110320_AABBWY bond_a_Page_060.pro
09ef4ed10c3fa1da08374e82cd31089b
25b7726b73aeac90cc4cfe64c94b6618816a00ba
6860 F20110320_AABCDH bond_a_Page_093thm.jpg
8cfda401972e5e1701adb222294f78ec
c8d42850fd373daf6458668991c47cec809618c6
6263 F20110320_AABBYA bond_a_Page_099thm.jpg
4250bee76309dad62ad05a05f0a1cfbe
c5bc68b0e3564d2de4e5444d9bfcba054c9fa9d0
23616 F20110320_AABCCS bond_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
5855df1cd04c6668d04897885ec6fabd
97cc693ffdb8343448193f92686b698e14acd6b7
472 F20110320_AABBXM bond_a_Page_113.txt
dcb9e1cbcbf82edc37377edfb00ca70c
ffdb9585a81a6a75c2be4c63275acff5f60b09ca
33542 F20110320_AABDEB bond_a_Page_163.jpg
3eb16f11e76b40288fe2b00885ce6cc1
66937ee885cea49b1c18fda14df4533d0cba2a68
6261 F20110320_AABDDM bond_a_Page_107thm.jpg
412b5868ee4c17d9a7a5e485b2cea0ec
d8aec641724ab0f53c6cece4e05cde2cdad484cd
2040 F20110320_AABDCY bond_a_Page_164.txt
0bdf4b485dff3e997ea6ce5201801763
98c09a5136be26721408c0b6be308be2473fbfca
4633 F20110320_AABBWZ bond_a_Page_079thm.jpg
753be8e0e257e19292a920da54fff5bf
041217c5ae47736bb3552169d8894f4cdfbaeb0d
110166 F20110320_AABBYB bond_a_Page_068.jp2
f83998933db9120c40b221e89ea170a1
84b333fc7bfddf66d4bb916d2d00ff1453588118
1488 F20110320_AABCCT bond_a_Page_175.txt
f7d194feceb360b38dac2ab181550eca
76c98fb56b5dea8368cfa1066052d39576c5ea2b
F20110320_AABBXN bond_a_Page_133.tif
2f8314a1ff95d50675ce5d01c4066922
eb8dd7fd7932d88bb481cb7c8039636a933a527d
12119 F20110320_AABDEC bond_a_Page_150.QC.jpg
a6ea099e6e50c2bc92b541d5b1fe9bb7
72372ae831d35560d5cf8f9711b1b0ba82c1cb8c
916592 F20110320_AABDDN bond_a_Page_095.jp2
3251dd69ea9c858deece28bbeb332d81
5f2473d5fb73dd38ec43dfb8039750635a666c2c
2296 F20110320_AABDCZ bond_a_Page_187.txt
d9269111d4834058a3c0949e38bd9e65
a96bcc0cf755920cd11d699eb1dca473809f6c1c
23767 F20110320_AABCDI bond_a_Page_113.jp2
1c63a8338d285002be6af6d58048914d
4eb98db1bee7b49a23e64ffbc105a444d0af4cd8
34347 F20110320_AABBYC bond_a_Page_152.jpg
fe11f56517421fa073aabc6b7125ef98
d46e7729639a9f4c5c8a4acac5d21054ca3a93c5
23306 F20110320_AABCCU bond_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
c1691be6fc415066e1f149d17a7b64c7
d2fdfdbe50a3918208bc0369d4ff39770bae9a1b
22243 F20110320_AABBXO bond_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
bb7fb273a054a5708620eeef057fa3b8
15af860e6b8eecea35ea5be53cc54d483c2dd21c
66911 F20110320_AABDED bond_a_Page_107.jpg
06e4d17d9868d626be1838ca90d957d5
a8db5bc8c9fe7ce5131f1ba5231dcce676a01ca7
68487 F20110320_AABDDO bond_a_Page_032.jpg
544f4831a4c97c5e329122bbb2ea840c
200bee411b8084aea4ce6a50bd54e9993dec004e
F20110320_AABCDJ bond_a_Page_004.tif
790f617f5612c39d2eb515d9c0dd0189
d2141fc573c188d4f3b544efac59278fe9f8b739
65993 F20110320_AABBYD bond_a_Page_111.jpg
905712d8e1af9bf5183ba1c0c643e263
94bb586b0583d41329848bb9a386cef0b7e5fcec
49147 F20110320_AABCCV bond_a_Page_036.pro
0ec46edb14dba5701ffea7065f5d0f0d
dfd49e4097eb5c8cbaedb6c6348a2e4ae93efc56
6026 F20110320_AABBXP bond_a_Page_097thm.jpg
08d4d63c71e3a96aac6334e0db90df87
be488c5df33f74cc20a437353f289f0d31c12698
56115 F20110320_AABDEE bond_a_Page_180.jp2
536e37e6d18756b8646fa0320ec09486
f8db8cf7f43a8f91b37a2aade147fa48f4f49e2b
17008 F20110320_AABDDP bond_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
8a5830fc8c584325db5edfd27220f4ce
6334c7e87c6d53a2552952501d4fb7aac3a044a5
97775 F20110320_AABCDK bond_a_Page_013.jp2
74a04110ad18b4c0b7dbc79a10f1cf7d
3daeca189e51c19e1d1d474e17b54fffe3e1925d
1958 F20110320_AABBYE bond_a_Page_082.txt
dcc21d0ff3abcbb82198fca28d64bcdb
8aa27b180d6ed0c9e0a56ef0b0f95ba54d8fe0b5
104065 F20110320_AABCCW bond_a_Page_073.jp2
97c93c321c332a4342adf371302f80af
3f727a245b4979f6636c2d858d561496c204dc39
F20110320_AABBXQ bond_a_Page_006.tif
b07cb2d7e439538f70ccc2bf6cd9a6df
5c2826afc73ebe8f960c01a66926016dcbb218b6
6530 F20110320_AABDEF bond_a_Page_092thm.jpg
2490e3071f62edd0792aa47f0bc7abc3
5242cbb90d70ad213be138035ee99287b805a875
30339 F20110320_AABDDQ bond_a_Page_126.jpg
d624f8bbf50a22c7cde18b0e85d3305c
44d545311c8b33c926410690ed58f26fdb432d20
12827 F20110320_AABCDL bond_a_Page_156.QC.jpg
fc8d607e8cc4e6b281e00f220cec6a49
7c0d3a6984dcb913278695989e506451f9cfad85
2185 F20110320_AABBYF bond_a_Page_162.txt
8feaa5bb1f9b068881f0dd764a5462eb
176e0825d9d96624a38b8992b87ca6b0b912cc29
9735 F20110320_AABCCX bond_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
37d980825c359fa010b8e69cbea8de78
04c75f2b76cd7558693b56861ea4d6b6ca88f64d
75855 F20110320_AABBXR bond_a_Page_056.jp2
b29d664763b94dd74bdc71f9704c95a7
c9c9eed34a6c511aabf995a1d8cb0739ff395537
1809 F20110320_AABCEA bond_a_Page_013.txt
3ea14da38e1c8e845bdd34046a69f0f3
79349de0937ff58085c51305b6f0df1aebf9921a
54770 F20110320_AABDEG bond_a_Page_117.jp2
f1f39cc83e16a8a917a361ae91ca8020
4de07182aa26df840ce703cc92436293d6228e78
49404 F20110320_AABDDR bond_a_Page_167.jp2
7e8824995bd8b0cdc4fc8d3dc4ad12f8
be19bdb913ebbb5389f521e48882445a8f51e0b4
39957 F20110320_AABCDM bond_a_Page_175.jpg
6a8e22c9b7d59c22dbf719e54040d905
a27520de2b0041bdadf939f90d5a65b2bd52f9d5
11570 F20110320_AABBYG bond_a_Page_138.QC.jpg
a929d51537ce71894c47f506b67e4040
850e391d10b696eab50506ecde8a9673dcf7af10
41959 F20110320_AABCCY bond_a_Page_054.pro
68615e85baba217a8f38d4feabe3f5bf
3387feb111cdca8a9433f506e6804005d3c6dc54
22772 F20110320_AABBXS bond_a_Page_065.pro
1e52a10b22e6e6b89b456dee8a90df2b
329d653bfe2b39457287d5d4f2c85006853b00f2
F20110320_AABCEB bond_a_Page_068.tif
e0fb6b734e9b85367d5eb5e9302a0c6c
8d5cbe49cccdf53ef018b1943c59af7c1f33b87c
279 F20110320_AABDEH bond_a_Page_006.txt
49e89c0bfa35d950d941c3c256c44cc8
31b9c780d903266ce7faec5edede818a78f2255b
82108 F20110320_AABDDS bond_a_Page_050.jp2
795f3a73cedfd7ccaafb57a0c99b49ba
fc342805f648ae6e3c17859192177c8e1692102f
22043 F20110320_AABCDN bond_a_Page_008.pro
ea4698e1830587e496032164cd2d0e50
dff5bd5a02661c59e76012e32b9c08e926df3644
30048 F20110320_AABBYH bond_a_Page_158.jpg
55e4db0537de0c711e2bb99813e9e577
cfb6ac90bfda0ef1f3fd12ab74fdbeb5a1a771db
38695 F20110320_AABCCZ bond_a_Page_155.jpg
abd969a3a4378ec63bbfee9b552ad955
b232b6e83007967d89295769b92322c8c9f328cb
50474 F20110320_AABBXT bond_a_Page_039.pro
391970f9b78fdb9192936340906e4149
72f798ca9d8eb13ed976d942fbff0c24cd3ab0d1
19086 F20110320_AABCEC bond_a_Page_120.QC.jpg
153256818c29f8263947c40fd3bd17ad
2038078ae235a08a4d1a341851bffafb1361e0a5
28114 F20110320_AABDDT bond_a_Page_078.pro
382902534fda7fe1d6df159fc2127422
f59801d88d171e501bb78b1b885f5777560739e5
F20110320_AABCDO bond_a_Page_089.tif
d3a2e008f85541072c1cf7c2c0c695cf
801ad3bf706971a1d9a22cb4dac352bbd9d609d8
F20110320_AABBYI bond_a_Page_036.tif
b54869a85c4641ecdfd9ac95a93aea5d
ea4027ae56457fcc6efa49e8789eb0a95e396217
2337 F20110320_AABBXU bond_a_Page_184.txt
b0e83353fad0e60fea8df6675b78ffc1
87f95548ec29f0dc9da7d19367fa6c5a345ad3a9
59355 F20110320_AABCED bond_a_Page_123.jp2
e37c6a3630283c9345da4bc96c98829f
3831692c0e55805853349497e737792c7577796e
1975 F20110320_AABDEI bond_a_Page_136.txt
c4505caf3227651a93b553c5bca4bc89
24235e9522d93f5e315f2c4e6b8ab863c63cd8db
55141 F20110320_AABDDU bond_a_Page_132.jp2
12ad880bc1467d8561348e228b2eeb23
b3ce79b73b7071e8edf5b2c75c71a245e57c694c
31798 F20110320_AABCDP bond_a_Page_049.jpg
0e6e47ada679114cb69a8a888fbdfb4f
8826da75f1c5f959f066ee1f3a023a51e4f0c0d7
4216 F20110320_AABBYJ bond_a_Page_118thm.jpg
363111fff2f7877922b27b53bc34d562
f5db5ac384e96901176b19f08094cf3bdf810248
91290 F20110320_AABBXV bond_a_Page_076.jp2
88ea508cf9a9924f3b8b58f829c9b3ea
14c2ab66cd7423b69e7f0c4b1d16bc4ada5ea256
F20110320_AABCEE bond_a_Page_023.tif
1a723f356dbaff11493d33a196884b73
66f325e520ca8c4e0a72452168662ef35bf60c19
49828 F20110320_AABDEJ bond_a_Page_089.pro
21397bb91e25cf00b06700c81513dd63
53df66d5ea8ae8191f691eaec5cd1a50adcf28ef
1817 F20110320_AABDDV bond_a_Page_111.txt
7454ee486d68b8333683b46cf5b9fc57
d7a788dc8e8ce2b1ed115a0f3a56939fbee50c15
66850 F20110320_AABCDQ bond_a_Page_042.jpg
481b83406a79d099f4dd51e72eef4e41
d47f9cfce8ef24bbf6eef78a32f3df74d5b2c234
69111 F20110320_AABBYK bond_a_Page_073.jpg
9d629433a2fb2c19d541108cc4bff784
2c25499ce04a57396f5cb7d6cf90eae71ca5331c
46714 F20110320_AABBXW bond_a_Page_061.jpg
22a1373afb1b6eb3afcdff9dfea537ee
7ee49e9b944ecf1273fcc98f6229607a47463b20
1288 F20110320_AABCEF bond_a_Page_168.txt
4f76135c00953d0a01497324493304d8
31619ffe3cd26b33b6ebf008ac47e19d4860bb1f
114090 F20110320_AABDEK bond_a_Page_046.jp2
7b644692dd859f446f0866c57af20ebb
de72d5bb6f5a416c3b55f61ecaefb00bb3bb039a
2041 F20110320_AABDDW bond_a_Page_022.txt
0c3d861576433c2ec80243cb39965a77
050aff93690d80952dd6bfcc5b478b1bec7a55a4
61058 F20110320_AABCDR bond_a_Page_060.jpg
6de30f1b90d494c0bfc0dde32b1fbaec
203b3903d95e000d0e1832c28cf3b6cc55162520
3887 F20110320_AABBYL bond_a_Page_144thm.jpg
4af30669e97f67403e6aa569e9ffa771
4377af89b3eae50a67007349ca589dda9cb705de
6252 F20110320_AABBXX bond_a_Page_032thm.jpg
5d3c20590bf7079b61b5b0f34ffdd2c4
9c5f35bfa9feee733ab9c54516c92bd3814d9747
48166 F20110320_AABCEG bond_a_Page_091.pro
857453419814156af0e7c7f3e93a6b0a
5659843f2ed39442737ea284490e7829f79d65ad
40729 F20110320_AABDFA bond_a_Page_146.jpg
ccb7d157d10ad1640551be4e6dd76191
4b9466a7635372f230b81b94b9e41de5e4e0ca11
1339 F20110320_AABDEL bond_a_Page_169.txt
250111225060d976d834ae2747308eb8
a398589d82665feb45f4774c42fbaf08376ddfbd
36751 F20110320_AABDDX bond_a_Page_114.jpg
476f64affb09f4440fbb40c2c31b9f2c
90bf29dade6a95d6becfe3b42907fa0e01e36824
48827 F20110320_AABBZA bond_a_Page_109.pro
aef19a34550ba50cd301c2a79905b19b
48e39f19f3c8cb22c76058ebae301ebd7ef56fb2
44969 F20110320_AABCDS bond_a_Page_157.jpg
eb5590178df3fe0d5cf5f9fa9c40a6b7
8492438b22519497c46396ce141acf8e186eba41
3616 F20110320_AABBYM bond_a_Page_173thm.jpg
141a886fd3b2f463e2a101ebe84d4e57
54b24395dbe7e0acb9fdadda8ecb09a6a9732f96
72537 F20110320_AABBXY bond_a_Page_066.jpg
db3ead8fa5fbe01ed31d967062992d36
c1ac6bfdda937cfc74b0b77061dfbe7a7ca1012e
115561 F20110320_AABCEH bond_a_Page_020.jp2
f1db6a9d0a0cee2b0fc63c5326d623ed
b099e98d8b95436e9b585521579d832447e9556d
F20110320_AABDFB bond_a_Page_127.tif
9fa0d2b578a52b4b0060965bd9b92d2a
faacd693ec32371ce53ab8f2fdb9d99991bdfc37
F20110320_AABDEM bond_a_Page_111.tif
e47cdf76b29fc1fd14a1608f9177a94d
42c265529ca8b048c70f6b8501395276d5624707
1006693 F20110320_AABDDY bond_a_Page_083.jp2
6e0c98537838d9a49debf65661438a3a
8c7ebd10465033f9e024446ff452fa8007e31010
1050858 F20110320_AABBZB bond_a_Page_082.jp2
007274e81364e7a7beccad68f30d48b8
f6e0dbf9ef40089f2e235ff3c10b10177ebdac8f
F20110320_AABCDT bond_a_Page_028thm.jpg
6491abfc10bb2dba59324beaa6bf5d7f
b2da4f5f8cd381511cfd733e35e19dc83cdabf84
2662 F20110320_AABBYN bond_a_Page_120.txt
f7167235976f2047bebf664dc27bf105
55ade862993fa27ae85051a1610bc8eb550e2086
80397 F20110320_AABBXZ bond_a_Page_003.jp2
88f8953cfc241a6784b9ab584ffbe6b0
28710b087f062b609136c42bda0d6428dd538109
45210 F20110320_AABCEI bond_a_Page_115.pro
bc6508fb40b38765ef76c240d1f3bf22
9484c9fcf330336c58b61bd6e269674f3728aca5
3915 F20110320_AABDFC bond_a_Page_178thm.jpg
316183b64623ef1617461630d63c6a1a
e2902476533ea3ededf32ca09241b05d59a3955f
85841 F20110320_AABDEN bond_a_Page_103.jp2
2672c8a759b46fa53e1a847d57ce3a2b
9bf5410aa2eaeae0c01a628c105ba409cc421149
F20110320_AABDDZ bond_a_Page_178.tif
ed7ad5de82a45c21fa1db77360b1bf1b
cc736e223e942cd3ed00d1680d55455059547478
20808 F20110320_AABBZC bond_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
fd379ad07201435babefab93178e486c
0298f33f8b3b12507ca2b15c535c565c5d3eec96
39152 F20110320_AABCDU bond_a_Page_154.jp2
70071a99ce757937e64f0656f3450b93
925a8077d4207a1515ca554412339e3a6826425e
31822 F20110320_AABBYO bond_a_Page_137.pro
a84a18b93a9cde29d4641cf8342de4f0
112a91361d0a5c9c225792039ea9da804bd95a2f
F20110320_AABDFD bond_a_Page_155.tif
237e1fe07a376f42048292babfd81b7c
1a8e1ed73983020bd2fc02c97cac2ef6b7ac9a20
38810 F20110320_AABDEO bond_a_Page_138.jpg
931c8cfea45efb77c934e4ce64098c09
4d3d06711bace454f3f33ff4f0dbe51b556a24b4
25556 F20110320_AABBZD bond_a_Page_165.pro
888ad43b5fdf6559287781658a4cff9d
e85a5f2240f7253e4f7b0bb627b3863aa5bb3cab
74529 F20110320_AABCDV bond_a_Page_084.jpg
99333d5b244ed2b281ea237cf9c10924
60b163f44bd48e15ba34e50b7eac8de9dfb6d483
25327 F20110320_AABBYP bond_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
fa02eb5fe08deef40f426746e6c85419
6bc89f8730c083b6c87322d41669f507a0f0ead9
47639 F20110320_AABCEJ bond_a_Page_024.jpg
8f9f8776ae08fe2e9a72e835bb4ed133
8f9884c31b301480873c75f0039d90830bcc29d7
1411 F20110320_AABDFE bond_a_Page_002thm.jpg
450417bf60bb189d87f61a4eeeb42061
64d084de8a305cbdb8f52fb85074dca6453ce6cf
5456 F20110320_AABDEP bond_a_Page_065thm.jpg
c33f1e022ee0f4a5e42b25b6b72ccde2
5a6fbd0df7f693856ce5ef5128703f0c0fc45606
38130 F20110320_AABBZE bond_a_Page_172.pro
e84fffd09be291a9ce77019072983fe4
c7d82ce4402c18f7eb98d6512fd18a41041d9b5c
35233 F20110320_AABCDW bond_a_Page_165.jpg
307baa849a9f0a40e0442e5179058d29
6cc93a81cd13d5c35ab49438ee7dc260384cd1d0
F20110320_AABBYQ bond_a_Page_081.tif
2ac742f955c230a24d6b296304646337
c108376ba843282368ecc2774a8fdb1acf5ae301
29930 F20110320_AABCEK bond_a_Page_129.jpg
a9771001634ed9676f286309a744dd34
1976f22fb93105ff14fb2f40e3818bf01c83f6cb
F20110320_AABDFF bond_a_Page_181.tif
c2b531b7dc3ad34e06005abfe9cf5d7f
3f970a7772f04bbf4f72537248214a91e7c1f451
722706 F20110320_AABDEQ bond_a_Page_118.jp2
91334cda6f7c6f761891910c5d377afb
3b3a6dc42b7687dfcf494726038f087d5f677cf8
4918 F20110320_AABBZF bond_a_Page_121thm.jpg
776d04a062e9014679017675baa95943
e459f7cdf31b006723e2a3224db41de700d7e89d
31414 F20110320_AABCDX bond_a_Page_177.pro
24e6925d8bedbb4f53d5cd0f4ee9cbd4
a593257b9d2c2882f0fa4bbb900d91df3258e037
6794 F20110320_AABBYR bond_a_Page_006.pro
72901a38a6f2e999e7b4f8d8b7884cdc
a65d684de60b512b312fafc4ccb8064f10257a11
45186 F20110320_AABCFA bond_a_Page_111.pro
e67c25810e437b2868f5eedac01f263d
ad4587247375c20b8e669141567e13abd85e5974
1891 F20110320_AABCEL bond_a_Page_104.txt
45ad912a6814f1b529904392b86d3e27
f567b9ca551be93bd59336fa0018312555da485e
59185 F20110320_AABDFG bond_a_Page_141.jp2
808271f2a418b9750524f4cafe8d1d6b
682b800067bae7708a4bc45525893bdd772d97af
38850 F20110320_AABDER bond_a_Page_181.jpg
4c19394361f45be31c65d2c52ec6a52a
be87369ae4354e00e0cfe2fb69970f44e508efea
66195 F20110320_AABBZG bond_a_Page_047.jpg
0b53b9281d9820d37c1b45b00d1ffcf5
d98f9836328c116c0053c90034e51af00b11230f
15898 F20110320_AABCDY bond_a_Page_122.QC.jpg
f0019656504aaa79b5e377549f526920
9f282c297a6ff44f7f30ee83bffd7781633bcd3d
11027 F20110320_AABBYS bond_a_Page_167.QC.jpg
068b4e886d28cc1078451568451d934e
5b323b4ce273682fc37ffd684a4f3f6f23fcc4db
3644 F20110320_AABCFB bond_a_Page_137thm.jpg
3794e6e4793021e856d55f5429e6ecd2
3ec5911cbbcf6200b21ce1ded6064635ce2edfb2
9138 F20110320_AABCEM bond_a_Page_126.QC.jpg
5f82092c731f09668cc1a95dd8295482
62ec9ee8bfe4759dab8bc47a9540fdbed54bc2e2
F20110320_AABDFH bond_a_Page_030.txt
19e9550fbc9c2768ed6ac08f2832f95d
28e87c3d8f433f9911cae97d427ad75dc0834ad1
F20110320_AABDES bond_a_Page_088.tif
120041d9903c73b59d2baefd7a5af44b
e30aa1ebc25e95d851757a77f9b90f7e5017b435
F20110320_AABCDZ bond_a_Page_049.tif
44b5d8070d4e3a05551b7c39b0e9da75
de959fd6b7806c516553850fb01e31d23fbcac83
F20110320_AABBYT bond_a_Page_145.tif
cb87c71b8a44f52937c2bf045bfc1530
46f575f5216a96e738d4bf5a24a0840b76a3a904
F20110320_AABCFC bond_a_Page_066.jp2
88e4b51e25bcf9c5516bb5f9eee8e4a8
f6983a36df36b3df5d001b9bc4da9d34a651551f
2948 F20110320_AABCEN bond_a_Page_133thm.jpg
e875b9379cfaf79079d2477cab823c6e
21a1e281e832c442fdf4bab683b317a9d297aef6
4341 F20110320_AABBZH bond_a_Page_005.txt
dea6365b0dd50e44f8b222002fcbbce6
43c202c5c3c0b80b3714b2cc651f72ac954785f2
40195 F20110320_AABDFI bond_a_Page_140.jpg
5d19a2cb1218e4704e770871c1887ab3
3c3d1736ff7eb0dd19eb4f9f9eefc351f91f096f
31285 F20110320_AABDET bond_a_Page_156.pro
1cff0d5730fa8ef4345f0540e83e7442
4f3551f3576f4d3e82db0662f373a4553d93d29b
11150 F20110320_AABBYU bond_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
69e40c6aeed8d365a36b64edfe39ab58
06a3a487696381a25801086576726aab13422740
1045 F20110320_AABCFD bond_a_Page_055.txt
80f94deef3fab9dcec37df114847a00f
70e5476419d809e0403764286060093e4eeea9ea
24304 F20110320_AABCEO bond_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
85a1e26a4d65bf975df4865206ff6444
7bf45852d6a1d47fd919e2312af9ccf25eed8cd5
1346 F20110320_AABBZI bond_a_Page_079.txt
0a5d1e0b0d5eba47b3ccd7088fc61390
d4a0298b24a1d4102b8d7f36e406f56bd736b756
104641 F20110320_AABDEU bond_a_Page_033.jp2
a43e06d301049f7887be40dd3397c8d9
496c8c82c5feef310e0abba313175d2392aafb89
3306 F20110320_AABBYV bond_a_Page_102thm.jpg
4871141235e6c7b0e4920ad88cc31693
e1e2f40907a2a008bd39b2a71c3bb91f2eed612d
5021 F20110320_AABCFE bond_a_Page_004thm.jpg
eae0c991ada7900e4b7036c8efb52c25
c4682ff80fc7999f021bd285c3782c4a9596cb89
6247 F20110320_AABCEP bond_a_Page_100thm.jpg
e465092262cc15ac760230692e24de55
1789642072a964bcfd25b53a569a04d0d4f9c37b
2044 F20110320_AABBZJ bond_a_Page_028.txt
fded22cd85e93592649897e85afbaf8f
203f383ef5d930dc3c86b30bc997c46351d4eabb
22951 F20110320_AABDFJ bond_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
1a37a14ac71e585aa80489837377b7e5
cce164179ec56c3d5b55afdf44d437c81a02034e
F20110320_AABDEV bond_a_Page_039.tif
b3f649d2411c375a449307925db279e6
087c4706025e4ebd2b69c44a7cb50928898d4cfa
55396 F20110320_AABBYW bond_a_Page_177.jp2
d05a84e3dd1fbc19858d517b53a8070c
24177f4934f119569641cb10bda3d5ea5e54dabd
F20110320_AABCFF bond_a_Page_169.tif
b820b92c8c331b4e103aefea704bacf1
cf39ce437af5dbda3699304f9af853247c8bd30a
54611 F20110320_AABCEQ bond_a_Page_067.jpg
19a583687139c06a3e047976d93aaba1
437a11774afbfd8f1acd79e0406fd9762d06f0b9
951334 F20110320_AABBZK bond_a_Page_081.jp2
a7fa3a4e4fe50f719f61383d6ed00bca
d6575bb6430f165949012d4ce6324cac162951e5
20906 F20110320_AABDFK bond_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
578306b1cda490803678085dc359d3c6
4170701bf08f5bddd4de85cc02d8b05a912e00e0
2029 F20110320_AABDEW bond_a_Page_108.txt
d3a63c4a0b4abed05220bae44815fa28
6011d9e031752ce6657f25b100567aef891f33b3
71817 F20110320_AABBYX bond_a_Page_034.jpg
d1764e304070065f4a7509e0b85a604e
405bff837e9b94dd47d74f11de26d38da14cc8ee
64195 F20110320_AABCFG bond_a_Page_157.jp2
2c17be2a0765802cd404dcbffdd4e82e
ca8c424a4f27ffe597bb1d9a889f9a17db5c9433
2199 F20110320_AABCER bond_a_Page_020.txt
a2355ffe69e732a3505c7e6cac3bcbf3
46742d4694a7b8f065b996422bf54d8f6776d208
F20110320_AABBZL bond_a_Page_047.tif
39e3b6e5294387a09bfddf806421f802
808b1e0ee81e47248192c21228fa65a60f6e3315
18536 F20110320_AABDGA bond_a_Page_061.pro
b3ca9b3e77857e34770d20a89be18b01
7b3643e7be1b9eb41f63823a9513c2db120b10f9
67945 F20110320_AABDFL bond_a_Page_011.jpg
9ea568b37dc0f4fa65e41205ff69982b
a50441feee5d0176fad6d069f5666e6d54f54b83
6337 F20110320_AABDEX bond_a_Page_161.QC.jpg
3ed7639b478e55acbba1238812983dd6
a62f056870eb6bac68948b899f8852f8241dd8fd
6355 F20110320_AABBYY bond_a_Page_016thm.jpg
a0f37115d35082b0a29e44686ac8b78c
0e76d0841b9e1861a479d67d994a92ec027fdfd0
6563 F20110320_AABCFH bond_a_Page_108thm.jpg
36fba139651de3e28f770fae8aaf7af8
25693802a82057a143cbe78a4f7adaf4bb7bc715
6406 F20110320_AABCES bond_a_Page_030thm.jpg
4cc139f15887e74b0babf8cccf0275ab
398896999555cab07a26cbf0d6e4629912af0f0a
1262 F20110320_AABBZM bond_a_Page_165.txt
a5a2f08156157bdbff9200de770b4c73
6bb6e14ff0c3835a46c13b217d8ba210a685c08b
5793 F20110320_AABDGB bond_a_Page_052thm.jpg
ac4dfcd0a58e04f6fa0590493a4a4341
db455535f4ca99acecb0287800f6f4445b2c21e2
13286 F20110320_AABDFM bond_a_Page_162.QC.jpg
11482c56cfc43a549d5b73b2f57c1a95
791a4bc45d0adb671b26c0b4ed684f3d4cd69c88
6754 F20110320_AABDEY bond_a_Page_090thm.jpg
470321801a20d2a20841bb0e8e48797a
59174ea17c889a4ab8d1548c2e7a7f9813d5acaf
1882 F20110320_AABBYZ bond_a_Page_147.txt
60e0bc30b521857fff0563e95768243e
e24e33a27c1489f17bbbf899ba8be19ee0e787f8
107398 F20110320_AABCFI bond_a_Page_058.jp2
2a444669035d445ee15be202c67e8150
2dfa4b974ccb173d319834b6a7c41aad4fc8e6ee
61524 F20110320_AABCET bond_a_Page_116.jpg
5bf0dcc59cc81f6790cef3d300eb7a52
331d2e72de98002989683657f0d75a6639bc48ed
51834 F20110320_AABBZN bond_a_Page_022.pro
7bb347307cf15d8eeb1b47006bf46da6
277bb4040826ff841911e3d42f10a790e27794b9
21536 F20110320_AABDGC bond_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
99008c51dbf458347b8529ba1c7ab672
ec5560ef0b1c10017cb508147c74e25cd067f438
65793 F20110320_AABDFN bond_a_Page_097.jpg
d16bfeac57e07362b21536f054a11314
cec162446c30b342c6c96afe84bc605535da7caa
F20110320_AABDEZ bond_a_Page_086.tif
ff30878776f507b410660f6e89883fc2
5da1909063926bad48e5139b44b35061694bc61f
943 F20110320_AABCFJ bond_a_Page_133.txt
04dbe464f5d449550080a75834a0b31a
496c4cb6ac92b59b6de4b53574bcaa0fd4d36936
1904 F20110320_AABCEU bond_a_Page_059.txt
db6c03c61c3fd521ecfee5cdfdbc068c
699ed7789e638fdce3f11ceaaaa9b94b22085ff0
F20110320_AABBZO bond_a_Page_012.tif
d83c0d08e4e12e81729f28355c332ce8
190f12ed68b2566f907ef6bd02cc335605fb2872
2363 F20110320_AABDGD bond_a_Page_062.txt
1be1675bdcdb704776bb476aca69cb23
729d24fd34c5216a986c6694db407e01ba611dea
45039 F20110320_AABDFO bond_a_Page_121.pro
5cbf4d57a5f968e7decc4431fb02292d
0733d20ac062b58a845eefbba068c938d96428d1
2727 F20110320_AABCEV bond_a_Page_001thm.jpg
5d5aea79ccbd17c5e6be6490c700954d
d1d885fd0e34869cac778fc23295c04300a057a0
60823 F20110320_AABBZP bond_a_Page_162.jp2
c08fe21cdfe777fff53bc335a234ede4
5f6b2d0b79cc012ceff710f283bcdec9a51d6123
1039 F20110320_AABDGE bond_a_Page_061.txt
34803b96cdbf22ad2b41ce9b6bf2d827
1b15e0b26797e2ee247c5b3474db99ab2d09703c
23684 F20110320_AABDFP bond_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
d7b7a25b7d82a45a905b2d1d5a4fed17
246e13ce8b6754a36769c1be7684af9dd8b10fb8
11302 F20110320_AABCFK bond_a_Page_137.QC.jpg
5d0f8abd7f29f2260bb1f7ff4d7941cb
0d3049e24bbc300d36b6eabf0966fcddef28e8f4
69398 F20110320_AABCEW bond_a_Page_079.jp2
6100eeaf4ba0942cef973e15ae11dc83
681d65d8b4ea62db76de1f8ece093b8fd3f6c439
F20110320_AABBZQ bond_a_Page_135.tif
0be1e3e936327e56fae7e11d42259f2b
9fb37b7c97135f37ed34857297dfca4b3c732894
1051959 F20110320_AABDGF bond_a_Page_072.jp2
567810aff5b8d1099b82574d881991be
c5fa90b90aba56d7ea9f2ff0136f4b6567021108
6676 F20110320_AABDFQ bond_a_Page_186thm.jpg
f748bb4f90cda627cf6d84ec571b5ccc
397e840486aab4291f7f8b59b9960fa5eefb71df
1722 F20110320_AABCGA bond_a_Page_135.txt
54d88f126dbc1e75ea2fd2b5687c91b1
46fa4095c65b3ebd7186e121ec765e6b1063f752
3128 F20110320_AABCFL bond_a_Page_158thm.jpg
2c0493f8f3cad805fd6e408310627366
49afb0760d960e53f1b8d858828c88e5799e943a
48559 F20110320_AABCEX bond_a_Page_165.jp2
11811d7d08c2992192a59d38eb15c3d8
604b056a7689a1bba497877c28aa10f63bf6b180
12820 F20110320_AABBZR bond_a_Page_179.QC.jpg
06e2b1811afde2d2b11f37f56e8c67c4
5146d680b825697239c15dda61536538ef462956
1905 F20110320_AABDGG bond_a_Page_183.txt
5e598d4762ee6fc6d4f2c6f50a2afe1c
49c0cc24db8b3bcc5434b9997bd66dae8c5a8ef6
40217 F20110320_AABDFR bond_a_Page_126.jp2
5cfef6032cb32a1ee2ee883a7c101b10
895abdeb8d73ad566a29e9e07cdcdc3874e3529d
F20110320_AABCGB bond_a_Page_172.tif
ff9730b042f47bd13c319147bcafd039
dc4e51597068d70808926c5008b97e131f012528
22666 F20110320_AABCFM bond_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
ccd15c0240aa3f182156b06eceb37d1d
7039dce97cc8d9ed3266c4e4899bd536fb451116
25625 F20110320_AABCEY bond_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
0ee94de36d05a41056dff914a9ab2bcd
900305e036c5bde3afe765a9fcee9b9522b53a81
12122 F20110320_AABBZS bond_a_Page_175.QC.jpg
3160cdd1afb3904d1d0b1bfd34e1fce9
210cb678cb0ecd31196566c4fd1c01ec0fe0f566
37960 F20110320_AABDGH bond_a_Page_015.pro
bedbbf752af3f08341e6dee952e547a8
b1c1287f6a328ee5956fd140e6a50715ae36a4cd
87520 F20110320_AABDFS bond_a_Page_005.jpg
f5d4b393146c977824604b793d23da95
b113be0348ce992e80b99f074ea2c7bbfd6f7b46
F20110320_AABCGC bond_a_Page_104.tif
0fffca593cef3c8ccd4af4887cf4c9e3
30ce8fc6b2df0fa4767d4f35a767f99ca58bfaca
69354 F20110320_AABCFN bond_a_Page_004.jpg
2846aabdb1cd5cbc1920719a13af7ab0
a9350c53d2fbb550af9d818b6822b3acb295be29
1763 F20110320_AABCEZ bond_a_Page_040.txt
af77de50dcc74cebaaeb270c6f5f2f22
47fb90469bb47a611228cf593c091f857af45b5b
4067 F20110320_AABBZT bond_a_Page_141thm.jpg
d543da696321c68ee88542b263faa8a3
7e634d9e275bea6e82df1a9fc8cfb408b1345967
44282 F20110320_AABDGI bond_a_Page_052.pro
448a71d32577a08f43aecb81bb07bfcc
87ae89f0018cdcd152e8f0770834febcd9d68a94
83009 F20110320_AABDFT bond_a_Page_015.jp2
9dd2932dbf86fdf97d4971b17205ea13
da1583f23484ea6cb09f29b93b3f5d41293b4ccf
1896 F20110320_AABCGD bond_a_Page_098.txt
63da70884c0c40193568034ffe18e139
fd679e4bc3c2f15a7fdeb7e78fd05ccb79ffc7b6
12191 F20110320_AABCFO bond_a_Page_178.QC.jpg
2e60d5f23f55217177e39ec7e75dc31a
53ed4056c2b604a5dd018062859c40f9a4076f96
1051965 F20110320_AABBZU bond_a_Page_187.jp2
95caa7e875b96de2f7bbca833b886b2a
75fd736367042a2bcd7b6cc89e009ec28f804bfe
38223 F20110320_AABDGJ bond_a_Page_169.jpg
5982a7b586a2c8c261c953f0fe508560
72843ab61cece1e76953dc4edecf9469269541b8
52864 F20110320_AABDFU bond_a_Page_046.pro
9a0adb4afb692221c47c6ddaa1b701f7
03c36e8bf6b2a9fdd44b29fa9b14284372153058
1743 F20110320_AABCGE bond_a_Page_170.txt
564aaa39e03fd80721e59e216bb3b28a
700937518b44b8a5fa20483e53c67f014e3428ab
41946 F20110320_AABCFP bond_a_Page_147.jpg
474c5a29b9565a035275f53af3137b7e
5e473868fbb479137bc24440ea206dca43181bd0
62306 F20110320_AABBZV bond_a_Page_051.jpg
fea92bf8e091dec1499ce962067afcb5
85c32ba2a4b30d98426f71a81d75d50710f1c2b3
1285 F20110320_AABDFV bond_a_Page_125.txt
8f8c75fea34441c78095be598acb4237
d100f4d4b859cda354c26307b6f8155a605a92ff
24320 F20110320_AABCFQ bond_a_Page_186.QC.jpg
182fc1c7cf35039d1e9240c1e6385171
26234165f3425ffe52526b41c40940c4cac2f7e8
6542 F20110320_AABBZW bond_a_Page_045thm.jpg
167aef9462fc1201b2264a072b35039b
2354d9eb4cd3ad1efe60b51e5de441001676f48b
16940 F20110320_AABCGF bond_a_Page_182.pro
b5e2c9d266e155efcca3c9111544a1d3
f7ef8b791dfa43db1b0175c54a895a0c948f9a52
111079 F20110320_AABDGK bond_a_Page_022.jp2
8026e11eccd72e47d30cedafff3e398b
25a94d001ef3845512514a1c4f785ee3e63f3f2a
1051972 F20110320_AABDFW bond_a_Page_007.jp2
3f89fc376ae37468ab9c96fab8611b2e
78542b67ecab83b1ea94fa85e7b175b59fc7e9e6
24619 F20110320_AABCFR bond_a_Page_125.jp2
bece31391afcf03ab07abc47c72f710c
a9f2d868d96fe5c248a307ff4ec9ab77d0a67485
F20110320_AABBZX bond_a_Page_131.tif
4ea8b2b45155a66969e4520473a811af
187ed1f50fc47c785cec576d483202137b5c5593
72605 F20110320_AABCGG bond_a_Page_069.jpg
939d7cdb4cfffde16a9ca0bf7c2b2103
1c5763314f6eda01ba7237b9c2eb02c5c22452a4
20409 F20110320_AABDHA bond_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
10b619fc2d8591054ceb169239fabfed
ef87c9adfb7f1e6ee2d7860de78bde06e6f7c2d9
51083 F20110320_AABDGL bond_a_Page_028.pro
ae8bb58270ab191ac0f30632b478c157
a9e779bbc7edd25a45073b0cce816f893ac91acb
47727 F20110320_AABDFX bond_a_Page_027.pro
54fe527d18af8fd18d55e38ae69a7a3b
189912e561d135e5737c12ae16d1001e32d5efd6
F20110320_AABCFS bond_a_Page_130.txt
e4753f39e749470283a1fde19a8ac5a4
5b5a97d83c9c74d3e955a6515835e2cecfcc21eb
23421 F20110320_AABBZY bond_a_Page_009.pro
413985a84acce6eaa3ba7455103553cf
a4c5fbc2e522a6921fea13ca2fba9fc8d79bc92b
39514 F20110320_AABCGH bond_a_Page_103.pro
dccc4322238d4d482ee20a4c9b70e1a2
021eb9a5842f362f9f2162c0c61f6da7c7019751
6429 F20110320_AABDHB bond_a_Page_084thm.jpg
af67f1158556a96cba917a96ff8c02f4
e884abe1ebd382d211c8ffebc109ed8102770f05
31320 F20110320_AABDGM bond_a_Page_153.jp2
eb39edbd4ef027f6d5176c49893ce63e
ef5c516809e0a4802bd387b65f1a0f89762617d0
41339 F20110320_AABDFY bond_a_Page_051.pro
7a13c9250f83b66374d5c8108cc59b60
5ce1c6d25b8cda5ee611abf741dd9031fa02d349
18615 F20110320_AABCFT bond_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
39a97dba3ca2b67cc326afef725e440c
9cb8bb2dc11c86e83ee126f9a40533d7c9265df8
109479 F20110320_AABBZZ bond_a_Page_034.jp2
a3c59cd6915fcde14d22b5d3814b4418
55507e790ffc3175435e8c15e6f8b1163df8a995
F20110320_AABCGI bond_a_Page_108.tif
65ad3b78d247e99f29f098ec3689796d
05695509aa3bc0d1d221f8c86a9a9ff514c35f4a
F20110320_AABDHC bond_a_Page_188.tif
ffa5fed7135f2416debef024e0a5c918
3780dd9322686258954788ef4f2b687bf1e33133
51554 F20110320_AABDGN bond_a_Page_029.pro
44fcbab220e4c4d894038708486c5e28
ba3baeae7a6f71827c7399542693db6a4e8e588a
64640 F20110320_AABDFZ bond_a_Page_026.jpg
338a994f01ca065a8b00d352c610f086
6dcd785dc637aa27bbb191c20964c51b27d60241
F20110320_AABCFU bond_a_Page_116.tif
fdcf2298807a12e2d19514d2ca372c2d
a8d1a35a05794cc8275b0d25cddb615a86af95c8
35475 F20110320_AABCGJ bond_a_Page_141.pro
5edca936f387c0ed9c7f5ab6e11c46da
fb6f903fb9e8174fee3bbf80ef36a102ace600e4
67284 F20110320_AABDHD bond_a_Page_098.jpg
53e014b7ad3a149d3eef9610ec2cbd64
35b7f87f952f84c666e371fd9a47ea0c20772c69
2405 F20110320_AABDGO bond_a_Page_116.txt
19b0db467cb04d7d6e0675bc4c60ae52
c0af5687ee098c1fbeda8d2b40045ef79d55fa07
3322 F20110320_AABCFV bond_a_Page_166thm.jpg
0047d2a7c5e588003989849cd69d496b
76aff31970baf1943d565f35c79b45d39f3ecbea
94414 F20110320_AABCGK bond_a_Page_100.jp2
990c0559d4a0165883921dcd2f196307
8ce16b01e6ec61b9684d741914f0a8bda52ad20e
28228 F20110320_AABDHE bond_a_Page_133.jpg
2af9bb63691e4bfdad2e55cb4d253919
0f2e815f7768c944791e85d89a70b777c915fa77
F20110320_AABDGP bond_a_Page_097.tif
198a4fd7838a2fb3f6f85ddc3958ce8e
cd2a534aa9edd710189cbf39c082e034bd5436a6
6045 F20110320_AABCFW bond_a_Page_066thm.jpg
45f35d018aa566cd0293a55e01a1d40e
583b67c55723d6cfcd143e1444da5df0dc81c6d2
1051974 F20110320_AABDHF bond_a_Page_041.jp2
be023aaabde25525e45e92ab0d111a96
f99211e98ad8aef55b1eb971268856edd7a54ddf
49633 F20110320_AABDGQ bond_a_Page_105.pro
214b4cc6f45292fb253044101ab8c7ff
52e082bc0c266673e74fca0493f905715002a026
42267 F20110320_AABCFX bond_a_Page_179.jpg
7d202fcc537a27e3bbb2d075066ce759
6fff6e0a5ad987561b3c2f3524670edc19c00a07
6376 F20110320_AABCHA bond_a_Page_033thm.jpg
88ebe9258ac3e623006e67db8c190329
99ad0e6fb1cd58cfdcf6982a67304a378d77ade8
26845 F20110320_AABCGL bond_a_Page_130.pro
70fbdbc799f9df88b2433304c8bf727d
329cc80681d8823102e7c067e99aff1f38ded6b9
2472 F20110320_AABDHG bond_a_Page_123.txt
8432375507918fcf4bfb237ad750100d
6f0bc20f294153782e9f172ebfe8b869f78a7c33
10120 F20110320_AABDGR bond_a_Page_131.QC.jpg
e0fd83fbbbef8e731f5271ced44549db
072c1b58abc5912b0b30445a700a5ff9d35f6f42
38838 F20110320_AABCFY bond_a_Page_143.pro
81ac20bc91081710c5d0553fdab7bfa1
21d5e49e7503935aad41c4dcd326d0debc3a721a
F20110320_AABCHB bond_a_Page_164.tif
51f718e2328989d425e5fe08182c1046
fd82c72860347c95cc7282a74a91bb8b09f4a6f4
5072 F20110320_AABCGM bond_a_Page_007thm.jpg
fea2380d6162b598121a6be7394a0767
87d69faacc7e4909df1b54ca5844cfe7063ef42b
31110 F20110320_AABDHH bond_a_Page_182.jp2
5844e706b649f6f18c00330380315657
a2a12bcb4fc79ed2afc67ad055152b15e5b176aa
F20110320_AABDGS bond_a_Page_152.tif
210ed49fac56b09cfd5ac5a0e062bd3f
ffb6743af03a3d34394e6e114d53bbbf011e29f7
3842 F20110320_AABCFZ bond_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
7a4606d81bbb7da40039e672c9b6ad54
225b12024744a6be251448d5d1758d7b63e7fddc
2149 F20110320_AABCHC bond_a_Page_091.txt
126da227dfc96fc91cd2b08fb2dce0d6
2b18a46d63f74b17bbfe0c3b5dbcaa392267b75c
20016 F20110320_AABCGN bond_a_Page_129.pro
03afd3ef85bcf138d0690e429e788b94
e62054f4414615d4d959338045a1e50e76ee97fa
F20110320_AABDHI bond_a_Page_007.tif
bce466db1274919842bba3e0ca33eb52
69d4877a6cf4d0e00772527e0552a0769e824008
F20110320_AABDGT bond_a_Page_106.tif
ab073e49293dfca4934972c39bc90951
687b3fa6e64527d695c98b52817ed491c888f710
30428 F20110320_AABCHD bond_a_Page_176.pro
af73e394fc842003852be7a8e4e50f83
e8fba26f5ea1af45945f65ec7b591b4c44c62d61
51513 F20110320_AABCGO bond_a_Page_108.pro
e1b5881116eedbcee3ab2d7cc377f739
fe15bafac5a6309278cab908fa67f9291e05b929
3931 F20110320_AABDHJ bond_a_Page_180thm.jpg
073f165fbfdd5546838e3cfac39f6f72
311f4f64aeba110896e970deee2de6306987c4b4
6380 F20110320_AABDGU bond_a_Page_088thm.jpg
e2caa229c0dd28827b6f9f503015f5c1
b9910a4dfa64a02724ab6e41e4b28ebaa8324d0b
1990 F20110320_AABCHE bond_a_Page_068.txt
95c628cabc83a2f99957433ef36a322d
78652634ca7d79c94d0c8babc06125ffedc68453
5334 F20110320_AABCGP bond_a_Page_116thm.jpg
b099e0edd6f98c357c16ce3210b4a5fc
c263c6f75d61ed00d87eb087d9f5899d58bdc8f5
301842 F20110320_AABDHK UFE0009440_00001.xml
e1ff7c7d3a403d257d4383e49b6a76b6
fbc97f935bf35dfb59d66a2c506361647bf8b959
4027 F20110320_AABDGV bond_a_Page_179thm.jpg
8daf62e9616e4f15622bad844e56bfcd
27f8bd6445fd0059acc76c96eeb31523345f87bb
93680 F20110320_AABCHF bond_a_Page_185.jpg
9cb2794db686d626fea239852e019a52
ac1c1ec4dcd34181a5c02280391a95aee3528c1f
F20110320_AABCGQ bond_a_Page_140.QC.jpg
7cfb3b47602d7db6430439636b887a25
44d69277e6f5ee3ad62210ccd00b44ec0085a2b0
15932 F20110320_AABDGW bond_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
90e5f23b27b5325f7912970eb011eca5
0e32645173848b4ed3234c044ae9d20c762df2b7
25674 F20110320_AABCHG bond_a_Page_185.QC.jpg
2105577e438fd310dc5323413c5c582a
5b6c43ecc7e06ed6089d61a6ae0032836516e7c8
F20110320_AABCGR bond_a_Page_186.txt
7fd2782a3520150e2b3c786d764de1ea
c2b112fe583c4e4271812fbb1ca131fadc7509ce
F20110320_AABDIA bond_a_Page_053.tif
410b21aa2e496dab462bb7c2925a5093
b223f6d04a4694d74d998a218ad3837b945fd227
6535 F20110320_AABDGX bond_a_Page_031thm.jpg
0a01bfd4da8670ba9bbf8ecc36de8d06
d6308b8426015fb277260dc6f262cc97deec4880
37233 F20110320_AABCHH bond_a_Page_122.pro
2a240edc69482cf8a6f555912c12dde3
7648607753e33e7a619f2e8b7c656eb94c8bf503
89458 F20110320_AABCGS bond_a_Page_012.jp2
96af45e02f55bfab292729ef813adf6b
6f250baa3d771cc3396cf3c0d21f166d6386aa9d
F20110320_AABDIB bond_a_Page_055.tif
694a517cb95bd1e87fa7b971eb4046d9
6ea8deb1d8ec7adb289ad4d37643242b5238250d
F20110320_AABDGY bond_a_Page_042.tif
73c0d03f4251966117119887d485005e
20f681a857022d02ec8b444b18de76c36cf5db71
F20110320_AABCHI bond_a_Page_149.tif
3a0cc02cde7d979da10c4f074720e864
9629fc404fbe29839a7ad098ad6db8e11bba09e7
40408 F20110320_AABCGT bond_a_Page_142.jpg
4c062b1764275abbb71f3c3b07d62e82
512ef8012978b6cf75336490658123cc176cb57f
F20110320_AABDIC bond_a_Page_063.tif
ff7a865e6db52082ab62065fe88b8b00
c2a43ff978ebb897b005ce028c009e02a208ccf0
F20110320_AABDHN bond_a_Page_009.tif
ddd6098c03f28800a8a51d18871dafb9
931df3fbf27e7ec5927c976be2f6893aa2a1c161
23176 F20110320_AABDGZ bond_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
5ad8337eb5f94853701f11b0e98fe06d
d74d433afc90db95eb0c73770c3f2cf086f969de
21453 F20110320_AABCHJ bond_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
41dfba4012ef09d60e92f4077a3ec6fd
f6d2b3a17c755fcb5697791c9a313d6e85a2c13a
6403 F20110320_AABCGU bond_a_Page_036thm.jpg
12c1401ce5bfa8ed7e5be4c11c85139e
07003b937aab7c60858933ae158d686950e976c4
F20110320_AABDID bond_a_Page_066.tif
12e936494c7db46f272bd02506c0a8ff
e0b1578e5d51ea5ece79a7be92213bac17b4b593
F20110320_AABDHO bond_a_Page_010.tif
d08e6a182eca7cbe4bcdf85bcc5b3a26
8d1666b60de093e403d5f039533a22dda4d2c952
108065 F20110320_AABCHK bond_a_Page_110.jp2
b412eb0900c9f1310b952e538abe14fb
ff3c66e09c79aec0861d7f758c2608b45b67d616
F20110320_AABCGV bond_a_Page_093.tif
fb0dc3d14c0fd5b9bfbe69193a9c2828
f48e8fd9102a35e8c1571beaec14debd72f217f5
F20110320_AABDIE bond_a_Page_067.tif
9088888822a387e735ba0ddfd73ff77f
0224e2ccf0378d39c2a180ab31384da95b2e6001
F20110320_AABDHP bond_a_Page_013.tif
58a34f3e6bd91a096088495719867cde
59a04adc865a11e233fb298dc0b77accf5ec836c
1718 F20110320_AABCHL bond_a_Page_100.txt
cb8a1248773d847840f441b626fd8ff6
907fb047ae60f8625c768e24dbe22c1d2e23b3d8
51064 F20110320_AABCGW bond_a_Page_034.pro
cca4c5bc2b1d6a51e33e934c28ff0da2
8e2febec6d554aad98e04e5427bafe31f6c62c6f
F20110320_AABDIF bond_a_Page_069.tif
75998f033a94610cfbc6fcef32d699d2
0135a1302bc29695a70498731225bc4f35dbc93e
F20110320_AABDHQ bond_a_Page_024.tif
98c9b9310c4f98da2373b08accaeb351
7895b52afa12e7b168a37dde84c82fc542aa0ef3
56631 F20110320_AABCIA bond_a_Page_003.jpg
fa62745ca635439eefc373dd68584baa
5d5b16e1e18e567b5a2103180de4d277355eb57c
12022 F20110320_AABCGX bond_a_Page_171.QC.jpg
33a1602ea131ce1558b9f7a789f8568f
cc0d99befa025e1657cdc55436c2430d6f6547f8
F20110320_AABDIG bond_a_Page_070.tif
b693c2b6176f0b1b99fbd7c8c3dfee8b
efacecd5bf01da25a27b2d8732aeb538a19be120
F20110320_AABDHR bond_a_Page_026.tif
ac898ac46764eb8b03a000851464893f
a72d3793a63b264b4181c289e584f926ad99af49
1396 F20110320_AABCIB bond_a_Page_131.txt
b76c75ee2181bc2a89c68bf2263fc8fc
92fa6498603c4903aa0ca7be1a37edd532df2cd0
1651 F20110320_AABCHM bond_a_Page_139.txt
bfa8d57a8bb29d4138a7598dcae53e63
c9345b388cd6504a1e83530ffa5a8c82fcf648e6
50480 F20110320_AABCGY bond_a_Page_068.pro
01e3d9829923612d8bd436e9e7561b58
857425c98f15178f3f4a1f8e75bd1a9931b289fe
F20110320_AABDIH bond_a_Page_076.tif
4252b8ee4397ae605b2c0d69e9e1bfcf
1e16b5739a2229d5376ee8b5c20af8493509ec3e
F20110320_AABDHS bond_a_Page_027.tif
82b0d2d75f03ec674f154eab356c6e07
cd7cbcafe4fba0f7c38ffdc9fef7b899072fd1b4
F20110320_AABCIC bond_a_Page_025.tif
28c0964240f089f5f0b68b6115da9b64
406605417b6c79412f1d3bdaf7368b93cd80a346
6060 F20110320_AABCHN bond_a_Page_042thm.jpg
0e03041f1b1cd5a6daf9d0f951682268
18af951587b514c0dfa1ab9a3952e5e19bd1f17f
F20110320_AABCGZ bond_a_Page_072.tif
f520faf8368bb54ac76cc15953a94bef
186e04c3bb6bec23e9b69ade1ea56872fe6083cd
F20110320_AABDII bond_a_Page_077.tif
65c94ef1e076b0e44a2ec47e9c929f98
06680d92ff30108ed74801249104926fca707596
F20110320_AABDHT bond_a_Page_032.tif
7cd90cf7dd8b7b2a055eae9d3fe6b365
dfc3ce15a8664e2f72e35f79c0da64adcb470186
1535 F20110320_AABCID bond_a_Page_132.txt
5f36e1f593932dfc9bc0d727ea06cc7d
285f86a8d27b37a603c51d6753978f5021277ab4
10554 F20110320_AABCHO bond_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
6578fa574e78ae9fbd29f6f1e38ede4f
588d430e1ff6f53d5946e035904af710501797dd
F20110320_AABDIJ bond_a_Page_083.tif
3643836b003a0f65d63036b7cff13af1
7b219e854241ca0ac8ab43a3429981f356267758
F20110320_AABDHU bond_a_Page_038.tif
63d79d15a5506a27c407c75abddf05ad
cd56b4ff47104cc0795b4d2f25b271e29790cf79
55919 F20110320_AABCIE bond_a_Page_176.jp2
0815ca7906c0f2c8d3db7eba28dbf548
665d6eb0348b37b2f87a802d8cea83848eaf3f6a
2580 F20110320_AABCHP bond_a_Page_182thm.jpg
38f55880bfa33ec815a278d7f615555f
54da700f81d64c0c816e0ab104634929272b84fc
F20110320_AABDIK bond_a_Page_087.tif
ae7ccd5ec08b1946aa49fffb13a20187
7b317c248f981549be2bc74308c1983613d4edc7
F20110320_AABDHV bond_a_Page_040.tif
165cdcb8431f427e6f2dd44596e781ee
94eb37a871ba1f419952b3e4673932d790fc5ea6
48401 F20110320_AABCIF bond_a_Page_038.pro
717be2f080fb094bca11bbf73f4b29e4
2ed9fe6d85ab3c37eef32985f18abfc25c8a9ced
24234 F20110320_AABCHQ bond_a_Page_166.pro
afee4d2254eb65b8d4919c3165cecb41
5f64f1a9505a7ff67a72f83ef8a839d4bb641de0
F20110320_AABDIL bond_a_Page_098.tif
f216a020f478379aff03b173fe08b15b
6b164675fdf28d99f3a15260f0bbdbde8bf889a7
F20110320_AABDHW bond_a_Page_041.tif
a617356a7a7f7f0bcd41d0f21b20a7c0
f0a3ad47d763a34b79464ba05e497d7ca8f718bc
F20110320_AABCIG bond_a_Page_167.tif
4f16e6280a158efa95c7dd6266b4fec1
42eebfec7384dca1bb88166fc68ac713303b04b5
1554 F20110320_AABCHR bond_a_Page_149.txt
c40f499925aab5caf016c84d39fe2bd6
9dc19df912f029b3a3f0cdc82386421224b2934c
F20110320_AABDJA bond_a_Page_185.tif
68fa1f8eff5e8dbedc9f2d72cd3e3fb9
7ac95fb36215d863e9b62537cfeca8c2595f38ae
F20110320_AABDHX bond_a_Page_043.tif
8bba95b60222e7eb94aea5919f09e0dd
7de3119f08500ec608592ce89ab8fdf9132bab45
23108 F20110320_AABCIH bond_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
68e105cd4cd829e7918d1004abf33a99
82af9dfaa7696d567a1fc1d6299b58119cbd2087
60917 F20110320_AABCHS bond_a_Page_012.jpg
13963dbc9cc2d9e4f7da6dd3da6e3c9d
c84a0f7f7a1bd17e08a5248d5bc09139b70d882d
3693 F20110320_AABDJB bond_a_Page_004.txt
c1660bc81df5df380443e3eb048ecdfd
045a162d2532c1841e354cfd6e8174c7b2773612
F20110320_AABDIM bond_a_Page_107.tif
d07fbfb4ec593a209ed1c55b049264e3
58bc52875ccabeebb351f0ac47b37d1940ce6c1b
F20110320_AABDHY bond_a_Page_048.tif
bd7c86de5d32f3c0beb8ae3c75138923
27f9c22b48a90b6890cde8878a1d4a672a4e1682
F20110320_AABCII bond_a_Page_075.tif
7c3b4b263ee987d7243e8602f8fcccfc
f6c9ce221343882457c13220a78c7f68264d38ba
59763 F20110320_AABCHT bond_a_Page_179.jp2
41bc6f8337e5dd613c037a8f6779b7a1
eb444d3faa32aa7fde6db4c6a6ccfb12b7e0fa15
1626 F20110320_AABDJC bond_a_Page_010.txt
4a7f3a93da7f784b8e2b9fd0504ce103
4c261b8a4504f87a0f12629a93a8d41c4488f3d3
F20110320_AABDIN bond_a_Page_123.tif
e0c9ed7aa28d6e39c32f7c08154488bc
c98106397491dabefce873594bfc515d7e476e22
F20110320_AABDHZ bond_a_Page_052.tif
ea410984356ab399480ba3beb34ac2a0
44ec8626b1e7370b758ab49d103a940f28c72d03
88161 F20110320_AABCIJ bond_a_Page_186.jpg
f7ab3aa9f7bca89eb7a8e329bfec6659
ce2651118a9ae134210656a15c4df420914cd4f4
F20110320_AABCHU bond_a_Page_071thm.jpg
e8c0d90e84b03e8f47bc5eaf7ff83b2a
5e149ea3921201425b3f5056e56149274fb85edf
1890 F20110320_AABDJD bond_a_Page_011.txt
4611122d32593c237c66f6dd50940fc5
22ff3898341cc8e895cb330ac2110bdb235a2f4a
F20110320_AABDIO bond_a_Page_124.tif
3416a7608c5a5ef92c43b76bdf1440eb
41f1b0ed10498f736e889fc68cd58408b3dc19f8
4252 F20110320_AABCIK bond_a_Page_162thm.jpg
5f5c1b7b052ec0a8f21878a1fa84e196
0247b536f8fb75054a46e804d4ea60c61fcfa1d5
38192 F20110320_AABCHV bond_a_Page_174.jpg
241fc08e795faf3d653d8b7dd8a50c95
87d60981feba2df9b02ade144c78d36bf4fcf00a
1695 F20110320_AABDJE bond_a_Page_012.txt
339442be434f6e595df29a525b718196
c58a3c4a1f0097eb4bec5d22d3430762e72e1e6e
F20110320_AABDIP bond_a_Page_126.tif
d4ec98ce7814222d02e9bccac01328cb
848f9496c9d355441ecf2b45748945680f73f9f3
1977 F20110320_AABCIL bond_a_Page_031.txt
e80f484366f99c3a11dcb802832d7dee
4b06aa31efdab9555022bffc2b0ed1a616398a47
1643 F20110320_AABCHW bond_a_Page_076.txt
2eb6540acbc4d26957bae7f54bdb9b34
4717c896057fc584a0232832cdbbae87338fcf09
1611 F20110320_AABDJF bond_a_Page_015.txt
ea934469408018fa41fbdec550a30e08
614ba851a81c271fcbec921e38b66460d7b39e46
F20110320_AABDIQ bond_a_Page_129.tif
5178e50fe70e413da633b3c3de04b0be
055dbb574beb278b1dcd7cf161f88cfbcc7f08ca
20905 F20110320_AABCIM bond_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
4613bb18690471426ea9bc2446e4d131
28672c1c7ee3cbc4bb1c2c9cbe4fd07ab27fbf85
16535 F20110320_AABCHX bond_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
f6c1cd25b99ad50aa9c069f89134168f
b31d1f78d797c7093fa4c7f0ef8e0961d55ea9b0
22703 F20110320_AABCJA bond_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
05a50a9a7fe8c0f75e5d77a137c1a9d3
1f33d0a906bd8c1baf0d27973bc7c02be70c9b3e
2302 F20110320_AABDJG bond_a_Page_017.txt
71202763b59190e9a224f52b67b68570
a2e11217e8531a4f3df83aec08a2f219c2162f56
F20110320_AABDIR bond_a_Page_130.tif
a584ae0357af8649b69d18b35e358a6a
efa79f3af9df980f3d6b05831357ab37503c1bf0
45996 F20110320_AABCHY bond_a_Page_168.jp2
b77ccd49b7fd86950246d3294ae22bc1
d409be7e4f964c61164d21cec665f2d9441714bd
F20110320_AABCJB bond_a_Page_029.tif
54a55c3c6955047ded4e257112111547
9d0165e81df529dd2579742c5c276ceae6f25e04
1412 F20110320_AABDJH bond_a_Page_024.txt
5822fb74f1f9ea58928e44dc4dac5014
d66e305076944ec6b864e2aed6de471af2987eb2
F20110320_AABDIS bond_a_Page_136.tif
86f6ef8c0b9266eed2a3d59dec35ff46
633577f3eb252c16d036eb75efd44e0870f4500c
F20110320_AABCIN bond_a_Page_134.tif
f66922ad8ac415a4cd33fdc811df7674
0e93bbb139a0553186478296f26f79d4490bb4bb
20630 F20110320_AABCHZ bond_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
8a62f2ee7b548936ffd4757aec797bb9
0bab3dd1763288ed7f51f2a506401590e0aafa22
3777 F20110320_AABCJC bond_a_Page_155thm.jpg
04f30748464133fe4d0b098d0542bd3e
7b5d3271750400ab744b22e915be689ee5e7f280
1943 F20110320_AABDJI bond_a_Page_036.txt
283bc4c8d0b9df29a8f06dbf0d46f8de
dcf0b3712084ed87a58497c1f352d1f009166866
F20110320_AABDIT bond_a_Page_140.tif
3d2f482073c369b7e26df96e469746d2
069aa1344c0ea16ae555cd1cd285126f69d3fee8
98047 F20110320_AABCIO bond_a_Page_097.jp2
440db9b023bb15743dcaa1bf16cc26aa
ca24b9059cc6bf34db155489f12147be5e3fe197
50135 F20110320_AABCJD bond_a_Page_048.pro
8ad641e40cfc540ababc46af969f51d2
a176c2773288ce397b510729d52d6d399de53ba6
1924 F20110320_AABDJJ bond_a_Page_038.txt
eb77d2f60c6ae013f3e27f9e1efecb7f
824e56e28ec4cfa1f265de9b816d88611b38c2b6
F20110320_AABDIU bond_a_Page_148.tif
c92b64d7b97cb652dd7b137d28222e1c
ad743610b1fd3955e4e99654bb311c4e4fb5fa88
22990 F20110320_AABCIP bond_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
29eec11f406c5026a85d4d4db0dfae2e
f6302e53379571d1c66b2cd702a7ee3a3bd922c4
10942 F20110320_AABCJE bond_a_Page_130.QC.jpg
e52382d4fe1754e393b673ca82f5a3ac
93e4d94cfb436e7ff360d60f6cd9133d392c5dcf
1989 F20110320_AABDJK bond_a_Page_039.txt
d9fccf9cd19a41f3dfc29c132a932dd1
00072854a8fbb502304240ace4854c5c882f71fd
F20110320_AABDIV bond_a_Page_150.tif
af9bfb589a76b16dc0d04bde715570b5
037d2535af516d1319c52eabd70d30602624ccd6
6683 F20110320_AABCIQ bond_a_Page_027thm.jpg
87802c9b04ab8f7a01315eba18d69fab
28f2cc410ee6434abb6b60864c37a38034af7240
778 F20110320_AABCJF bond_a_Page_102.txt
5e1649a48aa19f349af18eab3ffbbddf
f0026fc0cd66921df9a466091842ac24ad4df22e
2235 F20110320_AABDJL bond_a_Page_041.txt
5558dd939bcf1ff159909e9e2bf1beb3
b06b52cb93594303b11f91f6b28a900375ff4a8e
F20110320_AABDIW bond_a_Page_163.tif
3f423dee47781570b19f971d76304d0f
b6293c0247d7b008e0f4be90ed302acd0f1ae772
6012 F20110320_AABCIR bond_a_Page_026thm.jpg
55e9e20e36d1f5ec80db867a20b87a1c
b5ed6cad08048c4d77809a2ae7f94dea2a1b27bd
3872 F20110320_AABCJG bond_a_Page_171thm.jpg
c98a3c25e7a3554a4a75490c9cba6ddb
36fc16ee46bb6c921feda720cd77a89c86f82f67
2398 F20110320_AABDKA bond_a_Page_085.txt
d5d244c42759e19ce9e0f8521496024b
493cb6ed6b4ff0bd3b907ade0188072d4eb0b43c
1908 F20110320_AABDJM bond_a_Page_042.txt
9e9f5234fdeadb0d5e502aa355b7540a
a54a1f3d86351cd58e3f70dfc9b33a63c1158e14
F20110320_AABDIX bond_a_Page_166.tif
b935ffba49d0cf30fb5314503f284034
73c1b7e8b327f3a6de8cd9136438438acb2742c8
3689 F20110320_AABCIS bond_a_Page_169thm.jpg
e42fae35cc82551a0e8321ff014dadd0
7cf649bb212f88fb0ab909a0773260a38c8ad7ed
37738 F20110320_AABCJH bond_a_Page_148.pro
aa9d56e29b88109a8fdc094689e2e61c
3c147faccd28ebabec7fa82dac50c7603ba8e86a
2354 F20110320_AABDKB bond_a_Page_087.txt
8fd25fe7e3f50794637adc44fc439938
72cb1932b1b1966dbd08abe141f66eec088c4782
F20110320_AABDIY bond_a_Page_175.tif
d40da56160a34e076ef8bfdaa52f8cd0
83f297925067ce1003dd6f61a69c37dbb6609459
5726 F20110320_AABCIT bond_a_Page_012thm.jpg
da8f959c71984f99a02f875a172a6db9
2d135d1a2194b6cc8947ea426fcd3341626046ec
F20110320_AABCJI bond_a_Page_079.tif
82c13bec3f7800a4ff3b12f68128ef02
5a433d06fa47c7d4a81cc2239dca8bcd5b5a8214
2209 F20110320_AABDKC bond_a_Page_093.txt
81f6b9cff7869147a83ab5d2068fe21b
bce85d839999a7f73a9649f7b98f9b2ad014d196
1967 F20110320_AABDJN bond_a_Page_043.txt
f1b33a6383e1d3e00ef0d24fcd6a8101
7bcbb049cc2d12384412b8b805f13c2e62b1183d
F20110320_AABDIZ bond_a_Page_176.tif
b1ca905ef782dafbb2611e1299bb2003
e184c8900dbad1735b73ac05eac6ee28efdabf7e
54432 F20110320_AABCIU bond_a_Page_171.jp2
ec4e9fde6ed24b230b6680d8d876f586
6a68b6f56f32a8b27a5c5c9db7ad0b88e805db49
21994 F20110320_AABCJJ bond_a_Page_188.pro
c2885c26b3ad7eb3d2db8e1ad768a157
8749724496464b0fa8ceec70031c168638b03df6
2353 F20110320_AABDKD bond_a_Page_094.txt
8e04e0431e35aff66da29d550a2fc7ab
2b889b18e2509b893197eda659ce0c612923f06d
1939 F20110320_AABDJO bond_a_Page_044.txt
619bd3f33fcc591c9f0aa503f6b212b0
59c2a1b8bbdd37a2888270a67bdefbcab84e6076
2010 F20110320_AABCIV bond_a_Page_018.txt
2ece27a431647fd92399cec4cee48f46
ee5cf3151f74f319019469b2fed9e4aaecfd964a
13192 F20110320_AABCJK bond_a_Page_135.QC.jpg
7a8838a3198945ecc0e4cd415b6eb21d
a4b0995832a278d94976032a260e18d13f66762a
1791 F20110320_AABDKE bond_a_Page_097.txt
7fa76183e62883ffa12d3d60ad2776da
b1f44ff3e856b19192848c64dd59fc9812141957
2074 F20110320_AABDJP bond_a_Page_046.txt
ee30bd78d02e24abd1f31c2ad0fd22eb
28955329af5da54b4252eb21f77db6216a064855
57194 F20110320_AABCIW bond_a_Page_087.pro
16a730bdeba6d4168b3eb41f1deed77d
399c0595083bdf5c33351376ded8a7020d9ce2c9
66651 F20110320_AABCJL bond_a_Page_096.jpg
fdcf1eab82178ef7ad3171d26486ce30
9acd5c4e49659de91ad7eb71cb055d47acfc747b
1951 F20110320_AABDKF bond_a_Page_099.txt
a9a50dfe68ede0b4510aec95e2863689
82a2b105b2ad785cf4a29df85f8dbf5d1eea5d68
2004 F20110320_AABDJQ bond_a_Page_048.txt
ff04a1dd58d5b99357f7769982bb2e5d
dbc78d33fe5153652e082e5646fac9ad0a97cfad
1811 F20110320_AABCIX bond_a_Page_051.txt
fbe6a43e99f3cd8b603d601755dc2205
719b2f40f13cb54de4325b255a78b2720b66b617
105826 F20110320_AABCKA bond_a_Page_038.jp2
c66f36448769d0e2f7a8d37f54c796e7
fdc0b218e871be06c7bc92d85e8903f7b68e84d9
2072 F20110320_AABCJM bond_a_Page_096.txt
fb23282630abe06de5808efb70d5b9b7
657342a0e55410db63a324e5c9eb5cf76a4a6e7d
2002 F20110320_AABDKG bond_a_Page_101.txt
fc66aefc656a32d9f3e7f8c13abe39fa
e0fb53eca9c78e53592dc6567a5a541a7d2b8496
1843 F20110320_AABDJR bond_a_Page_052.txt
d759ff2d9a715d2fa332b8c670f2ed20
dd51a1480b7c13e1436488c7e95f86dac3e94820
54809 F20110320_AABCIY bond_a_Page_121.jpg
867eafe4874ba0253cb37d8d8c2989ed
6baf4aa38c244fde8f4986d2319d608bce40437f
103899 F20110320_AABCKB bond_a_Page_021.jp2
b065885c173145a7c5cbd09a400aed55
f67c1f683632125dd5f8fad33b7c2e9bc8b99f60
104661 F20110320_AABCJN bond_a_Page_099.jp2
a941d3394a43807d5a70a69c3cab91f9
53215568b81d9e4236bf31667f023c31a8f9a8dc
2208 F20110320_AABDKH bond_a_Page_115.txt
e2a66070b362654575622c8463652b90
dc6053f8b01a65cca020d0f8b2e49b4b143bcf66
2000 F20110320_AABDJS bond_a_Page_057.txt
47b1472687eb343dac395af441f0c55a
77083f402c55f69424e5efe5dc50174d8df36cad
28334 F20110320_AABCIZ bond_a_Page_131.pro
425b079e07c3f0ccec010fda8ac99119
9de8d3c0677b96f086999eaff5cc93d48f02fe02
F20110320_AABCKC bond_a_Page_074.tif
df72b3bd4a35acc77c82cbf99dca553c
30117094ca6e6877cc8d69b716e992054ca97afc
1588 F20110320_AABDKI bond_a_Page_118.txt
da13c7892284060fd8c6e636a896ffd4
bf07b0f98fa3280ea222e985ca4c83e7059d7292
974 F20110320_AABDJT bond_a_Page_060.txt
c07d7a5cd36ae41b740269ab2c03a23b
87df559e251c5a6dc4f89bb7630717768dd80556
17936 F20110320_AABCKD bond_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
1ec119a5621299d76d074d8c50ddb610
83c96b9b3324394ceb1d5b1dc0d3c577c39b990a
4022 F20110320_AABCJO bond_a_Page_160thm.jpg
5b64d735b3f4571f3303de2b3b4e2195
c1fc4a4f0993057b4a726c716ea9f08e18d9a8f3
2109 F20110320_AABDKJ bond_a_Page_121.txt
38530382952486a01b1f913182dc5be4
3eefeb5a04c76f44bf679bbe6c5aca5b524d77f5
1861 F20110320_AABDJU bond_a_Page_063.txt
4ad50e10566ad1da6bb7daafc963d055
85e56d79dd4c78c174c38a79e1eb87eab375ad09
2901 F20110320_AABCKE bond_a_Page_009thm.jpg
e2bb0779935319dda59df9663e906446
6d3ee082a867f770864fa306eb0ce0d3909a5e81
55539 F20110320_AABCJP bond_a_Page_139.jp2
9b36be2dec6117f1d719e751305c757e
d18d2127e407c2c70afd26b0346bbc20a45860e8
1581 F20110320_AABDKK bond_a_Page_128.txt
725ef44f5467f5efb46ce2f54c259d85
60b9e7f0fb5c7fc1eea9187b0e4c44531b75fe7a
1000 F20110320_AABDJV bond_a_Page_065.txt
1065fba49ce6eec93d55a3aaf87d77ac
c7be521e0cdfedd8df6161ab6a2e5c2141fbbb1d
F20110320_AABCKF bond_a_Page_142.tif
5aa405d0a7ebf5e08d1b72cec3e0bec0
8fa6425a89a7e3e067fb0579f04b727805845ee7
3013 F20110320_AABCJQ bond_a_Page_128thm.jpg
f84b70e3abf8370057d7f7ed34e98c47
10ef36cea255be127b0b3154edf2e454cca31da5
1548 F20110320_AABDKL bond_a_Page_146.txt
43f5a00f96c3ab29406b795674345e0e
d56b7be3e3626b19f39103e3cad49df2d4cdbefb
2128 F20110320_AABDJW bond_a_Page_070.txt
b7a3002f486c4850501858f5dd47efa1
c0f234af2616c7a3258aec05b02e3e34aae83f88
F20110320_AABCKG bond_a_Page_179.tif
9b96692fc2392772da1acdf445bc3f79
5fc03a34af835d4b87f535d8b3d1004dc8d87877
874 F20110320_AABCJR bond_a_Page_008.txt
7eb749f4e3c924487b70d882e5c694af
7a5297916c69fa71e1e53af260cd34b269f8d9d3
37854 F20110320_AABDLA bond_a_Page_010.pro
b535d8215cca4a476f6307a6729d7ae7
4b7c34e5e393119ce9815b405441ea68c4b91d6b
1953 F20110320_AABDKM bond_a_Page_151.txt
80a1cebd5e1258efaf4a2ea412528468
7f3aff64b366ccedb430977ee7aad28e0b55b34a
F20110320_AABDJX bond_a_Page_074.txt
8223395837e9f8aba8700de4f70bcc3a
91c7218a3831dc7ffdb5892ab6e78ec4b90c8977
6837 F20110320_AABCKH bond_a_Page_017thm.jpg
f24608b44bd4dbd751552ab9b4053bed
75d3cfd9df60dc4561cac2772c00d26b8f87fb47
1416 F20110320_AABCJS bond_a_Page_117.txt
8591be13f7f232b94e2c2de5c5428cc0
596ec0ae125b4ba1143d174a59e1ce83b4a8fc5b
45607 F20110320_AABDLB bond_a_Page_013.pro
b2223e6da33e3cb00917462e729a6d34
70b54292f357f94a20090be737260f80faa0fc4f
932 F20110320_AABDKN bond_a_Page_153.txt
cf4055dd14767fb364fefa61096a1597
4c1313437bc5431602c2bfec7f3b6b7562ecc2fd
2925 F20110320_AABDJY bond_a_Page_075.txt
1560a10c67acad415080915bbd6a6142
485ed0f20fae2774244fb29398f117ac20bda5e5
1051958 F20110320_AABCKI bond_a_Page_184.jp2
32254865655d298cb8452a2797b506e7
fd11e6fca539dc8ac45fe3a8a1e7c6f4847bb2be
825651 F20110320_AABCJT bond_a_Page_014.jp2
2376901c292e87515b790b1b1c939f9c
d3d3f895707f45917f96b4ac013f56190efc094c
51801 F20110320_AABDLC bond_a_Page_017.pro
6a6865d76e6ba1c5155de72b61437d81
a0f9895c3660adfb12cad4c5e90280077432aa3a
2231 F20110320_AABDJZ bond_a_Page_084.txt
db4dad9e6b453afcc15dbf0050640cda
7b54a1512a4d9c2977e3e173d22edf2071af0585
22323 F20110320_AABCKJ bond_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
0689666aba3ba876984e1864c5e737f3
93d77daf3c5337236969108c4bf448eeb09afa8c
9273 F20110320_AABCJU bond_a_Page_128.QC.jpg
39a5908fc247fdeb2971d0c3fef133f6
d625d306fe3319665aa5acc34d1100de036c51c2
56030 F20110320_AABDLD bond_a_Page_020.pro
ef4fc09f64dd959ab6819cf53e410c45
f15257e2274efcf3c87dca950cacd7a73061f0d9
1725 F20110320_AABDKO bond_a_Page_155.txt
b689931a0f4e464d7951d6e4d08b8e43
b6d0e7f488d2933c569f7b4f73cb31975ff5fcdc
54840 F20110320_AABCKK bond_a_Page_069.pro
88d8637db8167d2e4f153cd803886ca0
3dfcebfca20300c139bd2221529e7c5210d1e560
47185 F20110320_AABCJV bond_a_Page_084.pro
29c6fdb70009124ad3bc82be0af06b4a
6afd49ac9927d1152a3d1aeafab2d55575e09797
44502 F20110320_AABDLE bond_a_Page_023.pro
e9cac1864771111cbd68648691729f0a
3dd4d84eed4959b44eb5171153acba67394c2724
F20110320_AABDKP bond_a_Page_156.txt
c7aeffd9e4664b390005e9bcb9fb791a
18d7e3220e445b57262e2e6418fa9d5b861707e7
30350 F20110320_AABCKL bond_a_Page_154.jpg
c3e28cf7292bbd236067978578e5fd84
15797da49cfb623e68375a76e060d198be655c7f
58472 F20110320_AABCJW bond_a_Page_145.jp2
00d372837a2f2e97c04d62eee8b371b0
5d3c2e00fd226a3b8a8a7ef4c34c5dcbadd1382f
28706 F20110320_AABDLF bond_a_Page_024.pro
25933bb1f39b6136faaea46be5f28792
ab7012b8b1cbf74b6c3c65c9806c24734c0e38bb
F20110320_AABDKQ bond_a_Page_157.txt
76b2809c07b5b0c111a9df9e99e7cbef
9e6eb532658992cf3a882f3644bcccb72e60dab6
3898 F20110320_AABCLA bond_a_Page_177thm.jpg
7f8f1019b2c3d15de1da16a7e4adaf0a
3c23e320c9cd713f5c436b54c013641c31225d1e
1051978 F20110320_AABCKM bond_a_Page_017.jp2
c8624149459b16e28836e4b39b34530b
53983c1c4d00a74c75c01afba0d742c50fcfe704
9238 F20110320_AABCJX bond_a_Page_158.QC.jpg
e44900587c6c562adde08d53355c99f0
bb8e46fe80d3e79f96747887ee05f5f13e2cad38
52847 F20110320_AABDLG bond_a_Page_025.pro
c4545f27f4a47e106d1615a732bd0b04
a3d99e0bb43aeee1f92cf6b23926601e92f3ac84
1414 F20110320_AABDKR bond_a_Page_160.txt
331867aa00011d860ced28980643cd97
fc69b1a46b0b8c24fe776eee7f6a88d185312c13
45226 F20110320_AABCLB bond_a_Page_166.jp2
80cd083de4df9393eaf6899f6792df46
21853e6bd575a8a554ba3568fe2007c58a9ca882
3318 F20110320_AABCKN bond_a_Page_008thm.jpg
43389c279f7250f2db76a9a66d8f2e19
39dce459b7a436c04f7c8644d752f3340bf7aab1
1540 F20110320_AABCJY bond_a_Page_137.txt
f6b649fd19d9396c4d50f578bf8c6f64
adf2f44b31da7bf300e207c2bfffabd6c5568e24
50108 F20110320_AABDLH bond_a_Page_030.pro
2d0432b2c0f314864ad103ee18745fda
82e0103120dd3bd4e5c303fce6ca471b36b0eb96
1173 F20110320_AABDKS bond_a_Page_166.txt
01a18d84b43a2afd0cd518a687809761
ee6c8a9ffaba9c6f2c3ae7cf861970a3a4c9cace
6883 F20110320_AABCKO bond_a_Page_085thm.jpg
04d34ed2edd44a85f1875c8bf0b82a9f
eba3ab786843affe71739885ce43a976f81cd1d3
1971 F20110320_AABCJZ bond_a_Page_016.txt
fa2a97d927c970787275a2d8a890afd7
00a1597c6a18fbd2d592c7b7cea2b152d787f8f8
F20110320_AABCLC bond_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
9ede98246bab78fb80bcb70c90597e7d
547908a3e7932f4902d64684fe9294564cec17fb
48969 F20110320_AABDLI bond_a_Page_035.pro
64d9623864bea5bb047cdb1534f4a8a4
635fd05ff0b9a42be6df3f4a7e68bdce06798d92
1556 F20110320_AABDKT bond_a_Page_171.txt
f1f8d58a1ee8a4ffc813412b3ef3187b
39a833a5627a40bfc0130663b82661235b3fa5c3
F20110320_AABCLD bond_a_Page_085.tif
725abca2df094eb29f9159b5d0ffa886
73771fcebc6507f939889df2d78f8353e0497b07
54892 F20110320_AABDLJ bond_a_Page_041.pro
b07075c990a432b5bf820fa741fb4e79
d6f6b863c2c5cf89cdb9f9a936002b18b413da8c
1513 F20110320_AABDKU bond_a_Page_179.txt
6e3f4c8b1852c8636b1feb42f97cf40e
86a28706e29fa79d55adda2b7d4c20648daf0ea3
59087 F20110320_AABCKP bond_a_Page_085.pro
ab60c2ba7b48da489c165e017d934a78
bab911d60d784f902d0f3039d1e19b9f8f66ffb0
F20110320_AABCLE bond_a_Page_182.tif
eeb81b45b53ae4285de6b23cc87bd449
201c20383cba15cc2d9309d945c649e60332612d
50746 F20110320_AABDLK bond_a_Page_045.pro
eba3cfa48cc38815c48958755af8a580
c2bb2a0fe244c536cd3288ca71780046c1022410
883 F20110320_AABDKV bond_a_Page_182.txt
b4b40520d72bd67d058659ba794efd14
52065f06021edc694b7bc4a60f449cd498af995f
527 F20110320_AABCKQ bond_a_Page_001.txt
9a2a12144c645c5a6cf535b50bd4bd0d
3a0d5afd78a47d339d2a92107b4220be80bfc95c
F20110320_AABCLF bond_a_Page_061.tif
245ebcd0b1f3e35e62ade1e64270f2a4
b69e4738c45472137e1e0aeb2e2cb8987d619f64
19219 F20110320_AABDLL bond_a_Page_049.pro
5aa26cc3126bdf7b70a77d88a4373f2f
8ebfa12237b4a454b13aaa8429a1d2b5b2b2b097
1442 F20110320_AABDKW bond_a_Page_189.txt
9b84e6d8c208e19c6d52406962ef8d35
3b7ff061d1cb7a9c0e3ec8306f338e83987299cc
43353 F20110320_AABCKR bond_a_Page_049.jp2
7f0c5a708b1ea252fc81998fbf50659b
b21ad0f9396672ef77240f13fa9fe1b03fc12903
11622 F20110320_AABCLG bond_a_Page_155.QC.jpg
d156a5b2282c94c0b4705941362f5325
0602fd6f36cd179d8069807b3ae14d33ca55592f
19277 F20110320_AABDMA bond_a_Page_134.pro
7a143a6079e5d079846f4694e1f463e4
10123edc3287eea18767e5e82cd9312229ed50ef
36664 F20110320_AABDLM bond_a_Page_050.pro
2583b6f8ca1bfb7a206a7dc6cd2c30bc
ff07d036c6e85ecc057a6956d33462690a81b897
94107 F20110320_AABDKX bond_a_Page_004.pro
a33701526075e0aa3db587f9a82f6d85
2d468163182cf39efb0fa07f81e940959a751623
24329 F20110320_AABCKS bond_a_Page_163.pro
1245c63f37f8650bc90a783a232d10eb
8f549eb57bceff2bb13e5d666a97dab4e939411b
40196 F20110320_AABCLH bond_a_Page_180.jpg
bb0975a0999e2e76124e2a16a2bbb1d4
ba080cd1e129987142d9da321ba184829d60d9b1
31957 F20110320_AABDMB bond_a_Page_135.pro
2a0d43d9ba87a2c32c1c5ca2a90acda1
4bcaecea1bab2663028002365a1283e31b2cead9
53382 F20110320_AABDLN bond_a_Page_053.pro
e1ac52dbe386edb190df2c1b4c488971
50a28263893562d2a26552ccbcefe0780f5a9078
109893 F20110320_AABDKY bond_a_Page_005.pro
61db4a39ba4afc82f9fead55035b873e
b93ada43b792564de0d81d6d1a37805de287721e
1418 F20110320_AABCKT bond_a_Page_174.txt
ca44ea9c589197b53139f07b3c96e774
894f1318607ae713ad8dd3d5126bddcae0f741f3
F20110320_AABCLI bond_a_Page_004.jp2
5dc743da53810e8ee9ea80e9b1bbcacf
c7339d324ae05ad314abd787f305d4765ce6412c
31854 F20110320_AABDMC bond_a_Page_140.pro
d040807a36581ef22fcf053f8c2f44c2
25357c97e0153105298e662feeb9edd3416ac5a3
49034 F20110320_AABDLO bond_a_Page_057.pro
7cdeb5feb0010f6c5256cfcff1f73f2f
e8f9b98a02a876137e29cfd48faca4812a666254
57543 F20110320_AABDKZ bond_a_Page_007.pro
985fc21bcc2b22fa8350b549fa0f55a0
4e301692b061a012c883a1509ada5b0b774ec589
58201 F20110320_AABCKU bond_a_Page_142.jp2
4c48c84ecf3ab8066e61c58332b27b42
6cfadaf6dd8d127fba089f6f7b0d1e8113514512
F20110320_AABCLJ bond_a_Page_138.tif
50b117a0070a559ecf0d54ecbecdaf07
0bb2df23d2146574818c8f5d2e84cee66e1e57f8
32624 F20110320_AABDMD bond_a_Page_144.pro
0d762483f10b44cb0879046b99cbc30c
f0df00860dc2ff449e1a2a59fe740c2d0f6d478c
40140 F20110320_AABCKV bond_a_Page_139.jpg
4d8a59bcede13e74e8e621a2f9740f67
9ae9809ba8fef933acfc85f1dfb25a79a62237b5
45177 F20110320_AABCLK bond_a_Page_131.jp2
dce2e6dcbcefe60156e6d68600d543ba
67c605f646caed49a6cfbeae64f7fd5974a143f7
33056 F20110320_AABDME bond_a_Page_145.pro
44add174348a5abf6a6854f0e5ed7a0b
6429aa57174401cdbd181c794145f90cfc551110
46089 F20110320_AABDLP bond_a_Page_059.pro
41d3c2bc0ae5a77118a1e342ec858c8c
1a54ed60100e6bc1e6103731f26119072e716474
50149 F20110320_AABCKW bond_a_Page_031.pro
25fe6d61185e7fbddf29e14fa719ffa8
fa4783594c068aac2d02f90f263250d0b9b7dca4
64642 F20110320_AABCLL bond_a_Page_172.jp2
9c9656b0295810c14a2e6f4debe492e5
0c4abaa4135f6566fa2bb51b4dbc7f10615c2215
38153 F20110320_AABDMF bond_a_Page_147.pro
d3ccfbfc5ae53430e8a9dd7119ff3fab
e7ea1c98fd8173de0f1512005f01278d45ed3f60
42251 F20110320_AABDLQ bond_a_Page_081.pro
161c06783a2ef12bae54fe9aa87268e5
c77cec5262bcc911a886e007f1444ffd615abc37
55563 F20110320_AABCKX bond_a_Page_164.jp2
b069f3be5948e557c952a4ce8d0ef3a6
b73cb74aa7479b5bd4edb872955f1e7086efe139
2032 F20110320_AABCMA bond_a_Page_090.txt
27673377df981f3b02842d8374e38ee9
b753e1e4268c0112fb94064dbcb2564b115eadfa
39646 F20110320_AABCLM bond_a_Page_176.jpg
b57396345b68accf8b4cd89b8d4b873e
a1d4c4bc84544842192d29c12a9547cacaa69375
35112 F20110320_AABDMG bond_a_Page_151.pro
0de4047a9dc3a4217f9b7d84f3341811
fea37f6da34649bca6a28c28a35c72911f7f6132
46140 F20110320_AABDLR bond_a_Page_082.pro
2909129eef76ca10274295dbe6ee10be
5ee995e9c6b03a39f16d1d4aec4bffec7da353cd
F20110320_AABCKY bond_a_Page_117.tif
af83d578997de336ce4af1981c861d00
b34c0d8ef2ee7921fe84fc15d2f089a7584fe736
31210 F20110320_AABCMB bond_a_Page_009.jpg
1f5fdde002dbe61cf00450d30013d8cf
606bcb088b4182dd2dd6129da59140e532bbf4dc
2239 F20110320_AABCLN bond_a_Page_125thm.jpg
b805c741ff130a533ab0af2cfa91937d
acbfb0504a08d60654639b22d3391565bc916e05
16251 F20110320_AABDMH bond_a_Page_153.pro
546349897ae81feabec21fd65303e35f
233ed69221365d2009aa16949f52ede1d00e9a0d
45556 F20110320_AABDLS bond_a_Page_083.pro
83aeaaa9681e9624e76d021cc0290c33
e347d5ab29dc8329388dd7a09392a6c38a207688
2005 F20110320_AABCKZ bond_a_Page_110.txt
c9d83b6053d75dd29c1b21cbaea6c9db
6663cb13718676ca9020a88921c98ced06eb6a67
60509 F20110320_AABCMC bond_a_Page_147.jp2
703262fda36aedc006a8814106372e0c
664595036436460ca7675310947e324c8ed8e313
79515 F20110320_AABCLO bond_a_Page_093.jpg
924b66d60ec3d4ab1aabb6cd04202e07
f9b209290950245e295fb7bac4041119954c26ec
21167 F20110320_AABDMI bond_a_Page_154.pro
780109eff29cb5b1908599453536a03d
6b8ae6a5b59f03ea8281438f865d950b3a763058
46533 F20110320_AABDLT bond_a_Page_090.pro
2d9e1ad06a3c204ce606b52afe481b20
f9404c63051d43161d0283bdf8d413d8e027acb8
6096 F20110320_AABCMD bond_a_Page_111thm.jpg
733d654f3e834e9135b73a138a71acfa
320a80a178fa39462019be3c81267660ed82ca9e
33165 F20110320_AABCLP bond_a_Page_166.jpg
e808ff16559aace5f1fc034b24e99a97
d3af22ab27667b14c351f1f75b703e4908b22651
22167 F20110320_AABDMJ bond_a_Page_158.pro
2e0a9285ceda14463c825a3dbd52d51b
ce1387520a474ef5d5bdd096fdf8c0cedcb5925a
51885 F20110320_AABDLU bond_a_Page_093.pro
ee39a9f40c552c862c4efd79e637671f
1e7b1fed2498577779b04545a6f70d8223263e0f
F20110320_AABCME bond_a_Page_064.tif
9db8f798991691af3b3ad7526ad6c108
b5c18af63dd968d061a9d1c035de4d561a239408
29249 F20110320_AABDMK bond_a_Page_159.pro
c0afcb10121c080e570f720879151b25
28282382636fa584a56572d0e537566dcb29c59d
51170 F20110320_AABDLV bond_a_Page_094.pro
0f6b32dabbf5f2d67a39dbf4b2d802c0
26e81806c3d549242da413ee90d5e8437bde007c
48171 F20110320_AABCMF bond_a_Page_073.pro
c7d99d46783a69f1a44981a29ba3da02
ea69cc92592189f0046a9eab0d5304a0b50f0b94
40737 F20110320_AABCLQ bond_a_Page_012.pro
bec29b7852fdabb67cb3f35262a9b2dd
41c156919af1eea6f2b7ba9a26b66d39728f7312
37667 F20110320_AABDML bond_a_Page_162.pro
eebc1c18c0736aed8cc88cfe37ec19d4
714ed2a301cc05e6dc6efc0a6bfb53ee816f2a76
49225 F20110320_AABDLW bond_a_Page_099.pro
dded00fbf8ca42468c8a6515eae7f43d
f1053f4b02419e975cb503a56a3a9a6d6e7d5d67
21482 F20110320_AABCMG bond_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
a6f24a18a64a9801f309b7288bdf6fa7
116a7f1a863bff7817ddc7f1b0295ddf8612584c
50763 F20110320_AABCLR bond_a_Page_080.jpg
73d6fcbb121b3a3c89d30edd7364dc3d
23c1e43b8453bd280b6a75ebc97687efdc515284
61505 F20110320_AABDNA bond_a_Page_014.jpg
05c8dafbd96a1a970b4df3b5f82e3a68
67cfb2d292bfad851dcbf632a7f164de31c51fdf
27032 F20110320_AABDMM bond_a_Page_167.pro
234c948e95a008e23ffa038b4e28963b
46a670853bb28238348fa6f9045126ab7977041b
55851 F20110320_AABDLX bond_a_Page_114.pro
36e01bdcb0b265c534c9eec9c1667c19
3b139097a749fd8c2264fe7782012823816c7e0a
14142 F20110320_AABCMH bond_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
4ff297b4229c41de6b6a97641b9c319c
879c383c473f69a262dc1614111ef44bae004fdd
83884 F20110320_AABCLS bond_a_Page_017.jpg
7ba97a166cd1d560f74c555cfddc2dc8
d3df1bb78a554de594a50ac4d05b24c181cca88e
55847 F20110320_AABDNB bond_a_Page_015.jpg
f152545044cd2d1100c0d6ed5484ba91
38b213431d1483f2fbabc61c3409fed4c70882c7
25954 F20110320_AABDMN bond_a_Page_168.pro
43a4cdad107557ed8361f11b93be0c88
7ce410e429049b08260172910b37d81923463867
42340 F20110320_AABDLY bond_a_Page_123.pro
7538e14e5afb37816c2ed95d2e3554dd
b7ac833566b1b74356673889916e6913670f851b
F20110320_AABCMI bond_a_Page_186.tif
2640dec01195b4893bc67a9d8a094b64
0972e66c6b91e4f9c96634405b3e46207aac17d0
1926 F20110320_AABCLT bond_a_Page_109.txt
3f4f0942ef25f16f95429988810a69db
76344610e5cef2ead057fdeff3295b3b91cc1a3d
69476 F20110320_AABDNC bond_a_Page_016.jpg
d16a24f9e946e7edf86f6dbc952f8c47
cfec8067aaac62ecdfbbf4e47e3672213500b762
28857 F20110320_AABDMO bond_a_Page_169.pro
d2a22c20eb585d251a3d9fcd3d70974c
6edd189d15d404a32d8765ac25113286e8cef9a9
22522 F20110320_AABDLZ bond_a_Page_126.pro
b182c08d54cb79c6441af9d2008b8a5d
15c8e28a395510ae968968cd6a181d5eae4cd57e
147092 F20110320_AABCMJ bond_a_Page_006.jp2
cc231fd05255f9c8ad7ffd027c9d3915
b6a80bc9d3ecd49ada075b25e38edb0a680869f4
1561 F20110320_AABCLU bond_a_Page_127.txt
4415f975d4df7238cd15aa87393e7c6d
bc76039b4693a3a8426f3835d507b64b51b759e0
23699 F20110320_AABDND bond_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
2f3586f712534565328862733e2ec142
01c1889d44c1ea46dcfd9d86750a66b3aeb31e02
33890 F20110320_AABDMP bond_a_Page_170.pro
b2c755846af7bc02b28eff5e285b0298
22662ff5306f568717cbc81ad4ed31a6e5a8c404
75948 F20110320_AABCMK bond_a_Page_020.jpg
fc9cca7fbc62862b45aa0d2d14c27964
1d2b90c6a921bc67675389fd68c513605e07f093
F20110320_AABCLV bond_a_Page_189.tif
3d2717f3c5d9ebf49ab2ee1e4b747599
a00bb857134aedbc6b8d154f0cd5e5122509f7e8
70027 F20110320_AABDNE bond_a_Page_019.jpg
45f3e03d6dc8960f6b4d907125dc85b2
24e0a3da512e6a0a5b65344f8b06ea8350259e08
21960 F20110320_AABCML bond_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
4d41c662d2e616443e323c7123e13c5a
9fbde84794ccf0f5e91d8ed6d2cd8233944fe8b7
F20110320_AABCLW bond_a_Page_030.tif
a2118bb79be19e10fc1f8b4eff9fdd74
0c757a4d75c6dc80a2627e29b0d4903f20008897
22996 F20110320_AABDNF bond_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
0c516256f8ae2a0f02c73e8eb9150e85
1dfa0e9e514f9fb96427b33fefd00a31c93ce63b
32205 F20110320_AABDMQ bond_a_Page_171.pro
f352485bf84af10333aa93a3e09d4c62
e36af04fef9b496cc2cca7143aa3c6796d6a7fb6
8093 F20110320_AABCNA bond_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
a7abe8102230c1598434bb1cc2c1c69a
aadcf3996388d7b622450ebe177778f23790a415
19710 F20110320_AABCMM bond_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
1f3453120e21e9db3efa3f66cfb046af
50667d20c00f1950b1a55f7ca48a61c63108efb7
66619 F20110320_AABCLX bond_a_Page_059.jpg
47015cd2188e0cf92b1362ed96ca4720
a7cfbcee98cb5a73ced1668f57bc2fb2bf318db5
21912 F20110320_AABDNG bond_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
3d8b662470e1e96669a550c0020e25e9
8db7453a661b30fe83dc51831b5f70661d40ff7e
33031 F20110320_AABDMR bond_a_Page_173.pro
aa345912bdfea7c04198aeeb72e1e5a7
502633f6b9d6a168b52704351b8694aecd56c309
F20110320_AABCNB bond_a_Page_017.tif
ea1c0c390b54a93ab73593e5ccb60845
68db64776719910a73c1e2af515a7bd5ec6a8973
33102 F20110320_AABCMN bond_a_Page_146.pro
b13686be91b6c8b99249d48dab29d6f3
5f0573b29061d816b74732bbda0583556193e121
41068 F20110320_AABCLY bond_a_Page_145.jpg
ea116bba06f885965a586151fb9bce20
d42f3bae1e3e7c8125055fc5f9043b7baf288d70
23830 F20110320_AABDNH bond_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
c2bc1c52018cfb8303f9b5438cdb8a73
7c6294f489abc068d995051239ed1723e1e3ca61
33376 F20110320_AABDMS bond_a_Page_179.pro
ab7dc01e468318756889dcb5fd582c85
3f417c366b5537e266b3b9f9795ebe93b9247b2d
5302 F20110320_AABCNC bond_a_Page_103thm.jpg
322166b9237e5f920e9c264e74bf4566
c88e7ee06d06b636b34ed6d9a9188a98b3d84ae0
22672 F20110320_AABCMO bond_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
65597a813a5bc189b5d270ea2804908b
f84b4cc3afe380d5bdfb92925c7804d56b9c6da2
F20110320_AABCLZ bond_a_Page_091.tif
506bb1de0d87fd4b813057562cf326aa
88f5fc4f5f4bfad04656f0e5acdf66d43001cc59
15506 F20110320_AABDNI bond_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
0bfff08dd8b02c2c77df97ed217ab6d2
177a0181e41e5c0f477ae591842c7be6efd30f4c
30059 F20110320_AABDMT bond_a_Page_181.pro
36a9489af719a770cd3c67055b3aa745
69670ef70b7db50154f0a164b3078955b9a0eb3b
68017 F20110320_AABCND bond_a_Page_021.jpg
2688a04a63e602714c44d11e2df4e381
300bd74d983af00ab3f37cad01539123fabc9b11
22068 F20110320_AABCMP bond_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
6e6c3261200c57079b55de8888eecf30
9de2b3cb327b59578ed426a8ab850a2c02072840
74733 F20110320_AABDNJ bond_a_Page_027.jpg
8cd28e210512e020734ed7f297802a44
d888a6374041611b4688adc9020758e6209d79d4
28663 F20110320_AABDMU bond_a_Page_001.jpg
7d7c1dd8ebf7fc4bc9f374f100976f59
67a03e3e93a39198627d30ae613f2d9601c52c4d
11890 F20110320_AABCNE bond_a_Page_176.QC.jpg
d469b7a1d237779ea732ef289fdbe7b1
3a0e29f08b132cb6b7b99655b2db8824b83a7804
6796 F20110320_AABCMQ bond_a_Page_089thm.jpg
da1a09e0f95ff450b4893d51dd835338
fde2ea66a6bfbc1a68672d9df1ef28f04c00a732
23272 F20110320_AABDNK bond_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
d3f67421147f9655c4a49d4e15c68d77
b01b37f03141ed58e42b94fea2ea692b880de80d
3375 F20110320_AABDMV bond_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
e22368efa5cdcd1340341116a249531a
1ff6e7d6c3dc2f6a697801a35f61c6f61d4cbdb6
21669 F20110320_AABCNF bond_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
ad0e619a9c523b19935e5522d48babfa
580d12147fa7c840efef3ec4aa299ff3efcb3ae1
71212 F20110320_AABDNL bond_a_Page_028.jpg
41e88c2cb84f361bc250918eb806d3a5
c8a3a9795cdb07d292fa3c6601fd33e82f0f1a9b
22148 F20110320_AABDMW bond_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
3dd8b37c5937989e9d6e50da8728f60e
7c2de13e7d63ecea12b3e8fd07f32f258d6c86e1
702459 F20110320_AABCNG bond_a_Page_009.jp2
ffebc2893d43e47e843a7abc14f85122
ea90afa8b0c29a85732f3ca8642d70aff97a7005
54998 F20110320_AABCMR bond_a_Page_181.jp2
6065dc1cc1f11d7bae89f3126c9a43ad
cfa266277b3dc9fcf428ef6d57c5e98b5576dcfb
62404 F20110320_AABDOA bond_a_Page_052.jpg
a8d797688b12751fac95fab6c5823b39
967d31470a7ace30c0b5f3e20f327381280de7a0
23707 F20110320_AABDNM bond_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
97f5ce778ba25d3ae1d0acf4acd3b241
d36be8995fd367d1152cb000432312f987533f35
12812 F20110320_AABDMX bond_a_Page_006.jpg
3348e0e69c67a19d74cbb305e2c37f4d
a98a82ab854f12cc950b4d49c05e95e36e4b9b09
1487 F20110320_AABCNH bond_a_Page_056.txt
9a639582360e47f8aae9a1618708ed11
31a02f34915f421c5d742bc64e2c46642c370144
41154 F20110320_AABCMS bond_a_Page_188.jpg
2c2892ccf473eace384e99ec91221aa0
cdaca75b260d68b5c135f67778fc20acf94e7dd0
20501 F20110320_AABDOB bond_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
1e1a8bc7ef3df4a1575f5318fb251493
fa066c0465377c532319613318b8a8033201bb85
21888 F20110320_AABDNN bond_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
000125e8b94998dae5900165a9b30bc7
6bc7ff9c6fc7d47a649143cd0a08f9b5565be23e
61790 F20110320_AABDMY bond_a_Page_007.jpg
3833cd51095fd7352cc2800ca3f21133
bed13e5652a5ab1ec9ceb382eb705ed2b7e35b83
18736 F20110320_AABCNI bond_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
6e300396c341a7564fa1e7bd5f24f623
47f66ac05e7cd243c43d5762fddf9a8752f7c67c
1051950 F20110320_AABCMT bond_a_Page_077.jp2
3fad8397d900b697c5eb9d4e3086c4ce
777cbc489dce99bd9dc0d313075798a761216c3c
23728 F20110320_AABDOC bond_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
ef7ec04e5f2e772454130d2314d4d1d5
2accca077d3bd438fc48ab4508204592c0e228ea
69478 F20110320_AABDNO bond_a_Page_033.jpg
75fefc06ddf2b23d0f999c9ae13f8cd4
94006fc4c718a3f9c62dfe658a6e08b25ea8265d
59598 F20110320_AABDMZ bond_a_Page_010.jpg
e5bc0ef073a5cee0c91d3071918836f4
4ac42d935896491a1c8473712de8e603a7c3104c
811009 F20110320_AABCNJ bond_a_Page_067.jp2
03b42c5b5429b9489a1b0b72cfdfa7c5
b480fd55450054f6c19a85af5f64b08659f47fb8
F20110320_AABCMU bond_a_Page_046.tif
a643c580b5a2a94ebc149364f936ca7f
70956f499efd6ef59b6cdb23bbb7fbeee3fde487
42981 F20110320_AABDOD bond_a_Page_055.jpg
210b9420fdebd7ba9e8bba9d0fcbc207
658bbf765e2f4e0eedac021157c755c6389a0f57
23600 F20110320_AABDNP bond_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
e32c878a9457cefe184a8c88636577b8
0409fd03a371092e01a163b49e39f454bce10edf
6990 F20110320_AABCNK bond_a_Page_062thm.jpg
c5b1448d4ee27ca08d027b231f282b7a
a7d59abbb378353cb097daa857b551843bca3e36
6746 F20110320_AABCMV bond_a_Page_091thm.jpg
d4b6ce09f9b2f8f98723c299261553ab
b302245904862b36a143feb1f1b0437e0c9bf521
22912 F20110320_AABDOE bond_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
8e6e35b4ea4322da2f6e1a34b1d45a6b
f1a9546e0ff87e2407f5e2961c9aa0501ca84a3e
70540 F20110320_AABDNQ bond_a_Page_037.jpg
fb14877bc8f3ecb4e74b4050a6e418b9
a2e58f375c9416798103b70cba0b1c79a2727697
2434 F20110320_AABCNL bond_a_Page_077.txt
e9c6c7c408e55e0ddaa15b595c7f3895
0f87cee2e9d0af8d415454ad909a3243dc966ff8
6468 F20110320_AABCMW bond_a_Page_019thm.jpg
49eeb6fd1313236a013c0954b5c08b1b
b0035f885fb4ce3d2486ac72ecd33fff7cc6956b
20523 F20110320_AABDOF bond_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
80d9a8fc28f9ece6d7cf62e023d34637
9cae1bb14c09706ed4ed59572070b8b62f777224
61041 F20110320_AABCNM bond_a_Page_055.jp2
c7d4a59fcf96f2270df41dacd6c82a6f
fc97056dc0770ea578894b665d6777c0a87a1501
3836 F20110320_AABCMX bond_a_Page_145thm.jpg
ca198fbf15a053b83f2934adf166a046
5bd49f28961d1fa013dcf4472b21b2a90a64f6c6
708 F20110320_AABCOA bond_a_Page_161.txt
2c41967a9f0e5406c19fae5de0e01b62
61573e88df2574c4596fc41c17c20bde058ff8cc
14959 F20110320_AABDOG bond_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
699286807cdc9c8b7d085f36e7d0459e
8d426aceda1a841530d5a1a44fe47233d8454319
22870 F20110320_AABDNR bond_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
33d3b7c7e35bffd2e8ebf0333224dc99
0f2368965ae308230c077594501efb09cad3880e
3924 F20110320_AABCNN bond_a_Page_142thm.jpg
e99916709ccf4680f10daa1bb7a44544
9fb3a51dd365e5a62a5598cdfb8049531d44580b
12853 F20110320_AABCMY bond_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
05ee3458420a1981345abf7f5ad2e7bb
78732a12561167c13336d6ee432f36f3f4410167
32944 F20110320_AABCOB bond_a_Page_180.pro
96580ad24c630ed4cbb03a0c7808ec0d
36f8a46b937e7da778550d3678d1555eb5035bc1
48029 F20110320_AABDOH bond_a_Page_064.jpg
8ac7571f87fe940ff10a1f3a3672389c
be104fb9a721a3198586fc2af3db26717dbd0082
69631 F20110320_AABDNS bond_a_Page_038.jpg
03ae14e11ce19df609241c5c89398cd6
cd1f005a1572bf174f5d5173de49c1e808323dcf
37859 F20110320_AABCNO bond_a_Page_137.jpg
c30dff41d20922c39af1ce85a78b4c85
d40163c0858b9197913beecf2bf1c23353daef38
58609 F20110320_AABCMZ bond_a_Page_185.pro
1eaa67542db14047b6bd0120aaf6b18d
d66bb4c13c7e8ba47dce61c26219ba6bbbc6a81b
1453 F20110320_AABCOC bond_a_Page_181.txt
60c734d632968823b7662708d6c5d39e
7e968965e124b45415dc91dd181a9d70c30b6630
62225 F20110320_AABDOI bond_a_Page_065.jpg
ee398a75d6f7218860ba90364c41f04c
e05581814be8b6eb6a8ecc87f2aa5b81dc701f8e
64680 F20110320_AABDNT bond_a_Page_040.jpg
287f42b9e1405e9cc63b09443aa3021c
6e52d5f3140ba92c8b39e7793f5f2b1971ac08f1
24050 F20110320_AABCNP bond_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
b2b8048ea9a5fc18886bb6695fb8154f
0c2737d77fb1bf7b0ed0e3f9fc2d6b92ff722cf2
F20110320_AABCOD bond_a_Page_177.tif
43ae78dcdb30b74b858c507ccd2ff4e9
42dba3d8c6dabc9aaa0bcdd47563e6afaa4c29c0
71836 F20110320_AABDOJ bond_a_Page_068.jpg
3a307d295c3f5a100c28c85174844ce4
7f6bb5f45cdb9df5ef4b89a9812c9b3b32f8c70f
83648 F20110320_AABDNU bond_a_Page_041.jpg
4a0b1cdddb7c6e25a956265639764a75
9abbb6e298cb22d1ce22b8e7b73db9a1eacac2e3
37895 F20110320_AABCNQ bond_a_Page_136.pro
1c5f9bde1dc484a9dd6394799c556762
b0d5b040b9bf3249924358e0192ad7813380bf7f
115 F20110320_AABCOE bond_a_Page_002.txt
62c772d7d6f91c67a4eabd13ab3c4ae8
ddccfe5bf4a200177891651e1b01b43f44eae751
23663 F20110320_AABDOK bond_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
fa6d881e03ec30507c01c6f8cce5f499
f0f2d2a566b80f75fd3495853a27f382588d2abc
70701 F20110320_AABDNV bond_a_Page_043.jpg
921bd064edf18d79018dc56e2d082785
28557b680f10244fc4cca40198f4ceebba7d3a04
23175 F20110320_AABCNR bond_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
9bbebdbcb4cecc086cdd1edd3fede383
2a1a65f9c1b14ef69d0d8540705daa5338f92381
1128 F20110320_AABCOF bond_a_Page_158.txt
c734e8daf4b1f970f275603e5a68d27f
bdb5ce6006f37e6c329bf853d27f028b0ccbb667
21924 F20110320_AABDOL bond_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
56344954f4bd789ed31f7f343b24c180
8ecb5a5936289ab864a4c23d5375af9bb0944561
22845 F20110320_AABDNW bond_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
e16c162329fd08b1bff96f3b5531d160
afb443a6ca302b72e4466b0b379bb32938a0b1a2
774 F20110320_AABCOG bond_a_Page_049.txt
dd318f34909d105c0048cedaa788c3e5
616300be30348fc82569e891918d29179325bfee
20298 F20110320_AABDPA bond_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
5014d8327dc2bb69ddbbe289b31c2aa1
76700768b1c403ebbdac01a223ace24daa9c65f7
93501 F20110320_AABDOM bond_a_Page_072.jpg
c7a2ac06442687cfc8080099e5acc301
406e97b671c478c627e88bcfecb4abf3b7fa6970
69199 F20110320_AABDNX bond_a_Page_044.jpg
80a804746d4c3108c6356852d51310fb
14826d7d83e35abfe9d9558d76b9870d6c8a3b3b
10423 F20110320_AABCNS bond_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
e121624c7c86ad902bc13132d44752d5
c1e4c645efc167488a393a823c916a69f95845e0
F20110320_AABCOH bond_a_Page_156.jp2
82508a182a8b399153b006e27e379109
e214ab7eb30aaa87edf4f544a55573bc33091629
21556 F20110320_AABDPB bond_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
935ea40122a602e6858246c959392627
ca48f423c180460d6f64b83263e09c5952dff5b1
27644 F20110320_AABDON bond_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
4b3aad57e22b61afdcdebd147000b63a
668811dad50d7abd1cf04ae8d70ba166cb6f102f
56446 F20110320_AABDNY bond_a_Page_050.jpg
8cf64aa9e6ea7ce4be6cb23850c9e870
86b6cd5466b9fd32aa5f6af914b383c6e2dcfa7f
76772 F20110320_AABCNT bond_a_Page_183.jpg
ae8e0b253e9f03d1a40da4a6efaf1324
0a1f13144aec40c44ef64e68726acd332a7c5a03
49220 F20110320_AABCOI bond_a_Page_119.pro
d9a83ff66fcc36c213f1a2fcc0373e98
3f6288de160a64e47b22adea7d3e7d9dfe61ea4b
69030 F20110320_AABDPC bond_a_Page_099.jpg
63bcfc8a1a9abe2ca8a2c749b6ae733c
c01877fcabe5ce87a60141aad5c5f7ff2152ac24
20080 F20110320_AABDOO bond_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
1e8c300cb21a9bbd0562824dd3f98369
15b1e50d5ad6db7bc9fed9615d242ab911cc3231
19893 F20110320_AABDNZ bond_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
104f141b1f1fc6ec5ca1f9b340016921
1a9814d37ef8f919666c2b337bdadbcbae34cdf1
67947 F20110320_AABCNU bond_a_Page_057.jpg
d764040c18f34a2d22d47efd1921bf6a
b028cf675f85013271b630c3738355971f8b8461
22920 F20110320_AABCOJ bond_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
d756e6163f8c26d9a0b57e3a8f15b709
31c18131479655268db8a7eb883d4de2dd94af7d
71170 F20110320_AABDPD bond_a_Page_101.jpg
cd5d1d954224d23a9d80dc3371bad145
ac1db63b2c41829c92d8e04c5ad8773510e71db2
48730 F20110320_AABDOP bond_a_Page_079.jpg
133fdcda1e5ae2cbd5450b16ad2ed449
456ae9cf58911898ab9e15ab40a6d1d0a38841a4
1855 F20110320_AABCNV bond_a_Page_021.txt
4e387231fc432a66096b249159ed7272
dad173b3c36f96131337e58d66384c492fee615d
106917 F20110320_AABCOK bond_a_Page_037.jp2
1b2b5d11454ed5e79a4881129e3c1d5d
e28db717039c025d7f90894454e27d09a0dbd3f9
21694 F20110320_AABDPE bond_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
f3d653bdbcba0e04baca08a351eda85b
58d41545a6dd9d33faabed162eacf0cf83cd8625
15945 F20110320_AABDOQ bond_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
70ca82844be97abb84cfb9d3f92cbad3
e4b6ffc5da7109a95acabf90262f4f71be5de9c4
1051983 F20110320_AABCNW bond_a_Page_005.jp2
262cd9068fd637954b97d6af547d162c
3aa6d71ab697a4d4d3ebf44f574572d4705f56e0
F20110320_AABCOL bond_a_Page_103.tif
9b03e28a8610de796001001f4793a46c
3419c540c9090b723610352a74233b6b407f3a18
70070 F20110320_AABDPF bond_a_Page_106.jpg
31f14de81bd9c76e5264b738ab786125
8dfad93252bd4ea709a09e996e7ffab1166e8d51
67424 F20110320_AABDOR bond_a_Page_081.jpg
3fed069e53157ffd4757d13376bdf871
2a633eb2cc8b6a791432b97d87d0ae9bf8a507f7
2134 F20110320_AABCNX bond_a_Page_053.txt
dfec99e9a8637856dd1c11542410f759
03d0f08c7b7f857999a6318ddd544c8444ca1405
86799 F20110320_AABCPA bond_a_Page_077.jpg
854bfde4bf9a1de3c8836a875ffc7bdf
74b71044ff730930722d4b36fea582f4a86d816c
62424 F20110320_AABCOM bond_a_Page_072.pro
3b9c4f88a8ab6100da2444916fff8835
e2806170f1351ab8c02c294ec8367b5f75d031df
72576 F20110320_AABDPG bond_a_Page_108.jpg
283120f608b7b46ada96174622e29821
7712d6312deeb35fa80ea313012aa4666cfc35cb
25090 F20110320_AABCNY bond_a_Page_187.QC.jpg
399d95d2bb45068cdf31b699e328ef73
2cc912dae35fe5e12606bc3c4ca1be1f5bcf7257
3992 F20110320_AABCPB bond_a_Page_148thm.jpg
55f4ff8c7a74919080d086520b25771d
7955af555adbe3ecf6d7905ea4cb17c0a5c7fdb2
78499 F20110320_AABCON bond_a_Page_087.jpg
382b124b203d32f13b5ad5a31a914ee1
d9bb8e6c211d13a5ed5796794ed733b7631240a3
23842 F20110320_AABDPH bond_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
2693cb8cf836be07010ac1d78f709485
b2d8111cde1897f08827ddd3e0053b27d71584b6
75285 F20110320_AABDOS bond_a_Page_082.jpg
b8081e5505725ca7efe889980a57a408
3bdd91ac7b9f212c15439aaa97af6d1799190e36
46216 F20110320_AABCNZ bond_a_Page_063.pro
764bc0dd6ac7e13488b39e41a89a6941
619ae1ced35f207b7734b5eb29ea9886a17bbb52
F20110320_AABCPC bond_a_Page_113.tif
9ce3e72a5c2058793f34e5dbbe4e5b3e
3bef856ee57da6bc8783b6342058fe3eb157fd27
5183 F20110320_AABCOO bond_a_Page_015thm.jpg
4cc689c2f8a447032c3f202de5ee3756
920a3ea504069ddef41ffdd7196a1ef67e8bba4f
55612 F20110320_AABDPI bond_a_Page_118.jpg
87bceee48c6bee492b31f409fe5148a6
dbef559c24295947225d76eb76bb956cd9a7ff18
71056 F20110320_AABDOT bond_a_Page_083.jpg
6e06005833692bdfd02dcd338457efc0
b7c36a3b58dcba1124841b0d64b3257932bfd683
43415 F20110320_AABCPD bond_a_Page_162.jpg
7ddeec1f19edf9a9a590f154984a6bb1
1d6b892f9af922358b13acd00c800b478e7b9e3c
F20110320_AABCOP bond_a_Page_034.tif
9daf490938ea32257c72ef83c1f3a61b
896a6b5c33639df0683c3065cd6e44ec03afac78
16581 F20110320_AABDPJ bond_a_Page_119.QC.jpg
a6fd4884a03bea360a4e81d681e143d8
196b8b882de6e8b36d7437fd214355ef5bfde844
58375 F20110320_AABDOU bond_a_Page_086.jpg
eadb4e5cdae222f308cd2fef800687bc
68784059d4537f0a34db762e04d8b349282ce070
F20110320_AABCPE bond_a_Page_018.tif
9c2c39743662be79663726d0f0f06ac9
13893bd3b3197debd786bc48a902b2811263e9d7
F20110320_AABCOQ bond_a_Page_139.tif
d5967c2ac4763295b780b71fcf407106
95fd4fa27f96c810511e5651be62d747cb83cc33
65637 F20110320_AABDPK bond_a_Page_120.jpg
f78bc4bcb9af20e43752b1f97a5cd02a
dec343ab166fc842c8e97e8352829191ba45b938
18843 F20110320_AABDOV bond_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
8d6dc6164823d40e74d6bf8f168113ee
d28425aa5d945f3ebfd33f4988e8447368dab956
F20110320_AABCPF bond_a_Page_073.txt
2f77a321ff72bc9218693bf10fb17f9a
e6065acce7904934701b4a4e72cee363c04e1240
2108 F20110320_AABCOR bond_a_Page_088.txt
9e4f95fa60642157885357c202d9b378
9363f54f0f6f19d109552aaa1e1fdbab64b175f4
56049 F20110320_AABDPL bond_a_Page_122.jpg
6430960d16414627a06a7bcf61c587e0
351e498bb85249100f97b7dd0d62cdc456a02478
22061 F20110320_AABDOW bond_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
6258523847ced3d7bed267009099ea56
a3988849f3918b25e75a80cf219c782e8e653479
31978 F20110320_AABCPG bond_a_Page_150.pro
4f3c6fff6d187050854a447a8bb917bb
b49517093d28173f1bda2f737cea7025a3fc0c8d
F20110320_AABCOS bond_a_Page_076thm.jpg
2039c37259f3227b5046ed3b316ddd46
934f014f0f5e6bee28bf2ee3c219729faaab9c3a
9630 F20110320_AABDQA bond_a_Page_151.QC.jpg
4720d4fbee0d68aad7674e10dc05ead4
d4df94755cc188113e56d90a36cde1b4b0e463de
42822 F20110320_AABDPM bond_a_Page_123.jpg
2efe4f2b1d681f2d3de3c1c0490bb1f8
40f63d8c740f60414d84d8bde43ca9708a1b9fd1
78447 F20110320_AABDOX bond_a_Page_091.jpg
4941884efe7a22be518c0efaff8ef80e
3c783f4e7b14e55fd02037379e3a0e514ec66ce3
1687 F20110320_AABCPH bond_a_Page_173.txt
759386e0e0346cb78802a435b63e7177
53cca0e845aeaa12a85659869a98bef7e63c7a98
8329 F20110320_AABDQB bond_a_Page_153.QC.jpg
3d79fa071de0df7fe2fc311b3ee7f8ed
1037697eeae28b18f6916e715d9745b7a72a133c
6492 F20110320_AABDPN bond_a_Page_125.QC.jpg
7c336acea0b639dcdfbf4d3e12b58b38
7731760f0a0f431c187144cbd3df2789989a4698
75004 F20110320_AABDOY bond_a_Page_094.jpg
3ae6d80a6938b1e53f9c4f8a0455841b
67de8ed38a483719b311c6238a248b01a005c7cb
6434 F20110320_AABCPI bond_a_Page_068thm.jpg
c9b368b8b7c072d483809190b09b13c8
00a1b96fbf8d4c3497a11df7c963202c4c33d6d4
12523 F20110320_AABCOT bond_a_Page_143.QC.jpg
103388b8ebf9c17ce8f273075207141d
968675478d16551d660b76826235f7fe984c6a49
9158 F20110320_AABDQC bond_a_Page_154.QC.jpg
69fab50eca9cd173ce0246defc946a42
3405f7b3097209dda0e23c7c6a5b68d9ed4c5ba6
29573 F20110320_AABDPO bond_a_Page_128.jpg
6b03c46d657c9059240aa81fd91d6dde
4b6bfc59c796d463e8d71f4bd69a6f8ceedc1583
64362 F20110320_AABDOZ bond_a_Page_095.jpg
7488bc8fa144c7c71ae5119a4a16b39a
16fb597946b772d2efebcd044ba8d982dd103795
6572 F20110320_AABCPJ bond_a_Page_070thm.jpg
fa81f7f267cff649fa41369cbd5722bb
e85c2943b98a8aea23fa5f974d9553991748c70d
25320 F20110320_AABCOU bond_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
49e91d853c5950ae50505881996c827c
69bbc77f04f6fe9009170131e1d36fe1da17cfce
41372 F20110320_AABDQD bond_a_Page_156.jpg
a125f9d16374cd42b1ebbc2548549591
f3c02590c1b761b8024d2fbe13f3044abec4f098
36332 F20110320_AABDPP bond_a_Page_130.jpg
9f4208d0948cefe9b38b83bf01cb2e41
66a09a5d339993ad0f19107debd5648aae997198
F20110320_AABCPK bond_a_Page_090.tif
b4b5f49e1ef86c66a8bb22f38733b741
77557290ab3eec6438c3a188895579d2e17be2b9
F20110320_AABCOV bond_a_Page_035.tif
3432fd0165eaf25be2202d03ed17462b
dafe9ef47cd7977fa83f92f7c092c5b8cb6885e7
13483 F20110320_AABDQE bond_a_Page_157.QC.jpg
5606f7c10b7e2f5209b3a56ff1e89a58
fbeed10e280633c6bdf4b5f7c1a4bd65cb39020a
33588 F20110320_AABDPQ bond_a_Page_131.jpg
7c4719d80b4a20b5fd037c83029e740a
12c00eac6dcd07df8d6786089826d5ab957cb072
20238 F20110320_AABCPL bond_a_Page_113.jpg
3e6fcc8fb837c6d539ea2e504ff5b75d
2cd20c50fcbe0f3dd3c4c3036a88e568a96f0cd6
F20110320_AABCOW bond_a_Page_144.tif
b3a2f0d83c5d65612ea3b6ab01e4eac5
94698353b0d466fc8cfa90ce05bed3e37bf6d6dd
11942 F20110320_AABDQF bond_a_Page_160.QC.jpg
2d7a87850574b5820863b135af305f0a
8903d0f34c71536430da719df723c3c3b9e0bd2f
39376 F20110320_AABDPR bond_a_Page_132.jpg
28df7f2aaaafd074edc610e15f8002bf
fa379622b73b9e0b2040e47dfd13cb167ebc8ab7
F20110320_AABCPM bond_a_Page_177.QC.jpg
80043169596e74c1f575fe2697947e4f
7118642b5dab675e7d2c42b6f48d7684a789780b
71084 F20110320_AABCOX bond_a_Page_105.jpg
c69b6268241ccc9d41e88f922861a287
4b8346cb572c2949718fdc8b0ba6edd5d3d05786
58886 F20110320_AABCQA bond_a_Page_103.jpg
69f9099a821354d21c452ff0a7de8b98
daedff44c2dc943df0e83953fed850c7e9ce9eda
21430 F20110320_AABDQG bond_a_Page_161.jpg
b7dce832827a59b2139a6e90d4a20b4b
869ea6fa7eeefe675933cdb83151343073a38f26
8992 F20110320_AABDPS bond_a_Page_133.QC.jpg
d5eb835d4dac21cfdb25334927525d64
12124a507bb97a83f1831e3aac4aea8766b6ebfc
829805 F20110320_AABCPN bond_a_Page_061.jp2
f79b61e12b40a669405efe8780897354
94c218eaa150d6a45e4cb1b6fee6f10e0c4f756a
20143 F20110320_AABCOY bond_a_Page_125.pro
9d0f084615c632a8c607b6fc235504f9
27ab33accd79860594c1f9aa926cbf6622a98d3b
1987 F20110320_AABCQB bond_a_Page_037.txt
2f719cf4f4b768544f9fd35ec2bc9961
eea5f234bf171596efbde082a5a7ddf833d973b7
10521 F20110320_AABDQH bond_a_Page_163.QC.jpg
34710ef565addd555dc9b33356daeb56
addc89a8a7315a30c5ff274132e0aa53d63e8ae2
1108 F20110320_AABCPO bond_a_Page_126.txt
69be3e6a9726fd10e3cf26bdbf10af49
e7cd4312ecf2b76141f323d0a713c574dc10137c
408 F20110320_AABCOZ bond_a_Page_152.txt
9dd90881be419413f9ab1810f3f1861d
a8d7254038902278b8ee453b59f9ec44bf228a5e
12075 F20110320_AABCQC bond_a_Page_170.QC.jpg
a8e9adae624565bfe726320ebd9e87f2
52a5b38afd1837019d05b90805178e07d3f57e87
9941 F20110320_AABDQI bond_a_Page_166.QC.jpg
649085524f51c667b0acf7972533e2a1
0e79f1f2b406007f3b61878b1ea9c0c81217b870
26674 F20110320_AABDPT bond_a_Page_134.jpg
076fed71148dfc70436d7f93acdd8a44
fbfc88984873269f3e9be5b0bc1bb35edd68c136
F20110320_AABCPP bond_a_Page_095.tif
7fe3691ed28c06ebc24b4e372f2afef7
5756526d1de897820860a8f328e9dedad78079f0
6428 F20110320_AABCQD bond_a_Page_094thm.jpg
874eee7f77b2fea6d6ce175207b743d9
02c7f3030af67c28ec8179e36d3790aa3548ee7c
36304 F20110320_AABDQJ bond_a_Page_167.jpg
97a87ca6d1490e5e2c96cf7872c79f1c
0cfbe9f27af2d1e35dac3e3f4fcc91ee598fa412
8065 F20110320_AABDPU bond_a_Page_134.QC.jpg
50d63c88c0c4aa420a019ed58d69f5b5
f62a142aeb94be49a62ba1107adc89e7f4b8dd64
F20110320_AABCPQ bond_a_Page_058.txt
ec96afd620251292665282d1bd4fe52d
608f2994833eeabaa227ca2868be1e589392ce52
1572 F20110320_AABCQE bond_a_Page_122.txt
e972620603282a37be710516451f2ee7
0b6bdcb748ef84097d33e356f56d0eab12e5f435
39842 F20110320_AABDQK bond_a_Page_170.jpg
70af3599573ff58ae3a0e0b705363caf
c6426d6e4e3075363742ddc5f00fc5e6784fb77f
41467 F20110320_AABDPV bond_a_Page_141.jpg
283a4f468ed87339457f6f4ebba01315
0a5eff7ef766a85700df9a2ef88c5e64bef99633
F20110320_AABCPR bond_a_Page_119.tif
31db584d418d0796602f1dfbe735de66
3dfe2d8ff00267cab77fcca6f961201abadf2b02
34547 F20110320_AABCQF bond_a_Page_056.pro
12385c5e6644c4b732419919bec766e8
89d0ee296f73e7c545e0f01cdb425192e1c5aa4c


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009440/00001

Material Information

Title: Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies and Temporary Campus Transit Use on the Permanent Transit Habits and Attitudes of University of Florida Alumni
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009440:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009440/00001

Material Information

Title: Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies and Temporary Campus Transit Use on the Permanent Transit Habits and Attitudes of University of Florida Alumni
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009440:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT
HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI










By

ALEXANDER BOND


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005



























In Memory of Andrew Factor, Christopher Zeiss and Premal Dagly














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to thank the following people for their support of my thesis research.

Special thanks to my thesis committee chair, employer and advisor Professor Ruth L.

Steiner. Her guidance, support and advice have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

The other members of my thesis committee deserve thanks as well. Professor Joshua

Comenetz and Dr. Linda Crider have lent their expertise and advice at critical moments

through this process, and their input has been very valuable. Professor Paul Zwick, Linda

Dixon of UF Campus Facilities Planning and Construction, Doug Robinson of the

Regional Transit System, and Bob Miller, Vice President for UF Finance and

Administration, have also assisted this project in several ways.

This project was an expensive one, and without in-kind support the cost would

have been prohibitive. The Urban and Regional Planning Department generously

supplied me with thousands of letterhead and return mail envelopes, significantly

reducing the cost of the project.

Members of my family were also integral to the process. Special thanks go to my

sister Carly Bond for her effort at the start of this project. Without her work, this project

would have ended before it began. My parents, Carolyn and Tony Bond, have given me

their undying love and support throughout my time at the University of Florida.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS




A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... ........... ............................ ix

A B S T R A C T ........................................................................................................ ........... x

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................... .......... .......................... 1

2 L ITER A TU R E R E V IEW ................................................................... ................. 4
Transportation Demand Management....................................................................... 4
Public T ransit In A m erica. ..................................................................... .............. 12
T ran sit R id ersh ip ....................................................................................................... 12
M o d a l S p lit .............................................................................................................. .. 12
T ran sit F u n d in g ......................................................................................................... 15
F lorida T ransit Funding .. ................................................................... .............. 16
B u s T ran sit ............... .. .. ... ... ......................................................................... 17
Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit ............... ... .............. 18
Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership................................... 20
N on-U ser Studies .... .. ...... ............. .......................................................... .......... 25
U university Transportation .. .................................................................... .............. 26
C am pu s P parking .................................................. .............................................. 2 7
C am pu s T ran sit ............... ... .................................................................................... 2 9
Unlimited Access and Fare Structure ................................................. 31
C am pus T ransit C ase Studies................................................................ .............. 33
Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use ........................................................ 37

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................. .............. 39
Survey A dm inistration ...... .. ................................................................. .............. 39
S u rv ey S c o p e ............................................................................................................... 4 0
Freshman Survey ................................ .. ......... .................................... 41
A lu m n i S u rv ey .............................................................................................................. 4 2
L im ita tio n s ................................................................................................................. ... 4 3
O their R research M ethods... ..................................................................... .............. 43



iv









4 BACKGROUND .................................................. .......................... 45
T he U university of F lorida.. ..................................................................... .............. 45
R regional T ransit Sy stem ........................................................................... ............. 52
Cam pus Transit Service A greem ent ......................................................... .............. 56
T transportation A access F ee ........................................ ......................... .............. 58
Service E nhancem ents .... ................................................................ .............. 62
Stan d ard C ity R ou tes ....... .. ...................................... ........................ .............. 6 3
C am pus C irculator R outes ................................................................. .............. 65
L after G ator ........................................................................................................ 66

5 RESULTS AND DISCU SSION .................................. ....................... .............. 68
T ran sp o rtatio n H ab its................................................................................... .............. 6 8
Transportation B before A attending UF .................................................... .............. 69
Transportation W while Enrolled .................................... ...................... .............. 70
Transportation A after G raduation........................................................... .............. 71
Transit A attitudes and K now ledge ............................................................. .............. 73
Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy ....................................... 77
Self-Selection for T ransit U se........................................ ........................ .............. 81
F lorida R residency ....................................................................... ......... ..... ... 8 1
M ultifam ily and Single Fam ily residents.............................................. .............. 83
D isc u s sio n ..................................................................................................................... 8 5
T transportation H abits... ...................................................................... .............. 85
Transit A attitudes and K now ledge ......................................................... .............. 87
T D M and P public P olicy .. ...................................................................... .............. 89
Self-Selection for Transit U se..................................... ....................... .............. 89

6 C O N C L U SIO N S .................................................... ............................................... 92
Conclusions ................................................. ................. 92
P olicy R ecom m endations.. ..................................................................... .............. 95
R T S R ecom m endations .......................................... ........................... .............. 96
City of G ainesville Recom m endations ................................................. .............. 98
U university of Florida Recom m endations.............................................. .............. 99
Recommendations for Future Research...... ........ .................... 100

APPENDIX

A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL.............. .................... 103

B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY ...... ........ ...... .................... 104

C A L U M N I SU R V E Y ................................................. ............................................ 108

D FRESHM EN RAW SURVEY DATA ...................................................... .............. 112

E ALUM N I RAW SURVEY D A TA ............................................................ .............. 140



v









R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................................ ................... 17 2

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................. .............. 178














LIST OF TABLES
Table page

1 TD M Strategies O organized by A spect..................................................... .............. 6

2 United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000 ............................................ 14

3 Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size............................. 30

4 Parking and D ecal Sales, 2003................................... ...................... .............. 51

5 T otal R idership 1995 to 2003 .................................... ...................... .............. 55

6 Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003 .......................................... 55

7 Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth ....................................... 61

8 2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels ..................................... 64

9 Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes..................................... 66

10 2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics ................. 67

11 Parents' M ode of Travel to W ork ..................................................... .............. 70

12 Transit Service U se at U F ...................................... ........................ .............. 71

13 A lum ni Travel to W ork M ode Split.................................................. .............. 72

14 Frequency of Transit U se....................................... ........................ .............. 73

15 Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni.................................................... 73

16 Willingness to Ride Direct Transit Route to Work................................ 74

17 W willingness to U se Transit...................................... ....................... .............. 76

18 R regular vs. F are Free Transit............................................................ .............. 77

19 Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction................................................... 78

20 Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion ................................................. .............. 79









21 Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate ............................. 80

22 TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk ..................... 80

23 W ish Transit W as a B better O ption.................................................... .............. 81

24 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency .................. 82

25 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Mode of Travel to Work........... 83

26 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Willingness to Use Transit ....... 83

27 Multifamily and Single Family Residents' Transit Frequency.......................... 84

28 Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work............................... 85

29 Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit.............................. 85














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1 Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split) ...................................... 13

2 Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001................................ 15

3 All Campus Parking Facilities and Core Campus Area.................................... 49

4 U F P ark and R ide F facilities ...................................... ....................... .............. 50

5 R T S R oute System ..... .. .................................. ........................... .............. 54

6 Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth....................................................... 56

7 Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen..................................................... 69

8 Knowledge of Transit System Information......................................... .............. 75
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and
Regional Planning

IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND
TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS
AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI

By Alexander Bond

May 2005

Chairperson: Ruth L. Steiner
Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning

The University of Florida began financially supporting the Regional Transit

System in 1998, allowing students to ride busses without paying a fare and substantially

improving service characteristics such as frequency and hours of operation. Students

have responded by shifting their commuting patterns away from single occupant

automobiles, and have played the pivotal role in boosting RTS' ridership by 284% in the

first six years of the program.

Students at the University of Florida are provided with high-quality, free-fare

transit during their period of attendance. Students are also subjected to a comprehensive

set of transportation demand management (TDM) policies intended to curb their use of

automobiles and shift their commutes toward alternative modes of transportation. After

graduation, most move away from the City of Gainesville to find employment. Alumni

must make new transportation choices, based on their new environs. The purpose of this









project is to understand how temporary exposure to TDM policies and high-quality transit

impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.

Two mail surveys were administered, mimicking a time-series survey. Incoming

freshmen to the University were surveyed prior to their arrival at UF. Recent alumni

were surveyed as well, and the alumni responses can be compared to the freshmen

responses. Respondents were asked questions about transit use, transit system

knowledge, attitudes toward transportation policies, and attitudes toward TDM policies.

Survey results show a slight increase in transit ridership among alumni. Despite

the increase in ridership, alumni indicate they are less willing to ride transit than

freshmen. Upon deeper investigation, two "self-selection" factors for transit use were

identified: non-Florida residency and living in multifamily housing. The most important

factors for influencing transit use were fare cost and parking restriction.

This project concludes that people of all ages and backgrounds will ride transit

under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are parking pricing or restriction and

high-frequency transit. Low cost or free-fare transit may also be valuable if target users

are low-income or otherwise transportation disadvantaged. Prior automobile use does not

preclude the user from riding transit. Similarly, temporary transit use does not translate

into permanent habits once the users' life circumstances change. The decision on

whether to use transit is based on the transportation environment, which is largely shaped

by transportation demand management policies. This study concludes that TDM systems

in most cities-particularly those in Florida-are not comprehensive enough to influence

automobile users to change modes to transit.
















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The bulk of communities throughout the nation have failed to create a modal shift

toward transit because they have failed to implement a variety of complementary

transportation demand management (TDM) policies. TDM policies are those that

discourage single occupant automobile use and promote the use of alternative modes.

Universities are better equipped and more motivated than their surrounding communities

to implement comprehensive TDM programs. For many universities, increasing public

transit's mode share is the primary goal of their TDM programs.

Universities across the country are partnering with their communities' public

transit agencies to provide enhanced transit service to their campuses (Brown et al. 2003).

Schools hope to increase the number of students and staff that commute to campus by

bus, thus reducing the demand for parking on campus. Some schools offer unlimited

access, which allows users to board the bus without paying a fare. Many universities

improve the frequency, amenities and operating hours of transit routes serving the

campus.

The University of Florida is one university that has partnered with its local transit

agency to provide unlimited access, high frequency service. The partnership has been

very successful, increasing the system-wide number of transit riders 284% since its

inception in 1998. In 2004, the Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) carried

8.2 million riders per year, the majority of whom are students. RTS is now the 4th largest









transit system in the State of Florida despite serving the 17th largest county. Alachua

County now has the highest ratio of riders per capital of any county in Florida (NTD

2003/Census 2000)

The high rate of transit use in Gainesville (and Alachua County) stands in stark

contrast to the rest of the state. Florida is one of the most automobile dependent states in

the nation (Census 2000). Most of Florida was developed using suburban urban design,

the least transit-supportive pattern. Eighty five percent of the student population at the

University of Florida are in-state students, and as such have been raised in an

environment where private automobiles are the mode of choice for all trips. Since the

University of Florida has adopted a variety of TDM policies-including enhanced transit

service-students have been prompted to break their pre-conceived notions about using

alternative modes. Some students choose to walk or bike. Some choose to ride the bus.

Many students that persist in driving use busses to reach the core of campus from parking

facilities.

For many students riding the bus to, from and around the University of Florida

campus will represent their first sustained experience with bus transit. Seventy eight

percent of alumni report that they used RTS busses during their time at UF. It is clear

that students are amenable to riding the bus while in attendance at UF. But what happens

after they graduate? Most students will leave Gainesville, and most of those who stay

will no longer commute to campus. Will alumni continue to ride public transit in their

new communities? The purpose of this project is to explore how temporary transit use

impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.









To answer questions about transit use after graduation, two mail surveys were

administered. The first survey was sent to incoming freshmen to establish "baseline"

data about transit habits and attitudes before arriving at the University. The second

survey was sent to alumni and asked many of the same questions. Data from the alumni

survey can be compared to the freshman survey, exposing any changes in transit habits or

attitudes toward public transportation.

Research questions. Three principal research questions are asked during this

project. The research questions are

1) Do alumni of the University of Florida ride public transit more frequently
than before they attended UF?

2) Do attitudes and perceptions about bus transit change after using busses on
and around the University of Florida Campus?

3) Which, if any, Transportation Demand Management policies are perceived
as being most effective by freshmen and alumni?

There are also some subsidiary research questions. These questions are:

1) What characteristics of bus transit and ancillary TDM policies at the
University of Florida make busses an attractive commuting option?

2) How educated are students and alumni on transit options?

3) Do students and alumni take transportation factors into consideration when
choosing where to live before and after graduation?

4) Which TDM policies are supported by students/alumni?
















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This section contains a review of the existing literature on a variety of topics that

relate to public transportation, building bus ridership, and university transportation.

Public transit has many benefits for its community including lower traffic congestion,

lower air pollution, increased transportation equity and lower cost of living. Increasing

transit's share of passenger trips is an important goal of many metropolitan areas.

This section begins with a discussion of Transportation Demand Management

(TDM), which uses a variety of policy measures to create a more balanced transportation

system. A summary of current trends in transit ridership and administration follow. An

important component of TDM strategies is the enhancement of transit services, and a

section is included that discusses various service enhancements that have been proven to

build ridership. Transit systems that serve universities are covered in depth in the final

part.


Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a package term for a variety of

planning strategies that promote the more efficient use of transportation resources.

Efficient use of the transportation system is becoming increasingly important as

widespread automobile use strains the existing road infrastructure, and available

government monetary resources cannot keep up with the demand for new roadway






5


capacity. The broad use of automobiles also has negative impacts on air quality, urban

design, and creates hardships to transportation disadvantaged persons such as the elderly,

poor or handicapped.

TDM strategies seek to reduce or mitigate the negative aspects of automobile

travel including congestion, air quality, and transportation inequity. They also seek to

build upon positive aspects of a balanced transportation system including economic

development, expanded housing choices, and a reduction in capital expenditure on

transportation infrastructure. Some TDM strategies include: more transportation mode

choices, improved convenience of alternative modes, efficient pricing and other financial

incentives, marketing of alternative modes, and land use changes that improve access and

reduce automobile dependency (Litman 2003).

TDM policies fall into three broad categories- positive, mixed and negative.

Positive TDM policies expand transportation options and access for all users and include:

Transit service improvements, flextime work hour scheduling, and carpool/vanpool

programs. Mixed TDM strategies expand options and access for only one segment of the

population, but do not adversely impact those who are not in the target group. Mixed

TDM strategies include: high occupant vehicle lanes, fare-free transit programs, and

traffic calming. Negative TDM strategies reduce options or increase costs. Negative

TDM strategies include: fuel tax increases, parking pricing, or auto-free zones (Victoria

Transportation Policy Institute [VTPI] 2004).

Erik Ferguson (1990) identifies TDM as a complementary strategy to

Transportation Supply Management (TSM). TSM strives to increase transportation

system capacity on all modes by forecasting infrastructure needs. TDM complements









TSM because it maximizes the use of all built transportation infrastructure. Ferguson

identifies five aspects of travel that can be altered to maximize the efficiency of the

existing transportation system: 1) Trip Generation, 2) Trip Distribution, 3) Mode Choice,

4) Route Selection (spatial), and 5) Route Selection (temporal). The five aspects of travel

and proven strategies to alter that aspect are summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1-TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect
Aspect of Travel TDM Objective Selected Strategies
Trip Generation Eliminate trips -Growth management
-Telecomuting
Trip Distribution Move trips to less -Increased density
congested destination -Promote trip chaining
Mode Choice Move trips to higher -Bike/Ped amenities
occupancy modes -Parking pricing
-Ridesharing
-Transit enhancement
Route Selection Move trips to a less -Traffic calming
(spatial) congested route -Intelligent transportation systems
Route Selection Move trips to less -Alternative work schedules
(temporal) congested time period -Jobs/Housing mix
Source: Ferguson (1990)

Individual TDM strategies have a modest impact on the transportation system as a

whole. However when multiple strategies are applied in concert, the impact on the

system can be substantial. When multiple strategies are applied at the same time, the

negative impacts on individual users are mitigated (Litman 1999). For example, if

parking pricing is instituted it may reduce vehicle travel by 3%. The increase in prices

will likely cause lower income users to end their automobile commutes, impacting them

substantially. If parking prices are increased, AND transit service is improved, vehicle

travel could be reduced by 8-10%. Lower income users who were priced out of parking

will find the transit system meets their needs, and higher income users will choose to ride

the transit system because it is more cost-effective.









TDM has been criticized for "forcing" people into using alternative modes,

particularly individuals with low income or educational attainment levels. These

criticisms view modes other than the automobile as inferior (Pisarksi 1999). Proponents

counter that TDM is in fact a market-based system that provides additional options and

price points to users. TDM balances accessibility with mobility. Few TDM strategies

actually force people to change their transportation habits. Most strategies create

financial, convenience or time incentives to reduce automobile use (Litman 1999).

Comprehensive TDM programs have gained their broadest support in Europe,

particularly the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Belgium. TDM policies are built

into the national transportation policies of these European nations. This stands in stark

contrast to the United States, where TDM policies vary from locality to locality (Cleland

and Cooper 2003). There are three themes of European TDM that deserve particular

attention when discussing TDM in a college/university setting. First, utilizing TDM

transportation alternatives is marketed as the socially responsible norm in European

countries. In the United States, TDM-friendly behavior is marketed as an alternative to

the automobile-dependent culture. Second, many European cities were founded and

substantially built prior to widespread automobile ownership. The opposite is true of

many US cities, but many universities were established prior to the automobile-era

(including the University of Florida). Last, recent European TDM programs have been

negative TDM programs that increase costs or reduce automobile accessibility. Road

pricing has recently been instituted in inner London, Singapore and Rome. These

"negative" TDM strategies have not been given serious consideration by most American

cities, however they have been employed by some universities. Colleges and









universities-like dense urban areas-must reduce single occupant vehicle use, promote

an alternative mode oriented environment, and employ negative TDM policies as the

norm, more closely resembling a European TDM model.

Published literature focuses mostly on decreasing automobile dependence

(Hodgson and Tight 1999) and best practice discussions (Vuchic 2001). The literature

does not fully address the unique transportation environment found on a university

campus. Universities have a mixed population who commute on irregular schedules-

classes and other activities are scheduled throughout the day. They also function as a

distinct community, and value interpersonal contact. Universities often have written

TDM policies promoting bicycle and pedestrian trips over automobiles (Balsas 2002).

Balsas does not go into much detail about transit-promoting TDM measures; however he

found that universities value a pedestrian environment-often having written bicycle and

pedestrian capital improvement plans and education programs.

An important component of any TDM plan is the control, restriction and pricing

of parking resources. Restricting the unlimited supply of parking creates a disincentive

for travel by single occupant car, thus reducing congestion. Universities have a dual need

for controlling the parking supply on campus. Beyond the obvious benefit of lower

congestion, universities have limited space and financial resources to dedicate to parking

infrastructure. By implementing TDM parking policies, universities can save substantial

amount of already scarce space and money-and apply those resources to its mission of

education.

Parking regulation and pricing is a powerful TDM strategy. Charging fees for

parking where public transit is available would cause a rise in ridership. If no public









transit is available, parking pricing would stimulate more ridesharing (Downs 1992).

The parking situation on university campuses stands in strong contrast to their

surrounding communities. Keniry (1995) joking states that a "University is a group of

faculty, students and administrators held together by a common grievance over parking."

This jesting comment underscores how conditioned the American population is to the

suburban parking environment, and how university students (and faculty) must adapt

their travel behavior to the university setting. Suburban automobile users expect a free,

reserved parking space close to, or at, their destination (Beyard et al. 2003).

Contemporary urban planning mandates dedicated parking spaces for each land

use. Minimum parking requirements are a form of government intervention that

circumvents what would otherwise be a market system of paid parking. Ninety nine

percent of American automobile trips terminate in a free parking space (Shoup 1999).

Richard Willson (1995) surveyed planning directors in 144 cities and found that the

minimum parking requirements were based on either a) the parking standards of

neighboring cities or b) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation

Handbook. Most, if not all, minimum parking requirements are thus based on ITE

standards. In practice, peak parking demand has very little correlation with the standards

listed in the ITE handbook.1

Parking requirements in cities throughout the United States inflate the supply and

virtually eliminate the price of parking. But minimum parking requirements do not

eliminate the cost of parking. The cost of parking is built into the total expense of the



1 Shoup (1999) cites an example from the ITE Parking Generation Handbook. ITE studies on fast food
restaurants show a range from 3.55 to 15.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. The majority of
localities use the standard of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet, even though the ITE handbook shows that
only 4% of the peak parking demand is attributable to floor square footage variance.









development. The cost of the free parking is then absorbed by the landowner or passed

along to consumers (Shoup 1999). Constructing parking spaces can be quite expensive,

and the cost varies greatly based on the value of the land it is built on. Above or below

grade (structured) parking spaces cost between $10,000 and $25,000 per space. Surface

spaces cost $2,000-$3,000 each. Universities are in a peculiar position when it comes to

parking facility construction. They are non-profit entities, and cannot "mark up" the

price of goods to cover parking facility costs. Universities must charge students and

faculty who use parking spaces to recover at least a portion of the costs associated with

facility construction and maintenance (Shoup 1999). Since universities are unable or

unwilling to provide free parking, it follows that universities should incorporate parking

pricing into their TDM plans. By applying ancillary TDM programs- such as ridesharing,

enhanced transit services, and bike/ped capital improvements universities can capitalize

on the necessary parking pricing to create a comprehensive TDM program. The multiple

TDM strategies applied in concert could have the effect of stimulating substantial

transportation behavioral changes.

Morrall and Bolger (1996) found a strong inverse correlation between the

available proportion of parking spaces and transit's share of peak-hour commuters. In

places with fewer available parking spaces (and presumably priced parking), transit use

was high. In places with an excess of parking spaces, transit use was low. The

correlation is weaker in United States cities and stronger in Canada. This study also

found that more people used transit when the ratio of jobs to the number of parking

spaces was lower.









A TCRP study (Kuzmayak et al. 2003) found that transit tends to be competitive

in dense areas such as central business districts [or university campuses] for several

reasons. First, motorists face long walks after parking their vehicles. After parking in a

CBD, motorists were found to walk between 500 and 950 feet to their end destination.

The walking leg of the trip is shorter or equal if transit is used instead of an automobile.

Second, travelers must decide on a cost/convenience tradeoff. Riding public transit costs

less money than operating and parking a vehicle. However travelers are bound by the

transit provider's schedule and route network. Third, dense areas possess multiple

potential destinations within one area. This reduces the necessity of an automobile for

midday trips and promotes trip chaining. Fourth, at the extreme parking is simply not

available, legal, or its price point is too high for most users.

One study conducted in The Hague, Netherlands looked at the users of a 200

space high-demand CBD parking lot before and after its closure. The number of transit

trips taken during the week after lot closure went from 22 to 80, a 224% increase.

Transit's mode share increased from 5% to 19%. Previously, all 200 cars were single

occupant vehicles. After the lot closure, 4% of the displaced persons chose to carpool.

The bicycle/pedestrian modal share did not change, remaining at 4%. Despite the shift

toward public transit, single occupant vehicle commuting remained the overwhelming

majority at 74% (Gantvoort 1984). Automobile commuters chose to park at a more

distant location. The finding of this study has some mitigating factors. All of the

'before' trips taken were single occupant vehicular commuters. Work commuters have

very little choice as to the timing of their trip, and cannot choose whether or not to make

the trip. Public transit was already in place, yet the subjects of the study were choosing









not to avail themselves of it. Universities are somewhat different in that students have

a moderate amount of control over the timing of their trip, and often whether or not to

make the trip. Students also have a more limited budget than commuters to a major

European urban center.


Public Transit In America


Transit Ridership

Public transit has been experiencing a moderate resurgence in recent years. The

decade from 1985-1995 was one of ridership stagnation or decline. Public transit

ridership has been growing since, rising 18.7% between 1995 and 2001. In 2001,

9.5 billion riders took public transit. Since 2001, transit gave up a small percentage of its

gains, dropping to 9.2 billion riders in 2003.2 The number of bus riders has increased

every year since 1996, rising by 12.2% to 5.2 billion bus riders per year in 2001 (APTA

2003). Despite the ridership gains, busses carry less than 2% of all trips nationwide, and

most of those trips are work-related (Brown, et al. 2001).


Modal Split

Busses have been declining in their share of the transit rides. The reason for the

decrease in busses' share of trips is that other modes have been adding more route miles

to their systems or attracting new riders. Demand response/paratransit, heavy rail and

vanpool systems have each added significant amounts of route miles since 1995.

Figure 1 demonstrates the national modal split in 2001.


2 Data from 2002 and 2003 are preliminary. The term 'public transit' covers several modes of intra-city
travel including bus, light rail, subway, trolley, heavy rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand
response/paratransit, ferries and other motorized alternative modes.










70.0

60.0 5-

50.0 -

40.0 -
o -:0 ],
_- 30.0 -

20.0 -

10.0 -
4 46
0 1 U 2 25
0.0 0
Bus Light Rail Commuter Heavy Rail Vanpool Demand Other
Rail Response

Figure 1-Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split)
Source: 2001 National Transit Summaries and Trends


Busses remain the "workhorse" of the public transit system, carrying 57.9% of all

transit riders. Busses carry nearly all of the able-bodied transit riders in small and

medium-sized communities, where rail modes generally do not exist. Heavy rail has the

second largest ridership share with 30.3%. Other modes carry a very small share of

public transport riders (NTD/FTA 2002).

All of the discussion to this point has been growth and modal split ii i/hi/n the

broad category of transit. Cars remain by far the most dominant mode of travel,

particularly for travel to work. Transit accounts for a small portion of the total

transportation system. Table 2 shows the modal split for travel to work from the

2000 Census.









Table 2-United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000
Mode USA Users Percent of US Florida Users Percent of FL
Total Total
Single Occupant 97,102,050 75.7% 5,445,527 78.8%
Car
Carpool 15,634,051 12.2% 893,766 12.9%
Home Work 4,184,223 3.3% 207,089 3.0%
Walk 3,758,982 2.9% 118,386 1.7%
Bus 3,206,682 2.5% 108,340 1.6%
Subway/Elevated 1,885,961 1.5% 6,851 0.1%
Commuter Rail 658,097 0.5% 3,638 0.05%
Bicycle 488,497 0.38% 14,967 0.2%
Taxicab 200,144 0.16% 8,708 0.1%
Motorcycle 142,424 0.11% 14,967 0.2%
Streetcar3 72,713 0.0005% 954 0.01%
Ferry 44,106 0.0003% 629 0.009%
Other 901,298 0.70% 207,089 3.0%
Total 12,8279,228
Source: 2000 US Census with calculation

Automobiles have an 87.9% modal share for travel to work. This figure is even

higher in small communities where transit options are limited or simply unavailable. The

share of commuters that travel by bus is 2.5%, and that share is even eclipsed by walkers.

Florida's commuters use automobiles at a 3.1% higher rate. Walking and bus riding are

less common in Florida than nationwide. In fact, Florida commuters use all alternative

modes at a lower rate than nationwide commuters. Long commutes occupy valuable time

that could be devoted to work, family or civic activities. Long commutes also drive up

personal transportation costs because of increased expenditures on fuel and depreciation

of automobiles. The average American takes 25.5 minutes each way to get to work,

while Floridians spend an average of 26.2 minutes (Census 2002).





3 The choices presented on the census form do not contain a clear choice for light rail or vanpool. Light rail
users could think they should enter Streetcar or Subway/Elevated. Vanpool users could think they should
enter Bus or Carpool.










Transit Funding


With little demand for public transit, agencies have had to subsidize their

operation with outside sources of money. Transit agencies across the nation depend on a

variety of sources to subsidize their operation. Figure 2 below shows the sources of

transit agency operating expenses in 2001. The largest source of transit funding remains

local government subsidy. However the local government contribution to public transit

has been decreasing, falling from 29.3% in 1991 to 24.9% in 2001. Federal assistance

also fell by more than 3%.4 The finance of public transit has shifted toward farebox

recovery and "other" sources of funds. Those categories rose 2.3% and 5% respectively

between 1991 and 2001. The rise in receipts from the farebox is attributable to the rise in

the total number of riders. "Other" sources of funding include advertising sales,

development partnerships and employer-based subsidy.

35

30-

25

20

5 15

10

5


Local State Federal Fare Other
[11 29.3 20.4 20.3 20.6 9.4
M2001 24.9 20.7 17.2 22.9 14.4

Figure 2-Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001
Source: National Transit Summary and Trends, 2002

4 The Federal government's role in funding transit operations is relatively small, however the Federal
government plays the largest role in providing start-up capital for fleet acquisition and infrastructure
construction, particularly for rail projects.











The amount subsidized per passenger has also been increasing, but only at or near

the rate of inflation. Subsidy per ride was $1.55 in 2001, up 27% over the previous

decade. Inflation over that period was approximately 30%. However, small and medium

urban areas subsidized riders at a higher rate. Small urban areas subsidize up to $2.42 for

each ride (NTD 2002).


Florida Transit Funding

The State of Florida contributes less than comparably sized states toward transit

operation. In 2001 the state appropriated $92 million to fund transit operation and capital

improvement. This ranks Florida as the twelfth largest supporter of public transit in

terms of dollars spent. Florida is the fourth largest state in the union with about

17 million residents. In terms of per capital spending on transit, Florida ranks eighteenth

of the fifty states (Cambridge Systematics 2003).

Florida collects approximately $2.2 billion annually from fuel taxes,

license/title/registration fees, and rental car taxes. Eighty five percent of this amount is

spent on road construction and maintenance. The remaining fifteen percent is divided

among other modes, with public transit receiving approximately four percent of the total.

Of the $92 million spent on public transit, $64.2 million is allocated to local transit

agencies through formula-based State Transit Bloc Grants. Local governments may

spend this money on public transit however they see fit.5 Another $9 million is allocated

to the Urban Transit Capital program, which is earmarked to address the backlog of

planned transit capital improvements in major urban areas. The Transit Corridor

5 Fifteen percent of the State Transit Bloc Grant funds are earmarked for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Trust Fund (Cambridge Systematics, 2003).









Program allocates $7.1 million for state-designated corridors. The Public Transit Service

Development Program spends $5.1 million a year on short-term pilot and trial programs.6

Another $6.2 million is spent through 3 programs to fund research, development and

special projects (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Most of the Federal and State transit

operational assistance goes to support bus transit.


Bus Transit

As discussed in the transit ridership section, busses continue to carry the majority

of public transit passengers in the United States. Public transit riders can be divided into

two broad categories- Transportation Disadvantaged and Choice Riders. Transportation

Disadvantaged riders are dependent on public transit for mobility because they do not

have ready access to an automobile. Transportation disadvantaged persons account for

the majority of riders on busses, particularly in small urban areas. Choice riders have

access to automobiles, but choose to ride transit for certain trips because of time, cost or

other advantages that the mode offers.

Among Florida transit users, sixty two percent are female. Ridership is highest

among people of prime working age (30-49). When more automobiles are available to

the household, fewer transit trips are taken. Households that do not own automobiles

account for twenty percent of riders in Florida, below the national figure of thirty one

percent. Households with lower income also tend to ride transit more often than higher

income individuals. People with an annual income of less than $15,000 account for 40%

of transit riders in Florida. Nationwide the figure is much smaller (12%). This is

likely due to high-income transit users in large metropolitan areas nationwide. Transit

6 RTS received $150,000 between 2000 and 2001 under the Public Transit Service Development Program.
These funds helped with the start-up of the Later Gator program.









users-particularly in Florida-are likely to be minorities. Nationwide, white users account

for forty three percent of all riders. In Florida this percentage drops to nineteen percent.

Florida's black riders account for thirty one percent, close to the national average. The

disparity in ethnic makeup of riders in Florida can be attributed to Hispanic and two-race

riders (Thompson et al. 2002).


Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit

Fare elasticity is the concept that ridership will change according to the fare

charged. The industry standard known as the Simpson-Curtain rule sets fare/ridership

elasticity at -0.3. The rule states that if fares are increased 10%, ridership will decline by

3%. According to the Simpson-Curtain rule, if fares are reduced 100%, ridership should

increase by 30%. In practice, systems that institute free-fare transit experience ridership

gains closer to 50% (Hodge et al. 1994).

Theoretically, there are advantages to instituting a fare-free policy. Automobile

riders could be enticed to use transit, thereby reducing traffic congestion and emissions.

Transit systems would experience lower costs because there would be no need to collect

and account for fare funds. Busses would load and unload faster because fares would not

be collected and paper transfers would not need to be printed. The system would be

easier to use because users could not be confused over fares and passes. For small

agencies, collecting fares may be a revenue neutral exercise, because the farebox

recovery rate7 is sometimes less than 10%. Accounting, equipment and security

costs can easily exceed farebox receipts. However large transit agencies could suffer


7 Farebox recovery rate refers to the percentage of annual operations that are paid for through income
generated by fare-paying customers. Cash fares and bus pass sales are both included in the dollar figure of
income produced at the "Fare box."









substantial losses of revenue. In large agencies, farebox recovery can be as high as 35

percent.

Jennifer Perone (2000) claims that fare-free policies could be advantageous for

small systems, but not for large ones. Small systems such as Logan, UT and Commerce,

CA have had success with fare-free transit programs, and continue to offer it to their

communities. Amherst, MA, is a medium sized system that carries 6 million passengers

a year. All riders board fare-free, in part because the system's budget is supplemented by

funds from 5 local colleges and universities. There have been three attempts at

eliminating fares on an entire transit system in a large city. Denver, CO and Trenton, NJ

instituted a fare-free policy throughout their systems in the late 1970s. Austin, TX

attempted the same in 1989/1990. All three programs were discontinued within one year,

despite a dramatic rise in ridership. After the programs were discontinued, ridership

returned to its previous levels. These systems found that they were not attracting choice

riders and were having little impact on overall traffic congestion. Instead of taking

people out of cars, more trips were being taken by transportation disadvantaged riders.

Vandalism, vagrancy and rowdiness skyrocketed. The costs to maintain and repair transit

vehicles and bus stop infrastructure went up dramatically. The savings promised by

removing the farebox paled in comparison to the costs being expended on maintenance.

Additional busses were needed to meet peak demand (Perone 2002).

The key to increasing transit ridership is not necessarily tied to the fare. One

study found service frequency was valued nearly twice as much as the cost (Perone 2000

citing Cervero 1990). The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) found that

customer satisfaction of riders in Florida depended more on "frequency, routing and on-









time performance" (24%) than cost (10%). Eliminating fares is not enough to attract and

satisfy riders of public transit. Service characteristics must be improved as well (Cleland

and Thompson 2000).


Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership

Every time a person makes a trip, he or she must make decisions about which

mode best suits the trip. Each mode offers advantages over others. Users must decide on

tradeoffs between cost, convenience, comfort and time amongst other factors.

Automobiles offer distinctive advantages over busses under the prevailing transportation

system. However, certain attributes of bus transit can be changed to close the gap

between bus and car, thus helping busses gain modal share. Making transit more

attractive will help recruit "choice riders"-those with access to an automobile.

The scheduling of busses is the most often-cited factor for improving ridership.

Scheduling consists of the hours of operation, frequency of busses, and ease of transfer.

Choice transit riders take into consideration the time needed to complete their trip, and

compare the time savings to using an automobile. Since wait time is a component of total

travel time, transit is already at a substantial disadvantage. Improvements to bus

frequency reduce the wait time of patrons. Patrons arriving randomly to board a bus that

runs on 30 minute frequencies can expect to wait an average of 15 minutes but no more

than 30. As frequencies are shortened, the convenience of bus transit improves. A patron

arriving at random for a 10 minute frequency bus can expect to wait an average of 5

minutes or a maximum of 10 (Li 2003). Travelers tend to feel their total travel time is

longer than the actual travel time, particularly if there is an idle waiting period. Agnes

Moreau (1992) blamed travel "time drag" on several factors including transit users being









unoccupied, alone, anxious, and their travel delay being unexplained. Hess, Brown and

Shoup (2003) found that persons waiting for transit perceived their wait time to be nearly

twice as along as the actual wait time.

Increased frequency of busses causes a rise in ridership (and vice versa). The

ridership to service frequency elasticity averages +0.5. For every 10% reduction in

frequency, ridership increases by 5%. Ridership increases the most when routes change

from low frequency (30 minutes or more) to high frequency (less than 20 minutes).

When frequency is already medium or high, shortening the frequency has less of an

impact on ridership. For example, when a bus changes its frequency from 60 minutes to

20 minutes, ridership elasticity can improve by a factor exceeding +1.0. Patrons may

shift from other low-frequency routes to the new high frequency route. Walkers may be

attracted to very high frequency transit. However for a bus changing its frequency from

20 minutes to 10 minutes, the ridership elasticity will be far lower, and in some cases

negligible (Evans IV 2004).

Fare cost and bus frequency are the two most commonly cited service

characteristics that attract choice riders. The literature does not conclude which is more

effective at building ridership. Ridership gains are maximized when the two strategies

are applied in concert. A study in Dallas, TX found that inner city residents are more

sensitive to the cost of transit, while suburban residents are more sensitive toward bus

frequency. Presumably inner city residents were poor or transportation disadvantaged,

and preferred low-cost mobility. Suburban residents were choice transit riders who

desired convenient service. A fare decrease in Dallas of 29 percent along with a 16









percent increase in frequency yielded a 50 percent increase in ridership system-wide over

a three year period (Allen 1991).

Students riding the bus from graduate student apartments to the UCLA campus

have two transit options- one free bus and one that costs 75 cents. Both busses operate on

10-12 minute frequencies. Eighty six percent of students bypass the bus requiring a fare,

preferring to wait for the next free bus. The average wait time for those who chose to

wait was 5.3 minutes. This translates to the subjects valuing their time at a rate equal to

$8.50 per hour. Most people value their commute time at up to half of their hourly wage.

The bus requiring a fare payment was considered the most comfortable, yet the cost was

the overwhelming concern for students (Hess et al. 2003).

Flexibility (or convenience) is an important factor when deciding whether to use

transit. Automobile users value two flexible aspects of car travel. Temporal flexibility

allows drivers to depart at the time of day they choose without regard to schedules.

Spatial flexibility allows drivers to choose their path and arrive at destinations not served

by transit (Evans IV 2004). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that California commuters

who needed to make multiple trips during work hours or those who worked in multiple

locations were far less likely to take transit. A study in Oslo, Norway found that transit

riders are willing to wait an extra 8-10 minutes or pay 33 cents [currency conversion

calculated] to avoid a bus transfer. Patrons were concerned about service reliability,

weather and a confusion of the procedures and costs of transferring busses (Evans IV

2004 citing Stangeby 1993). Transit can improve its flexibility by lengthening service

hours, reducing frequencies and adding new route miles. Transit systems can also offer









jitney busses and "guaranteed rides home" on taxis. However transit's ability to compete

with automobiles in terms of flexibility/convenience is limited (Evans IV 2004).

Safety associated with transit use can be a concern for some riders. Bus Rapid

Transit (a type of express bus service that runs in segregated right-of-way) riders in

Florida reported that after travel time, personal safety was the most important reason for

choosing private automobiles over public transit (Baites 2003). Most of the concern over

personal safety stems from waiting at stops. Evans et al. (1997) found that one aspect of

safety dealt with the transit patron's (now a pedestrian) interaction with street traffic and

the elements. High speed vehicular traffic, poor intersection design and the lack of

sidewalks contributed to the perception of danger. Bus stops that had sidewalks, shelters

and seating helped mitigate the sense of danger- and actual danger-of patrons waiting

for busses. Another aspect of safety deals with violent crime while waiting for the bus.

In some circumstances the perceived risk of violent crime is very real. In the urban core

of Los Angeles, one third of transit users reported being the victim of violent or property

crime while making a transit trip. The risk of crime was highly focused in the inner city

and at stops with hiding places (Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett 2000). Suburban users

have a somewhat different experience. Reed et al. (1999) found that transit users

generally feel safe using transit, but their perceived fear of crime increased with longer

wait times. Reed also found that non-users think that transit is more dangerous than users

do.

Every transit trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. The origin and

destination points of a person's trip must both be within reasonable walking distance of

the transit route. There is a growing movement to develop high-density land uses in









proximity to transit routes. This movement-commonly known at Transit Oriented

Development (TOD)-seeks to place land uses close to transit routes. The urban design

of the area around the transit stop is also important. The urban environment must be

appealing and pedestrian-friendly (Cervero 2001). Potential users must be within one

quarter mile of the transit stop to be realistically expected to walk to the transit stop.

Some users will walk (or bike) a longer distance, but choice riders generally will not walk

more than 14 mile (Johnson 2003). Longer walks add considerably to the user's out of

vehicle wait time (Li 2003).

Social acceptability can also be an important factor when deciding whether to

drive or take transit. Reese et al. (1980, cited in Thompson et al. 2002) found that social

stigmas exist toward users of public transit. People expressed concerns about the social

acceptability of busses. The perceived bias stigmatized transit users as being from a

lower socio-economic class. Reese's study also found that busses were the least

acceptable for evening activities. Users felt that transit was more socially acceptable than

non-users.

Improving transit's amenities can help attract and retain choice riders or

infrequent riders. Additional amenities can also help raise the level of customer

satisfaction. A transit system with amenities generally has a better public image. Bus

stop amenities include infrastructure such as seating, lighting and even retail such as

newsstands. On-board amenities include low floor busses, courteous drivers, bike racks

and comfortable seats. Cleanliness both on-board and at stops is essential (PPS 1999).

A common perception is that consumers prefer rail transit to bus transit. The

social stigma holds that white-collar workers use rail transit, whereas blue-collar workers









frequent bus transit. Moshe Ben-Akiva (2002) refutes this perception using mathematical

models that prove bus rapid transit has an equal preference to rail transit. People slightly

preferred rail over bus transit that operates in the same right of way as automobiles

because busses realized no time savings over driving.

One aspect of transit amenities is the ease of information dissemination. The

availability of information is critical in attracting new riders. The public is generally

uneducated about transit. Bus routes are difficult to recognize and wait times are very

uncertain (Ben-Akiva 2002). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that transit non-users are one

third more likely to use transit if they are given advanced information such as point-to-

point routing instructions, travel time estimates and single-route maps. Many people do

not intuitively understand transit and are unable to choose the correct routes, estimate

travel time, or decipher fare structures (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Hardin 2001).


Non-User Studies

Studies that focus on non-users of public transit are often very valuable to transit

researchers and planners. The goal is to build ridership, and non-users are the market that

transit seeks to attract. In a study of non-users in seventeen US cities, the relative

attractiveness of the automobile was cited as the reason for not using public transit.

Transit was viewed as having no clear advantage, while cars were viewed as having

flexibility and travel time advantages. However when non-users were presented with a

set of hypothetical service changes, 50% said they would ride transit under those

circumstances. The most popular hypothetical service changes were: dedicated bus lanes,

direct transit routes from home to work, and increased frequency (Thompson et al. 2002

citing Mierzejewski and Ball 1990).









Employer-based programs can help build transit ridership among non-users.

Oram and Stark (1996) found that employers who provided free or discounted individual

ride tickets showed a moderate increase in ridership among employees. Employees did

not generally switch their daily commute to transit. Instead they rode transit relatively

infrequently. Employees found it easier to use transit without committing to it entirely,

and employers saved considerable amounts of money by not purchasing monthly passes.

Employer-based programs have the effect of making transit non-users into infrequent

users. Employer-based programs can add 8-9% to the total number of riders on a transit

system (Conklin et al. 2001).

Employer-based transit programs are very similar to programs offered by colleges

and universities. Both employers and universities seek to reduce their costs associated

with parking, and give their constituents additional fringe benefits of attendance or

employment. Employers that reduce or eliminate their subsidy of free parking will be

able to use those funds to increase profits or reinvest in the company. Universities that

discontinue subsidized parking are able to use those funds to support the school's primary

missions of academic instruction and research. From the transit agency's point of view,

large employment sites and universities are substantial trip generators that need transit

service and have the potential to increase total ridership on the system.


University Transportation

Universities have a different set of transportation needs than their surrounding

communities. Universities value a walkable, green campus where buildings are in close

proximity to foster academic collaboration. Parking takes up valuable space that could be

devoted to classrooms or laboratories. Universities are major trip attractors. Students









commute on irregular schedules, since classes begin throughout the day. Cities expect

spikes in transportation demand during rush hours, while universities can expect a fairly

steady flow throughout the day. Finally, universities are experiencing rising costs for

constructing and administering transportation infrastructure, which detracts from the

university's primary mission of academics (Balsas, 2002). Universities are in an

excellent position to experiment with and implement transportation policy changes.

Universities have complete control over the road network, parking facilities and land uses

on their campus. Cities do not possess absolute power over these factors (Miller 2001).

Universities have begun to address their transportation needs in ways similar to

their municipal counterparts. A study by Gutkowski and Daggett (2003) found that 91

percent of surveyed universities maintained a campus master plan, and that 70 percent of

schools had a dedicated transportation section. But only 57 percent of universities

incorporate public transit into their campus plans.

Exposing students to alternative modes could have lasting impacts on the nation's

transportation system. Rodney Tolley (1996) makes the claim that creating a "green",

sustainable and multimodal transportation system on a university campus could make

lasting impacts on the travel behavior of graduates. His claim depends heavily on

students being environmentally conscious, and argues that graduates will keep the earth

in mind when deciding how to commute to their first jobs.


Campus Parking

The parking situation on campuses varies, but restricting parking is always an

integral part in effecting a modal shift. Universities usually have fewer parking spaces

(supply) than the number of commuters who wish to park on campus (demand).









Universities usually track the demand for parking by the number of requests received for

parking passes each year. The demand to supply ratio of parking spaces at sampled

universities varied from 0.70 to 4.00 with a mean of 1.70. To help fund parking facility

construction, operation and maintenance, all universities charge for parking passes. This

process-known as "parking pricing"-also serves to discourage commuters from

parking on campus, and to encourage them to carpool or utilize alternative modes. The

cost of parking passes in a recent sample ranged from $14 to $300 per semester, with a

mean of $83.43 (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003).

The pricing of parking is an essential step in promoting transit use. Even though

the University of Florida prices its parking, the price point remains below other

comparable schools. The annual price of decals for students is cheaper at UF ($94/yr)

than other comparable universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison ($200-

834), the University of California-Davis ($204), and the University of Minnesota ($537)

(Siegel 2000). Even at schools with more expensive parking, universities are not pricing

parking to recover 100 percent of its costs. The monetary costs of parking to a university

include salaries for parking personnel, accounting, construction costs, and loss of

available land- which at some point in the future could necessitate the purchase of

campus annexes (Tolley 1996). A discussion of parking on the University of Florida

campus can be found in Chapter 4 of this report.

Peripheral parking lots (sometimes known as 'park-and-ride' lots) have not been

shown to increase transit's modal share. In general, periphery parking is not intended to

induce travelers to change their modal choice. They are intended to capture vehicular

traffic before it enters the congested central core. However if priority parking spaces









within the core are awarded for carpools, peripheral lots can help increase ridesharing.

Peripheral parking is commonly used by major employers, hospitals and universities that

are unwilling or unable to supply on-site parking (Kuzmayak 2003).

Universities have adopted parking management policies to promote transit use

and alleviate parking demands in the center of campus. The University of Maryland at

College Park operates peripheral parking lots linked by shuttle busses. UM's park-and-

ride service moves 750,000 people annually from the parking lots to the center of campus

by shuttle bus. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not sell parking passes to

students who live within the transit system's operating area. Similarly, UCLA prices its

parking passes based on the student's address and its proximity to campus and the transit

system (Kuzmayak 2003)

In an interesting side observation it was noted that in eight US cities with

periphery lots, many users chose to walk the last leg of their trip instead of using busses.

Unfortunately this phenomenon was not studied in depth, and the pedestrian's reasoning

for choosing walking over transit is not known (Kuzmayak, 2003 citing Pratt and Copple,

1981).


Campus Transit

Transit service on university campuses varies from school to school. Among

colleges with 10 or more transit vehicles serving the campus, roughly half of the systems

are operated under contract by the local community transit provider (Gutkowski and

Daggett 2003 and Miller 2001). The rest are operated by the university administration.

Campus transit services are targeted toward four types of service: 1) Home to school









trips; 2) Intra-campus trips; 3) Remote parking shuttles; and 4) General service routes

that treat the campus as a special generator of trips (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003).

The mission of the transit system dictates the ownership and financial situation of

the transit provider. Table 3 below summarizes the prevailing ownership, financial, and

targeted trips of all four types of campus transit systems. Systems on small campuses

(less than 8,000 students) are generally university-owned. University-owned systems are

cheaper to operate because of non-unionized employees (often students) and smaller,

more efficient vehicles. Small transit systems tend to target intra-campus trips and

remote parking facilities. Schools in larger communities usually enter into contractual

service agreements with local transit providers. Local agency transit service is more

expensive, but the more complex route system allows busses serving the campus to

extend far into the surrounding community. This opens up housing options to students

(Miller 2001). Even though the annual cost is more expensive for larger systems, smaller

systems are usually more expensive on a per-ride basis.

Table 3-Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size
Large University / Small City Large University / Large City
Owner/Operator: City Owner/Operator: City
Target Users: Intra-Campus and Home to School Target Users: Home to School Trips
Finances: Expensive Finances: Very Expensive
Small University / Small City Small University / Large City
Ownership: University Ownership: University
Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles
Finances: Inexpensive Finances: Inexpensive
Source: Gutkowsky and Daggett (2003) and Miller (2001)

About 40 percent of contractual service agreements allow the university

administration or student leadership to dictate service changes. The remainder of systems

depend on the transit agency's judgment (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). An









increasingly popular service change is the implementation a free-fare system, where

students do not pay cash fares each time they board the bus.


Unlimited Access and Fare Structure

The idea of unlimited access transit (also known as fare-free transit) has been

practiced on university campuses since the late 1970s (Miller 2001). As of 1998, thirty

five universities offered unlimited access transit. That year, total of 875,000 students

receive unlimited access benefits from their universities (Brown et al. 2001). The

number of schools offering unlimited access has grown since 1998, but no literature was

located that cited a precise number.

Unlimited access transit is not free transit. It is a different way of paying for

transit service. A third party pre-pays the transit provider to carry members of a

constituent group without charging them a fare. The transit provider usually receives an

annual lump sum payment from the university (Brown et al. 2001). Through a method

similar to group health insurance, fares are substantially discounted because so many

fares are being purchased (Miller 2001). Transit passes are distributed, or identification

cards double as passes. Users are allowed to ride free on all transit system routes,

irregardless if they connect with the university.8

Currently, passengers occupy only 27% of available seats on busses nationwide.

The enormous number of empty seats drives up the needed operating subsidy. Transit

systems want riders to fill those seats, and universities want to discourage automobile

commuters to campus. Through university payments to transit systems, new riders can



8 Some universities provide free-fare transit only on routes that intersect with campus (Brown et al. 2003).
This model is more typical of employer-based transit programs.









be brought to the transit system while at the same time relieving the parking demand on

campus (Brown et al. 2001).

Unlimited access programs offer multiple advantages to the university and its

students: 1) Unlimited access reduces demand for parking on campus. Consequently the

university divests itself of the capital expenditure costs of constructing new parking. 2)

Unlimited access transit reduces the cost of attendance for students, while at the same

time increasing mobility options. Students do not need to buy and maintain a car, which

can save an individual up to $4,000 a year. For students who continue to own cars,

slower depreciation and gas expenses can save the owner $800-1,000 a year. 3) Students

have better access to housing and employment. Students living on campus do not need a

car for off campus social or shopping trips. Students off campus do not need a car to

commute to campus, and can also use transit for social and shopping trips although

their options may be limited. 4) Unlimited access can help a university attract and retain

students (Brown et al. 2001).

There are substantial advantages for the transit agency as well. Unused seats are

occupied, optimizing the bus' operation. The agency also receives a stable source of

income less subject to political whims. State and Federal assistance is often based on

formulas that take into account ridership. Simply by putting people in seats, the transit

agency can garner a larger share of state and federal assistance (Brown et al. 2003).

Among schools that have a fare-free transit system, approximately 20 percent

have an unlimited access fare structure similar to the University of Florida. Students,

faculty and staff ride without paying a fare because the university administration or

student fees have prepaid their fares. Fifty three percent of schools have systems where









the general public rides fare-free, however the bulk of those are campus-only systems.

The remainder of free transit systems are park-and-ride shuttles only.

Both the local transit agency and the university can reap benefits from contractual

service agreements. Universities are able to divest themselves of the administrative and

fiscal burden of operating on-campus busses, even if the school makes substantial

payments to the transit provider. Schools that choose to use student fees can further

reduce the school's contribution. University-operated transit systems are not eligible to

receive most types of Federal and State matching funds. Thus partnering with the local

transit provider makes the system eligible for operating assistance and start-up funds. For

local transit agencies, partnering with local universities also provides a reliable revenue

stream in a period of declining government subsidy (Miller 2001).


Campus Transit Case Studies

Each university pursues the goal of building transit ridership differently. This

section presents three case studies of enhanced transit service on university campuses.

Each school used a different model to approach the issue of bringing about a mode shift

toward public transit. These three case studies are selected to demonstrate principles of

college/city joint transit service that are not embodied at the University of Florida. An in-

depth case study of the University of Florida transit program can be found in Chapter

Four of this report.

Clemson University- Clemson, SC. Clemson, SC is located in Pickens County

(pop. 105,000). Until the mid-1990s, there was no municipal transit system in Clemson.

Partnering with the city and county, Clemson University pledged $350,000 toward the

joint project that had previously funded on-campus parking shuttles. The new source of









funding allowed the city/county to create a transit agency and avail itself of state and

federal matching funds that were previously unavailable to the university. The small,

efficient system operates on a fare-free basis for all riders, student or otherwise. As

ridership increased, the transit agency was able to secure additional operating assistance

from federal rural transit assistance funds (also known as Section 5311 funds). The State

of South Carolina also pledged additional operating assistance, in part due to Clemson

Area Transit's (CAT) contribution to state ridership totals which boosted South

Carolina's share of federal block grants. Thus the city/county added a transit system

where one had been lacking, and the university was able to shift people from single

occupant cars to public transit. In 1999/2000, CAT operated 10 routes carrying 666,000

passengers annually at a cost of $782,000. CAT also operates late evening busses to

shuttle patrons to bars and other evening activities. (TCRP 2003)

Clemson's experience is an example of how small college towns can partner with

the university to create a transit system where there previously was none. A small

community benefits by creating transportation options, lowering traffic congestion, and

opening access to housing. All transit systems can learn from CAT's example how to

leverage state and federal funding sources to maximize operating assistance. Funding

arrangements vary from state to state, and South Carolina's local assistance framework is

what made the CAT system possible. One drawback of instituting a no-fare system is

that the cost of expanding route miles is prohibitive, since there is no dedicated source of

funding for capital improvements (Miller 2001).

University of California at Berkeley- Berkeley, CA. AC Transit, the bus

service provider in Alameda (Oakland) and Contra Costa Counties, California operates









154 routes, seventeen of which intersect the University of California campus. The

University of California has only 4,000 parking spaces for 32,000 students. The impetus

for change came in 1998 when the City of Berkeley relaxed its rent control laws, creating

a market for student housing outside of walking distance to campus. In 1998-the year

before the program began-one thousand eight hundred students purchased transit passes

at a cost of $60 per semester. A rider study found approximately 700 other students who

paid cash fares on a regular basis. Student leadership wanted to increase access to

additional housing stock, and the university wanted to ease its parking demand. In April

of 1999, UC students voted by an 89 percent margin to establish a student fee of $10 per

semester to create the "TransitClass" program. The transit agency receives at least

$320,000 each semester to provide unlimited access service, more if the number of passes

requested was high. Through a process known as distributive cost pricing, the individual

cost of a transit pass is much lower since the total cost is spread across the whole

constituency of students attending the university. The concept of distributive cost pricing

is similar to group insurance rates or taxation, where the cost per person of the program is

very small, yet the benefits to individuals who utilize the program is substantial.

Under the TransitClass program, students receive unlimited access on AC Transit

routes. Students must sign up to receive a transit pass. Over 23,000 of the 32,000

eligible students signed up to receive one during the first semester the program was

offered, twelve times the number who purchased passes before the start of the program.

The large number of student passes distributed and the approval rate of the referendum

were the result of a successful marketing program. The marketing program exposed

students to the financial, environmental, and institutional benefits of transit use.









There are several attributes of the UC-Berkeley program that demonstrate models

of campus transit. The University of California/AC Transit partnership is a successful

example of a university unlimited access program integrating into a large urban transit

system. It is also an example of utilizing student fees in the partnership- the university

administration does not contribute any funds to the transit system. Even though all

students are entitled to a free transit pass, each student who wants to ride must interact

with a third party to receive benefits. This is one variant of a distributive cost pricing

model. All students must pay the fee, but not all students will sign up for a pass.

Students must decide to sign up for the unlimited access program before arriving at the

bus stop. By requiring students to sign up, it creates a roadblock to infrequent or

occasional riders. However, the fee is being utilized to pay for the number of passes

requested, not unlimited access for all students. Some students will not sign up for a

pass. From the transit agency's perspective this is a more efficient model to implement

(Levin 2000).

University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)- Los Angeles, CA. The

University of California at Los Angeles is served by 5 routes of the Santa Monica

Municipal Bus Lines. Students, faculty and staff are allowed to ride fare-free on those 5

routes. Passengers must swipe their university ID card to board. UCLA's administration

pays Santa Monica Bus Lines 45 cents per ride. The University pays about $80,000

monthly.

There has been a marked modal shift among student commuters. Student

commutes by transit increased 43%. Twenty nine percent of the student riders were new









to using public transit. The number of drivers fell by 33%. The rise in student ridership

increased further during subsequent years of the program (Brown et al. 2003).

UCLA's transit agreement is a good example of a university administration

paying for transit service. UCLA's administration pays for the entire cost of providing

unlimited access transit. The university is divesting itself of the expense of constructing

parking infrastructure, but more institutional money could be saved by instituting student

fees. Instead of applying a distributive cost pricing model, the school pays for each

individual ride. From the transit provider's perspective this is advantageous, since a

ridership increase will result in increased revenue. Under a fixed-payment scheme,

ridership gain does not cause an increase in revenue.


Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use

What happens to people's behavior once they have been exposed to transit? It is

clear that people will use transit under certain circumstances (Crane 1999). The decision

to use transit is in part based on the level of service in each mode (Hensher and Button

2000). The decision to use transit is also based on the habits, attitudes and beliefs of the

user. Experience with high level of service transit may influence future behavior, since

psychologically the experience was a positive one (Verplanken et al. 1994).

The existing literature is largely lacking for experiments that examine the lasting

effects of temporary transit use. One experiment performed by Fujii and Kitamura

(2002) gave automobile users in Japan a free bus pass for one month. People who

received transit passes continued to use the bus after the one month period ended.

Ridership within the experimental group rose by 20 percent. The study also concluded

that automobile users had a general negative perception of public transit which was









refuted after using transit temporarily. This important concept indicates that a temporary

change in transportation habits can alter a person's permanent routine. The authors

suggest a temporary period of free-fare transit may help increase ridership in the long

term.

The literature is lacking in studies that ask if users of high frequency, unlimited

access transit continue their transit use after they move to a new city. In fact, there is a

lack of studies asking questions about the overall reasoning of choice riders who use

transit. Further, there is no previous record of studies that focus on whether the

transportation system at a university has any lasting effects on the habits or attitudes of

former students.















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

A natural experiment exists for evaluating the lasting effects of using bus transit

while at the University of Florida. The experiment involves sampling students before

they arrive on campus (incoming freshmen), and then sampling students soon after

graduation (recent alumni). Responses can be compared between the two groups to

uncover changes in habits and attitudes toward alternative modes. It is assumed that any

changes observed are attributed to the respondents' common experience of commuting to

and from the University of Florida campus.

Time constraints prohibited the administration of a true time-series survey to the

incoming freshman of 2003 and surveying the cohort again in 2008 after graduation. It

was necessary to survey the 2003 incoming freshmen class and a group of alumni during

the same year. This research project assumes that the responses given by the alumni

surveyed would be substantially similar to responses that would be collected in 2008 if

time constraints did not apply.


Survey Administration

To analyze the impact that multimodal transportation to campus has changed the

habits and attitudes of University of Florida students, two surveys were taken. Both

surveys were administered by mail using address lists maintained by the University. The

data collection period ran from July through November of 2003.









Survey Scope

Both surveys asked questions in the following general areas, although questions

were not grouped together in consecutive order:

Demographics- Questions about gender, race, marital status and zip code. These

questions were asked so that other responses could be put into social and spatial

context.

Transportation Habits- This section included questions concerning commute time,

automobile ownership, modal choice and maximum preferred walking/biking

distance. Some questions were asked twice, with one question asking about

habits while at the University and the other asking about habits in their current

location. These questions were asked to determine the respondents' actual

transportation habits. Their responses can be compared to other groups within the

survey or to state and national datasets.

Housing- This question set asked about housing choice and desirable attributes of

housing. These questions were asked in an attempt to determine how important

transportation factors were considered in the respondents' decision-making

process when choosing where to live. Some of these questions were asked twice,

with one question asking about college housing and one asking about current

housing. In the case of the alumni group, respondents were directed to answer

questions about their collegiate housing choice based upon where they lived

during their senior year only.

Alternative Mode Use- These questions were asked to gauge the willingness of

respondents to use alternative modes. Additional questions were asked to gauge









the level of education the respondent possesses about public transit in their current

city. Some questions asked about the usage of public transportation during all

four years of undergraduate work.

Public Policy- These questions ask respondents to rate their level of agreement

with transportation public policy measures. These questions asked participants to

rate their level of agreement with statements on a scale from 1 to 5 (or Strongly

Disagree to Strongly Agree).


Freshman Survey

The first survey consisted of 45 closed response questions. It was randomly

mailed to 697 incoming freshmen during the summer of 2003. These incoming freshmen

were not yet enrolled at the University. Addresses were obtained from a list of admitted

fall-semester students maintained by the University of Florida Office of Admissions.

Only addresses from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia were included.

The size of the admitted freshman population was 7,296.

Of the 697 surveys mailed, it was expected that up to 34% of the recipients were

ineligible to take the survey. This was due to two factors. Persons under the age of 18

(approximately 17% of the incoming class) were not allowed to take the survey due to

concerns over parental consent. Recipients under the age of 18 were instructed not to

complete the survey. The mailing list also included persons who had been admitted to

UF but were not planning to enroll-approximately 20 percent of the sample. 1





1 The Office of Admissions reported 7,296 admitted freshmen. The University Registrar reported 5,830
enrolled freshmen for the Fall 2003 semester. The difference between the two figures is 20.1%.









One hundred and twenty three valid freshman surveys were returned. This is a

raw response rate of 17.6%. Taking into account the recipients who were not permitted

to respond, the response rate was 30.4%. A copy of the freshman survey can be found in

Appendix B. Raw data from the freshman survey can be found in Appendix D.


Alumni Survey

A second survey was taken to determine the multimodal behaviors and attitudes

of recent alumni of the University. Responses on the alumni survey can be compared to

the freshman survey to determine if the multimodal environment of the university campus

had caused any changes. Six hundred and fifteen surveys were mailed to randomly

selected addresses from a database maintained by the University of Florida Alumni

Association. Only students who graduated with their bachelors degree in 2001 and 2002

were selected. Alumni who received only graduate degrees or who were still enrolled

were not included. The total potential population represented 12,376 people.2 These

limiting factors were chosen because: a) Alumni who graduated in 2000 or before would

have limited exposure to enhanced transit services; b) Alumni would have at least one

full year to settle into a transportation routine post-graduation; c) Alumni holding only

graduate degrees have an unknown background since high school graduation, and d)

Alumni who hold a bachelors degree but were still enrolled at the University are still

commuting to the same multimodal environment found during their undergraduate years.

The survey that was mailed to alumni had 49 closed response questions. Of

those, 24 questions were exact duplicates of questions asked of the freshmen. An

2 The alumni population 12,376 represents the number of addresses that are on file with the University of
Florida Alumni Association minus the percentage of graduate and professional degrees awarded each year
by the University. The Alumni Association is a membership organization, and some alumni choose not to
join.









additional 11 questions were substantially similar, and to a varying degree they can be

compared using statistical tests. One hundred and fifty four valid alumni surveys were

returned. This represents a 25 percent response rate. A copy of the alumni survey can be

found in Appendix C. Raw data from the alumni survey can be found in Appendix E.


Limitations

Both surveys qualify as large samples, and it can be assumed that the confidence

level of sampling error is p = 0.05 or 95%. Using this confidence level, the margins of

error for scalar data can be calculated. For the Freshmen, the margin of error is +/- 8.74.

For the Alumni, the margin of error is +/- 7.85.

Other limitations exist on the survey data. The alumni surveyed graduated in

2001 and 2002. Since 2002, expenditure on bus transit by UF has more than doubled.

The alumni sample did not experience the same transit environment that the incoming

freshmen will. Further, some alumni will have experience with high-quality transit

outside of Gainesville. Alumni may have moved to or visited cities with high quality

transit (including rail transit) or comprehensive TDM policies. Any changes found in

habits or attitudes can be attributed to temporary transit use.


Other Research Methods

Interviews were conducted with several key informants. An interview was

conducted in April 2003 with the UF Campus Master Planner Linda Dixon to investigate

the scope and intent of the campus' TDM policies. Bob Miller, UF Vice President for

Finance and Administration was interviewed in July of 2004 to discuss University









funding of the RTS system. Finally, Doug Robinson, transit planner with the Regional

Transit System was interviewed by email and telephone.

Other research methods were employed during this project. The author of this

project was appointed a voting member of the 2004/05 Transportation Access Fee

Committee. Through membership on the committee, the author gained familiarity with

the process and the responsible parties. Documents were reviewed from the UF Division

of Finance and Administration (publicly available) to compile information on monetary

payments for bus service. The Division of Finance and Student Government records

were obtained. These documents show the agreements, funding, and service agreements

between the University and RTS. The Regional Transit System provided ridership data

dating back to 1996. The UF Campus Master Plan was reviewed. Finally, the policies of

the Transportation and Parking Division were analyzed to establish the campus TDM

parking policies.















CHAPTER 4
BACKGROUND

This section contains an in-depth discussion of the transit-oriented environment at

the University of Florida and the City of Gainesville. In order to understand any changes

in habits and attitudes found in the survey, it is important to have a full understanding of

the transportation environment and TDM policies at the University. This section also

serves as a case study of bus transit at UF.


The University of Florida

The University of Florida had a total enrollment of 47,373 students in 2003/04.

Of that number, 28 percent are graduate or professional students and 72 percent are

undergraduates. UF is a residential school. Most of the student body moved to

Gainesville to attend classes, as relatively few students are native to Alachua County. In

addition to the student body, there are over 4,000 faculty and 8,000 other staff members.

Founded at its present site in 1905, the oldest part of campus is dense and is best

navigated on foot or bicycle. The core part of the campus is largely a pedestrian-only

zone during daylight hours and lacks parking resources. The core part of the campus and

Shands Hospital occupy roughly 600 acres, with the other 1050 acres devoted to less

dense uses such as agricultural research and conservation. At least some coursework is









required on the Gainesville campus to satisfy the requirements for all but a few1 of the

100+ undergraduate and 242 graduate programs. Accommodating the needs of 58,000+

regular commuters to the core of campus requires balancing the needs of diverse groups

and maintaining a comprehensive transportation demand management plan. University of

Florida Transportation Demand Management

Multiple TDM policies are maintained by the University of Florida. However, the

University does not maintain a stand-alone Transportation Demand Management plan.

TDM policies are distributed throughout the Campus Master Plan and in the regulations

of the Transportation and Parking Services Division.

The Campus Master Plan outlays the following major goals related to

transportation:

1) Build future parking facilities near campus gateways and other remote areas

2) Maintain a transportation fee that covers the costs of parking, circulation,

transit and non-vehicular transportation infrastructure

3) Build bike lanes and off-road trails to promote bicycle use

4) Provide fare-free transit to students, faculty and staff

5) Promote pedestrian behavior in the "Pedestrian Enhancement Zone" by
removing vehicle parking, restricting automobile access, and constructing
pedestrian infrastructure.

6) Enhance the service characteristics of bus transit, including on-campus
circulators

The campus plan seeks to increase the mode share of transit and non-motorized

modes for commuting to campus. The plan recognizes that not all students have the


1 Some degree programs in the fine arts can be obtained by taking classes only at the New World School of
the Arts in Miami. At least some Instruction in residence in at the Gainesville campus is required for all
undergraduate degree programs except those offered at the New World School of the Arts.









option of using alternative modes, so parking facilities construction is provided at remote

facilities. Automobile commuters would then transfer to alternative modes such as on-

campus busses, bicycles or walking. The plan puts heavy emphasis on capturing

automobile traffic in park-and-ride lots to lessen the impact on campus roadways and

entice cars to enter the campus at several different locations to mitigate their impact on

city roads. The plan also provides for a carpool program, with carpools receiving

preferential parking.

The core of the campus is designated a "Pedestrian Enhancement Zone". In effect

this is an auto-free zone, except it is accessible by busses, official business vehicles and

handicapped persons. One positive impact of the auto-free zone is that bus riders debark

close to classrooms, while automobile drivers face a long walk, bike ride or bus ride of

their own to reach the same point on campus.

The Transportation and Parking Services Division (TAPS) implements several

TDM policies. That office determines the requirements for different classes of parking

passes. They also issue parking decals and collect fees for their purchase. Stringent

parking enforcement is coordinated through the TAPS office. Thus the Transportation

and Parking Services Division implements the parking restriction and parking pricing

portion of the "TDM plan". The office also operates the University's carpool program,

which has been marginally successful (Siegel 2000).

Even without a formal TDM plan, the University is employing several TDM

strategies to foster a modal shift among students, faculty and staff. Below, UF's TDM

strategies are summarized according to the broad categories defined by Littman (1999).

Positive- Unlimited access transit, transit service characteristic improvements,
pedestrian/bicycle capital improvements










Mixed- Carpooling program with preferential space assignment, park-and-ride
facility construction, traffic calming

Negative- Parking pricing, parking restriction, auto-free zones, transportation fees

TDM seeks to reduce automobile dependence and its harmful impacts. The

positive, mixed and negative TDM policies work in concert to discourage the use of

single-occupant automobiles. Viable alternatives are presented to commuters. Unlimited

access, high quality transit is presented as the alternative for motorized travel to campus.

According to Ferguson (1990), TDM tackles the disparity in mode share by employing

five strategies. UF's TDM strategies are organized in the list below according to

Ferguson's categories.

Trip Generation- Transportation Fees

Trip Distribution- Parking Pricing, Parking Restriction, Park-and-Ride facilities

Mode Selection- Carpool program, Parking Restriction, Parking Pricing,
Unlimited Access Transit, Transit characteristic improvements,
Pedestrian/Bicycle Capital Improvements

Route Selection (spatial)- Auto-free zones, Traffic Calming

Route Selection (temporal)- Night and evening classes, Transit characteristic
improvements

Four of the most important TDM policies are discussed in the rest of this section.

The parking pricing, parking restrictions, bus transit service enhancement, and

transportation fees are all investigated in greater depth.

Parking demand far exceeds supply on the University of Florida campus,

although some limited parking facilities are available in neighborhoods adjacent to the

University. A total of 19,371 spaces are available on campus. The available spaces are

prioritized for certain groups' use: 5,094 are reserved for students who live on campus;







another 7,719 are reserved for faculty and staff. Only 6,558 spaces remain to
accommodate the approximately 9,600 students living off campus. Figure 3 below shows
all campus parking facilities.



A -- -


a4. n] :

App t,75 s l. Ao h

----iF-. "^ -
.







reserved for off campus students are located in the core area of campus, and are
designated "Commuter". Students with 90 credit hours (senior status) and graduate

students can park in these more centrally located commuter spaces, usually in structured
parking facilities. Other students must use park-and-ride spaces. Park-and-ride spaces
are found on the perimeter of campus, and users require a bus or bicycle ride to reach








50



most instructional facilities. Under the contractual UF-RTS agreement, RTS provides


dedicated park-and-ride busses at 10-20 minute intervals at a cost of $995,000 annually.


Figure 4 below shows the park-and-ride facilities only.


- -.- -a-


F.- -


Ij




:..^,_.._



/...



D ^"
o '



V


E.
L-J
a




a






A


Figure 4-UF Park and Ride Facilities
Source: UF Division of Transportation and Parking Services




Analyzing the purchases of parking decals can render useful information about


the demand for parking on campus. Table 4 below summarizes the number of spaces,


their cost, and the oversell ratio of decals.


I:


- I


U


-I-





k




L


v-f


S -



~1


d


- I









Table 4-Parking and Decal Sales, 2003
Decal Type Spaces Eligible Decals Decal Oversell
Purchasers Sold Cost Ratio
Faculty/Staff (Orange, 7,719 N/A2 11,351 Up to 1.47
Blue, Official Business) $636
On-Campus Residents 5,094 9,623 5,823 $94 1.14
(Red)
Commuter 3,393 -21,000 7,655 $94 2.73
Park and Ride 3,165 -26,300 2,837 $94 0.89
Total 19,371 -58,000 27,666 1.43


Source: UF Office of Parking and Transportation Services

UF Parking and Transportation Services does not limit the number of decals sold,

instead choosing to let the supply of parking spaces and the willingness of drivers to

search for spaces determine the number of decals sold. Table 4 above summarizes the

parking situation on campus. Holders of faculty/staff, on-campus, and commuter decals

are only allowed to park in spaces reserved for their respective category of decal.

Overall, the number of decals sold exceeds the number of spaces by a 1.43 : 1 ratio. Only

park-and-ride decals are sold at a rate lower than the number of available spaces,

although in practice this is not accurate since all other decal types are allowed to use

park-and-ride spaces.

Lower-division students have few options when it comes to parking on campus.

Those with junior status and under must use remote park and ride lots, which requires a

bus ride to reach their classrooms. Seniors and graduate students can park in close-in

facilities, but the number of decals sold in this category far exceeds the number spaces by

a 2.7 : 1 ratio.

Motorcycles and gas-powered scooters are treated very differently than

automobiles. Since two-wheeled vehicles require far less space to park, the decal cost is

2 The Faculty/Staff Category is broad and includes Faculty Staff (Orange) Official Business, Medical
Resident, Gated Reserved, Shands Hospital (Blue) and certain types of advanced students. Data is not
readily available to calculate the total number of eligible Faculty/Staff decal purchasers.









substantially reduced. Motorcycle/scooter decals cost $24 per year, compared with $94

for cars. Motorcycle decal sales are not prioritized according to credit hours. Further,

motorcycle parking is found in every major lot on campus, greatly improving the riders'

locational choice of parking. Bicycles also require very little parking space, and the

University maintains bike racks at or near every building on campus.

Many of the students commuting daily to campus must use alternative modes of

transportation to get to class. Some students will live close to campus and walk or bike to

class. Some who live farther away will use public transit. Since 1998, the University of

Florida has applied substantial monetary resources to the local transit system to make

riding the bus a more viable option for students to commute to campus. During the

period 1998-2004, the number of student riders has been increasing very rapidly. In

2004, the number of students arriving on campus each day by bus was more than double

the number of students who arrived by car.


Regional Transit System

Bus transit in the City of Gainesville is provided by the Regional Transit System

(RTS), a division of the Public Works Department of the City of Gainesville. In

2004/2005 RTS maintains a fleet of 92 diesel busses that operate on 21 standard city

routes, 9 campus-only routes, and 4 late night routes (Perteet Engineering 2002).

Paratransit for the city is contracted out to ATC/Intellitran. Many of the city routes

operate on a pulse system from the downtown transfer plaza. Under a pulse system,

many bus routes are timed to arrive at the transfer station at the same time. Busses wait 3

to 5 minutes, allowing passengers to transfer, before departing.









Three transfer points exist on the University of Florida Campus: the Reitz Union,

Shands Hospital and Turlington Plaza. The campus transfer points do not operate on a

pulse system, in part due to short frequencies and in part due to the congruence of

campus and city routes. Bus frequencies range from 60 minutes on some city routes to 8

minutes at peak times on high demand routes operating from student-heavy areas to

campus (Perteet Engineering 2002).

Ridership on the Regional Transit System (RTS) has increased each year since

1995. Please see Table 5 below for a summary of the ridership increase for the period

1995/1996 to 2002/2003. Over the study period, ridership increased 284%, to 8,106,964

boardings per year. RTS's annual ridership ranks 6th among state agencies behind

Miami-Dade (63.4 Million), Broward (31.8 Million), the Central Florida Regional

Transportation Authority (20.5 Million), Pinellas (10.1 Million), and Hillsborough (9.4

Million). This makes RTS the 6th largest transit system in the state, despite serving the

17th largest county (Census, 2000). Figure 5 below shows the RTS bus system and its

routes within the City of Gainesville.



































Figure 5-RTS Route System
Source: Regional Transit System

The growth in bus ridership on the Regional Transit System has outpaced

ridership growth nationwide. Nationwide, bus ridership has grown 15% to 5.27 Trillion

over the period 1995 to 2003 (NTST 2003). The disparity between ridership growth in

Gainesville and the nationwide total can be attributed to service changes at RTS, and to

the TDM policies of the University of Florida. RTS experienced the largest increases

during the two years when student subsidy of transit services began. Student subsidy

began in 1998/99 and resulted in substantial service improvements. Further, UF students

could ride the bus on a fare-free basis. Since 1999/2000, ridership increases have been

steadily increasing at more modest rates, although it is far out-distancing transit growth

nationwide.









Table 5-Total Ridership 1995 to 20033
Year Boardings Percent Increase over Previous Year
95/96 2,110,209 NA
96/97 2,174,840 3.1%
97/98 2,948,150 35.6%
98/99 4,412,773 49.7%
99/00 5,195,883 17.7%
00/01 6,306,241 21.4%
01/02 7,198,085 14.1%
02/03 8,106,964 12.6%
Increase '95-'03 5,996,755 284.1%
Source: Regional Transit System

Table 5 above demonstrates the overall growth in ridership. Segments of the total

ridership have grown at even faster rates. Ridership growth on campus routes has not

been as steady as other routes. Increases can be more closely attributed to new routes

being created, such as the Lakeside Apartments bus. Over the period 1995/96 to

2002/03, ridership on Campus Circulator routes has increased by 125 percent to

2,253,041 annually. However, the proportion of campus route riders to the total number

of riders has been steadily decreasing. Campus-only trips accounted for nearly half,

47.4%, of all RTS riders in 1995/96. That figure had decreased to 27.8% in 2002/03.

Please see table 6 below for a summary of ridership on campus circulator routes.

Table 6-Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003
Percent Increase Campus Riders as Percent of
Year Campus over Previous Year Total
95/96 999,236 NA 47.4%
96/97 945,963 -5.3% 43.5%
97/98 987,049 4.3% 33.5%
98/99 1,184,643 20% 26.8%
99/00 1,281,250 8.2% 24.7%
00/01 1,620,287 26.5% 25.7%
01/02 1,879,694 16% 26.1%
02/03 2,253,041 19.9% 27.8%
Increase '95-'03 1,253,805 125.5% --
Source: Regional Transit System


3 The RTS fiscal year begins on August 1st. This is meant to coincide with the beginning of the academic
year. Ridership counts also are recorded by fiscal year.











Figure 6 below demonstrates the separation between the number of riders using


campus circulators and the total number of riders. Total ridership growth has outpaced


campus-only growth, indicating that off-campus and special routes have been the source


of greater ridership growth.


9,000,000

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

g 5,000,000
.E --Total
ii ---Campus
S 4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000


95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
Fiscal Year

Figure 6-Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth
Source: Regional Transit System

Campus Transit Service Agreement


Prior to 1998, RTS operated as a small urban system. Busses covered the city by


circuitous routes at infrequent intervals. Nearly all riders on the system were


transportation disadvantaged. The system was experiencing declining community


support and ridership. Meanwhile the University of Florida had added over 8,000


students to its total enrollment during the previous decade. Previously students lived to


the north and east of the campus, but the off-campus housing pattern had shifted to the


southwest of the city into unincorporated Alachua County. The newer student apartment









complexes were 2-5 miles distant from the core campus. The outward sprawl of student

housing coupled with rising enrollment increased the demand for motorized transport to

campus. The University's Transportation Demand Management policies place an

emphasis on public transit rather than private automobile use. In this next section, the

sources of funding and mechanisms of coordination will be discussed.

The increase in ridership correlates closely to funding increases to the transit

provider. RTS realizes very little of its operating revenues from fare-paying customers.

In 2002, farebox revenues accounted for $714,183 of the agency's $9,462,631 budget.

This represents a farebox recovery rate of only 7.5%, less than half the State of Florida

average of 15.2%. Nationwide, farebox recovery averages 37.7%. However for small

urbanized areas, the ratio is around 20% (NTD 2002). In 1998 the University of Florida

entered into a contractual service agreement to provide enhanced transit service to the

University in lieu of a massive parking facility construction project. The City of

Gainesville made an ongoing commitment to fund the "baseline" levels of service found

on routes in 1997. Newly established routes would be city-funded to provide a level of

service consistent with routes operating in 1997, which operated with one or two busses

on 30 to 60 minute frequencies. Additional funds to provide higher frequency, unlimited

access transit would come from the University.

The Transportation and Parking Services Division and the Campus Facilities

Planning and Construction Office would pay a portion of the costs, principally to fund

on-campus routes and faculty/staff unlimited access. Each year the Transportation and

Parking Services Division gives $1 million dollars to RTS. All funds from

Transportation and Parking come from parking decal sales and parking fine revenue. The









Finance and Administration Division of UF (through the Campus Facilities Planning and

Construction Office) supports RTS service with $500,000 annually. These funds are

earmarked under the "Campus Development Agreement," a compact between the

University and the City to help mitigate the impact the school has on city infrastructure

(Miller, 2004).

The bulk of the funds came from a third source- a fee charged to students on a

per-credit hour basis, similar to fees charged for capital improvements or activities. The

funds that come directly from students pay for enhancements to the service characteristics

of selected bus routes. The University pays RTS $42.50 per additional bus operating

hour above and beyond the operating level of service paid for by the city.4 The cost of

constructing bus stop infrastructure is shared by RTS, the UF Transportation and Parking

Division and the Office of Campus Facilities Planning.5


Transportation Access Fee

The Transportation Access Fee is the discretionary and variable portion of the

payments to the Regional Transit System. Student funds are separate and distinct from

Administration funds. The University's interest in stimulating transit use comes from a

desire for less parking demand and improved walkability/bikability of the campus. The

University administration's share of the service contract pays for unlimited access to RTS

busses. Any improvements to service characteristics come from student funds. From



4 The per-operating-hour fee was raised to $46.75 in 2004-2005. The increase was the first since the
inception of the contract. The increase was necessary due to rising costs of fuel and labor.
5 Minutes of proceedings of the Transportation Access Fee Committee and Student Government Budget
and Appropriations Committees from 1998-2004. Official correspondence between City Commissioners,
UF representatives and RTS officials is also archived by the Business Services Division and Student
Government as official material pertaining to the student funding of transit services.









1998-2001, student funds were allocated from the Student Government budget. For the

period 2001-2004 funds came from the Transportation Access Fee.

The responsibility for collecting the Transportation Access Fee rests with the

University Financial Affairs Office. Students are required to pay the fee as if it were a

component of their tuition, and financial aid awards can be used to pay the fee. The

responsibility for setting the Transportation Access Fee and allocating the funds is

directed by a 7-member committee operating within the administrative structure of the

Division of Finance and Administration. Four voting members of the committee are

students, all of whom are appointed by the Student Body President and approved by the

Vice President for Student Affairs.6 One faculty member and two representatives of the

University Administration are also voting members. The Transportation Access Fee

Committee is authorized to charge a required fee to all students under Florida State

Statute 240.209.(3)(e)8 to "support the transportation infrastructure of the university for

the purpose of increasing student access to transportation services".

Student funds began to pay for enhanced bus services during academic year

1998/1999. Since a dedicated Transportation Access Fee had not yet been instituted by

the Florida Legislature, funds were budgeted as a portion of Student Government's

Activity & Service Fee, which also funds student organizations, recreation areas and

fitness centers. Table 7 below summarizes student payments to RTS. In academic year

98/99 $179,055 was paid to RTS, which translates to about fifteen cents per credit hour.

This first fee paid for frequency improvements to areas where critical shortages of bus

6 Only 29% of university transit agreements guarantee students a voting seat on advisory committees
(TCRP #39, 2001).

7 Florida State Statute 240.209,(3)(e)8 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C-7.003(34), authorizing
legislation of the transportation access fee, was passed in 2000.









space were occurring on a regular basis, specifically to three routes serving student-heavy

areas of southwest Gainesville. The first year of student subsidy of the transit system

proved to be a success, and it was renewed for a second year.

During the third year of student bus subsidy (2000/2001), the student contribution

increased to $282,290. Daytime bus service levels remained the same as in previous

years, costing $179,522. An additional $103,235 was spent to create a new late night bus

route known as Later Gator. The Later Gator program was also a success and was

expanded considerably during in coming years.

Students had begun to use busses in large numbers. Busses were often full, and

student housing complexes had continued to sprawl outside of the RTS coverage area.

Student Government could not increase its contribution to keep pace with rising demand.

The idea of a separate Transportation Access Fee for all State of Florida

Universities had been discussed as far back as 1996 (Salazar 1996). However creating a

separate Transportation Fee would require approval from the State of Florida Legislature

and the State University Board of Regents. This approval came during the 2000

legislative session. This allowed the establishment of a dedicated Transportation Access

Fee beginning in the Fall 2001 semester.

The Transportation Access Fee grew rapidly to keep pace with the rising demand

for transit service. Table 7 below outlines the fee and the amount raised from academic

year 98/99 through 04/05. The Fee amount has risen each year since its inception,

starting in Fall 2001 as a $2 per credit hour fee. In 2004/2005, the fee will be $4.10 per

credit hour. One hundred percent of Fee money is spent on motorized mass









transportation services. The Fee has been increased to provide service enhancements due

to congested busses, new residential construction, and rising student demand.

Table 7-Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth
Academic Funding Source Fee Amount per Cost Per Student Funds
Year credit hour Per Year Raised
98/99 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055
99/00 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055
00/01 Student Government $0.24 9 $7.20 $282,290
01/02 Transportation Access $2.00 $60.00 $2,200,000
02/03 Transportation Access $3.00 $90.00 $3,940,000
03/04 Transportation Access $3.59 $107.70 $4,510,800
04/05 Transportation Access $4.10 $123.00 $5,264,500


Source: UF Business Services Division and RTS. Cost to students is based on 30 billed credits per
academic year

The Transportation Access Fee was not intended by the state legislature to be

solely a means to subsidize or improve bus transit services. Funds can be used to build

bike/pedestrian infrastructure, provide paratransit, jitney bus service, parking facilities, or

add roadway capacity. Other Florida universities have used Transportation Access Fee

Funds for all of these purposes. However at the University of Florida it remains

primarily a means to subsidize bus transit, as 96% of the funds realized are transferred to

the bus transit provider. However two other University transportation services are funded

using the Transportation Access Fee. The Student Nighttime Auxiliary Patrol (SNAP)

runs jitney van service on the UF Campus from 9PM to 2AM. SNAP was previously

funded by Student Government. SNAP's mission is to provide safe point-to-point

transport for on-campus residents and anyone on campus late at night. The program is

operated by the University Police Department. In academic year 2004/05, SNAP was


8 Fee amounts in 98/99, 99/00 and were allocated as a portion of the Activity and Service Fee. RTS also
benefited from several Department of Transportation grants during this period.

9 The fee amount in 00/01 continued service enhancements from the previous two years and funded the first
Later Gator late night service route. These fees were also budgeted and appropriated from Student
Government's Activity and Service Fee.









funded by $92,000 of Transportation Access Fee money. Paratransit around the UF

Campus is provided by the Handi-Van service. Before being funded by Transportation

Access Fee funds, the Handi-Van was funded and operated by the Transportation and

Parking Services Division. The Handi-Van services remains under the operational

control of Transportation and Parking Services, however all $120,000 of its funding

comes from the Fee. Sixteen cents of the $4.10 (or 4%) Fee goes to pay for SNAP and

Handivan services.


Service Enhancements

The Campus Transit Development Agreement has paid for several bus transit

improvements. The most important improvement was the creation of an unlimited

access, fare-free system for students, faculty and staff. Anyone possessing a valid

University of Florida Identification Card can board any RTS bus free of charge. The ID

Card, referred to as a Gator-1 Card, is presented to the driver upon boarding. There is no

need for riders to obtain passes or interact with a third party to gain access to free transit

services. This allows students to use bus transit services as frequently or infrequently as

they desire. This is an important factor since bus route enhancements are intended to

support a variety of different trips, some of which are used infrequently by patrons. The

unlimited access program began during the fall semester of 199810 and has continued

through 2004. Community and institutional support for the unlimited access program is

very high, and the arrangement will likely continue far into the future. Two other

constituent groups have started unlimited access programs in recent years. Beginning in

2001, an unlimited access program was started for city and county employees. In the

10 UF Faculty and Staff were given unlimited access benefits in 2000.









Spring 2004 semester, Santa Fe Community College Students received fare-free rides on

two routes that lead to that campus.11

The Service Contract provides three different services- Standard City Routes,

Campus Only Routes, and "Later Gator" Late Night Routes. The service characteristics,

funding arrangements and intended users differ for each type of bus route.


Standard City Routes

Standard city routes are identical to fixed bus routes found in cities throughout the

United States, except that select routes run on very short frequencies. They are planned

to connect residential areas (trip producers) with trip attractors such as employment or

institutional land uses. As discussed previously, the City of Gainesville agreed to

continue funding Standard City Routes at levels of service found in 1997. The University

made a priority of increasing frequency of busses to entice more students to use the bus

and to alleviate congestion on busses. Certain routes would have their operating hours

lengthened to accommodate the irregular schedule of college students. Of the city's 21

Standard Routes, 10 are supplemented by University funds. These routes connect student

housing to the University campus. This creates a disparity between the level of service

for UF-supplemented routes and routes operated only on city funds. Table 8 below

shows the 2004 routes offered by RTS including those supplemented by UF funds.









1 Funds to allow Santa Fe Community College students to ride fare-free on two bus routes serving that
campus come from the College's administration. At present, Florida Statutes do not allow a Transportation
Access Fee to be charged to community college students.









Table 8-2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels
Route Number City Funding UF Funding Additional Peak
Service Hours Frequency
(minutes)
1 $561,711 $0 0 20
2 $196,724 $0 0 60
5 $412,391 $129,044 2,760 20
6 $199,342 $0 0 60
7 $202,932 $0 0 60
8 $562,982 $0 0 30
9 $175,182 $653,397 13,976 8
10 $178,996 $0 0 60
11 $199,342 $0 0 60
12 12 $0 $708,085 15,146 10
13 $140,026 $240,865 5,152 15
15 13 $180,918 $0 0 30
16 $187,187 $430,549 9,210 10
20 $348,026 $609,751 13,043 12
2112 $0 $190,142 4,067 20
24 $190,964 $0 0 60
34 12 $0 $540,028 11,551 20
35 $438,029 $232,011 4,963 12
36 12 $0 $175,574 3,756 20
43 13 $315,995 $0 0 60
75 $487,359 $0 0 30
Totals $4,978,066 $3,894,612 83,307 --


Source: Regional Transit System and UF Transportation Access Fee Committee.
bolded


UF-funded routes are


The sharing of costs for citywide fixed routes requires close coordination between

the University and the Regional Transit System. Transit planners for RTS monitor full

bus conditions and the locations of new student-oriented housing developments. They

present the information to the responsible parties at UF including the Transportation

Access Fee Committee and the Student Body President, who collectively appropriate

funding changes to alter the bus routes, schedules and hours to accommodate changes in

demand for transit service. Final approval of expenditures comes from the University

12 Routes 12, 21, 34 and 36 are reverse routes or spurs off other routes. Since these four routes closely
duplicate the service area of city-funded routes, UF is responsible for the entire cost.


13 Routes 15 and 43 are partially funded by Santa Fe Community College









President. In 2004/05, $3.02 of the $4.10 Fee goes toward supplementing service levels

on selected city routes.


Campus Circulator Routes

Campus Circulator Routes run on fixed routes on the UF Campus. Certain routes

leave the campus briefly, but only to complete loops when road connections and

configurations require completing a loop using city streets. They are intended to

facilitate the movement of UF students, faculty and staff around the campus. The

existence of Campus Circulator routes gives on-campus residents mobility within

campus. These routes also allow off-campus students to park once or arrive by off-

campus bus and move around to multiple destinations. The North/South Circulator, and

the East and West Circulators serve as the high frequency backbone of the campus

system. These routes run on 9-15 minute frequencies during peak hours. The Family

Housing and Lakeside routes serve to move on-campus residents that live in remote areas

to the center of campus. Three routes- Park & Ride 1, Park & Ride 2 and the Commuter

Lot Routes primarily transport patrons of remote parking facilities to the center of

campus.

The Campus Circulator Routes are funded entirely by the University, but are

operated by RTS. The total cost of operating the Campus Circulator Routes is

$2,272,005. The Campus Circulator Routes cost $48.54 per UF student per year. In

2004/2005, $1.61 ( or 39.5%) of the $4.10 per-credit hour fee is allocated to fund campus

circulator routes. The cost of each Campus Circulator Bus is summarized in table 9

below.









Table 9-Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes
Route UF Funding Daily Operating Peak Number Frequency
Schedule of Busses (minutes)
Park & Ride 1 $466,920 7am-7:30pm 5 8
Park & Ride 2 $193,975 7am-7pm 2 15
Commuter Lot $333,791 7am-7:30pm 3 10
West Circulator $344,061 7am-7:30pm 3 6
East Circulator $186,308 7am-7:30pm 2 10
E/W Circulator $213,004 5:30pm-2am 2 15
N/S Circulator $284,156 7:30am-2am 2 15
Family Housing $121,428 7am-5:30pm 1 30
Lakeside Apts. $107,454 9am-4:30pm 1 30
Lake Wauberg $20,907 Sat/Sun 9:30am-5:30pm 1 60
Totals $2,272,005 22
Source: Regional Transit System and UF Parking and Transportation Services


Later Gator

Later Gator busses operate on special routes from 8:30pm to 3:00am Wednesday

through Saturday evenings. These routes are intended to connect student residential areas

with evening activity centers, including downtown bars and restaurants. The mission of

the Later Gator program is threefold. First, it extends transit options into the late evening

hours, a time traditionally ignored by transit providers. This further contributes to the

ability of students to go about their daily lives with little or no automobile use. Second,

Later Gator seeks to reduce the frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol by

connecting student residential areas to popular bar and night club districts. Third, Later

Gator seeks to alleviate severe parking shortages along University Avenue and downtown

Gainesville, the two primary districts of late evening activity.

The first Later Gator route was instituted during the summer of 2000, by a special

appropriation from Student Government. This first trial year cost $103,276 to operate for

the fall and spring semesters from 9pm-2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

The first route known as Later Gator A -continues to operate in a loop through the









University campus and downtown Gainesville, where many bars and night clubs are

found. The program proved extremely popular, and in 2001 the responsibility of paying

for Later Gator was moved to the Transportation Access Fee. Along with the greater

funding base, three new routes were created. During the period 2001-2004, routes were

added and deleted based on ridership and demand. In 2004-05, the Later Gator program

will offer 4 routes that operate Wednesday through Saturday from 8:30pm to 3:00am.

The service summary and cost of the Later Gator routes is outlined in table 10 below.

Thirty four cents (or 8.2%) of the $4.10 Transportation Access Fee goes to pay for Later

Gator Service.

Table 10-2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics
Route Funding Busses Frequency
A $104,598 3 10
B $100,017 3 15
C $117,805 3 20
F $110,409 3 20
Totals $432,830 12 --
Source: UF Finance and Administration















CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the results from both surveys administered during the

Summer/Fall of 2003. Beyond the numerical results of the survey, this section contains a

discussion of the findings. The results are presented and discussed in three broad areas:

1) Transportation Habits, 2) Transit Attitudes and Knowledge, and 3) TDM and Public

Policy.


Transportation Habits

Questions were asked on each survey to determine the transportation habits of

respondents before, during and after attending the University of Florida. This section

also covers respondent's housing and how transportation access impacts housing choices.

Incoming freshmen were largely suburban dwellers. Sixty eight percent of

incoming freshmen lived in a suburban single family house. Another 17% report being

raised in a single family house in a rural setting. Only 16% of incoming freshmen lived

in urban or multifamily settings. Figure 7 below demonstrates the disparity in housing of

incoming freshmen during their senior year of high school. It stands in strong contrast to

the type of housing freshmen live in during their freshman year of college.











80


70


60


50


40


30


20


10


Apartment Condominium Town House SF- Suburbs SF- Urban SF- Rural

Figure 7-Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen
Source: 2003 Freshman Survey

Respondents were allowed to give up to three responses to the question "Please

indicate the three most important factors when choosing a place to live." The most

popular response was "distance to campus" with 27%. The second most important factor

was "cost" with 22.8%. "Security", "Luxury", "Amenities" and "Social Life" were all

between 11 and 12%. Living close to a bus line came in last with only 3.3%. Only

eleven of 122 (or 9%) freshmen felt that living near a bus line was among their top three

factors.



Transportation Before Attending UF


Incoming freshmen's families show automobile dependence typical of most

American families. Their parents take an average of 25.1 minutes to get to work, slightly

less than the national average. Each household owns an average of 3.2 cars. Thirty four

percent of families own 4 or more cars.









Respondents were allowed to report two modes of parents' travel to work (one for

each parent if applicable). The automobile commanded 91.1% of the modal share- 88.9%

being single occupant vehicles. Only 2.2% carpooled to work, far below the national

figure of 12% (Census, 2000). Alternative modes carry a very small share of

transportation to work. Table 11 below shows the modal split for incoming freshmen

parents' travel to work.

Table 11-Parents' Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Number Percent
Drive Alone 119 88.8%
Other 4 3%
Carpool 3 2.2%
Bus 3 2.2%
Bike 3 2.2%
Subway/Elevated 1 0.7%
Walk 1 0.7%
Source: 2003 Freshman Survey

Incoming students were also automobile dependent for travel to high school,

although a substantial number carpooled. Sixty two percent drove to school alone.

Another 27.9% carpooled to school. School busses (5%), public transit (1.7%) and

walking (3.3%) account for less than 10% of the total.


Transportation While Enrolled

Incoming freshmen appear to be pragmatic about their options for commuting to

class. Eighty percent report they will live on campus, and all answers in this section must

consider that fact. Only 56.6% of incoming freshmen will have a car during their

freshman year, regardless of where they plan to live. Over seventy percent expect to get

to class by walking or biking. Twenty two percent expect to get to class by bus- 8% by

city bus and 14% by campus circulator bus. Only 8% expect to drive a car to class.









Alumni were asked to report how often they used transit each of the 4 types of

RTS service during their senior year (academic years 2000/01 or 01/02). Table 12 below

shows the frequency of use on city to campus, city to city, later gator and campus

circulator routes.

Table 12-Transit Service Use at UF
City to Campus City to City Later Gator Campus Circulator
Daily 56 (36%) 2 (1%) -1 49 (32%)
Weekly 19 (12%) 6 (4%) 12 (8%) 23 (15%)
Monthly 6 (4%) 2 (1%) 14 (9%) 7 (5%)
Infrequently 27(18%) 31 (20%) 47 (31%) 34 (22%)
Never 46(30%) 113 (73%) 81 (53%) 31 (20%)
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Eighty two percent of alumni report using at least one type of bus during their

senior year. Campus circulator busses have the highest frequency of ridership. Seventy

four percent of the sample reported using campus circulators during their senior year.

The highest daily ridership was on routes that connected student residential areas to

campus. Fifty six of the one hundred and fifty three respondents (36.6%) reported

commuting from off-campus homes to campus by bus during their senior year. City-only

routes experienced the lowest frequency of rides. Only 26% reported having used a city-

only route. Rides on city routes were also infrequent, as 5.2% rode city routes daily or

weekly.


Transportation After Graduation

Alumni show similar commuting patterns to their parents, although there is a

minor shift toward alternative modes. The average alumni took 22.8 minutes to get to

work. The average time to work is 2.8 minutes shorter than the national average and 2.3

minutes shorter than their parents.

1 Later Gator is only offered three days per week.









Alumni were asked the question "How do you get to work?." Eighty three

percent (83.4%) of alumni travel to work by single occupant automobile. Another 7.4%

of alumni travel in a carpool to work, whereas 3.3% of their parents used carpools.

Subway use and walking had minor increases over the modal share of parents. The

modal split is shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13-Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split
Mode Count Share Percent
Drive Alone 136 83.4%
Carpool 12 7.4%
Bus 2 1.2%
Subway 5 3.1%
Walk 6 3.7%
Bike 1 0.6%
Other 1 0.6%
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

The rates of transit use change somewhat before and after graduation. Each group

was asked how frequently they had ridden transit in their current city. The percentage of

that reported never using transit declined from 81.9% (freshman) to 64.0% (alumni). The

percentage of people who used transit daily, weekly, monthly and infrequently all

increased. The largest change is in the "Infrequent" category, from a 14.8% share to

28.1% share. A Cramer's V test indicates a moderate statistical change between the

Alumni and Freshman groups for all responses,2 indicating that transit use changes

somewhat after graduation. Transit use is more common among alumni, although most

of the shift in responses came from "Never" to "Infrequently". Table 14 below shows

the frequency of responses about transit use among freshmen and alumni.




2 A Cramer's V test renders a value of 0.208 with an approximate significance of 0.018. Cramer's V varies
between 0 and 1 and is used to compare cross-tabulated nominal data when the table is greater than 2 by 2
squares.









Table 14-Frec uency of Transit Use
Transit Use Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni %
Daily 2 1.6% 4 2.6%
Weekly 2 1.6% 5 3.3%
Monthly 0 0.0% 3 2.0%
Infrequently 18 14.6% 43 28.1%
Never 100 82.0% 98 64.1%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


Transit Attitudes and Knowledge

Alumni respondents were asked to give two factors (not ranked) that make the

RTS transit system an attractive option for student commuting. The results are shown in

Table 15 below. The most important factor for riding RTS busses was the lack of fare.

Difficulty in finding parking was second. A distant third was the frequency of busses.

Issues about social acceptability, hours of operation and traffic congestion were not a

consideration of many alumni.

Table 15-Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni
Factor Responses Percent
No Fare 107 35.3%
Parking Difficulty 96 31.7%
Frequency of Busses 44 14.5%
Convenience Factors 31 10.2%
Social Acceptability 10 3.3%
Hours of Operation 8 2.6%
Traffic Congestion 7 2.3%
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

To determine if minimizing transfers was a concern of potential transit patrons,

both survey groups were asked the hypothetical question "There is a transit line in your

current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it?" Respondents

were given answer choices of "Yes", "No" and "Maybe." Table 16 below shows the

results from both surveys. Very few respondents outright rejected the idea of riding

transit. Only 3.3% of freshmen and 12.4% of alumni said they would not to ride a direct









transit line. A Cramer's V test confirms there is a shift in the responses between

freshmen and alumni.3 Alumni responded with more "maybe" and "no" answers. For

freshmen the most common response (the mode) was "yes", while for alumni it was

"maybe."

Table 16-Willingness to Ride Direct Transit Route to Work
Answer Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni %
Yes 71 58.7% 65 42.5%
Maybe 46 38.0% 69 45.1%
No 4 3.3% 19 12.4%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents of both surveys were asked a series of questions about their

knowledge of the transit system in their current city. Respondents were asked if they

knew the: a) location of the nearest bus stop; b) the destinations of busses that stopped

there; c) the fare of the bus; and d) the timetable of the bus. An actual answer was not

required, simply a response of yes or no. Respondents were also asked if there was

public transit in their city, and results were only calculated from records where transit

service was present. Seventy five percent of incoming freshmen report living in a city

with public transit. while 93% for alumni report there is transit in their city. Additionally

30.2% of alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit.4

A graph of the results of the transit awareness question series can be found in

figure 8 below. Knowledge about the transit system on the whole is low. A majority

know where the closest bus stop is to their home. Seventy one percent of incoming

freshmen knew where the closest bus stop was in their hometown. Alumni are less aware

3 Cramer's V= 0.201

4 At the time of the survey rail transit operated in 5 Florida counties: Miami-Dade (Metrorail and Tri-Rail),
Duval (SkyTrain), Hillsborough (Light Rail/Streetcar), Broward (Tri-Rail), and Palm Beach (Tri-Rail).
Miami-Dade offers 4 routes, and the other 3 rail transit providers operate one route each. Given the small
scale of rail transit in Florida, questions were asked only about bus transit. Surveys were returned from
across the United States, including many metro areas with heavy, light and commuter rail service.










of the closest bus stop, and only 61% report they know where it is. In-depth knowledge

of the transit system is far less common. Twenty nine percent of freshmen and 21% of

alumni knew where the bus would take them. Even fewer knew how much the bus would

cost. Only a small fraction (4.3%) of each group knew the timetable of the bus nearest

their home. Alumni were consistently less knowledgeable about the transit system

operating in their current city.


80.0

70.0 -

60.0 -

50.0 -

7 Freshmen
o 40.0 -
A 6 Alumni
30.0 -

20.0 -

10.0 -

0.0
Bus Stop Destination Cost Schedule
0 Freshmen 70.7 29.3 22.8 4.3
MAlumni 61.3 21.1 14.8 4.2


Figure 8-Knowledge of Transit System Information
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents were asked to rate their willingness to use public transit on a scale

from "Very Unwilling" to "Very Willing." Their responses were quantified on a scale

from 1 to 5. By converting their responses to scalar data, the means could be analyzed

using descriptive statistics and various statistical tests.5 The results of the 5 question



5 Responses were quantified using the following codes: "Very Unwilling" = 1; "Unwilling" = 2; "Neutral"
= 3; "Willing" = 4; and "Very Willing" = 5.









series are shown in table 17 below. The data is analyzed using three distinct groups: a)

all 274 records; b) all 122 freshmen records; and c) all 154 alumni records. The alumni

group had lower means for every question. Standard deviation for all questions and all

groups was between 1.2 and 1.3, indicating consistent moderate variance.

Table 17-Willingness to Use Transit
Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean
Willing to Ride Bus 3.80 3.01
Willing to Ride Rail 3.58 3.41
Willing to Carpool 3.73 3.49
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

The mean for freshmen was 3.80, for Alumni 3.01. An independent sample t-test

confirms that means before and after attending UF are significantly different.6 Alumni

are less willing to use a bus than freshmen.

Willingness to use rail transit was not statistically significant between alumni and

freshmen. The results are similar regarding carpools. The mean responses for alumni

and freshmen were not statistically significant.8 There is no statistical difference between

the willingness of alumni and freshmen to use carpool or rail transit modes.

The entire population was analyzed for preferences between rail and bus modes.

The mean response for willingness to use busses was 3.36, and 3.48 for rail. There was







6 The Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not significantly different. The
test renders a result oft= 5.401 at confidence level 0.05, and we can reject the null hypothesis. A t statistic
that is greater than 1.96 signals with 95% certainty that the means are significantly different.

7 Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result
of t = 1.19. Since the t statistic is lower than 1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the
means are not significantly different.

8 Independent sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result
oft = 1.57. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the means are not significantly different.









no preference for rail transit over bus transit, or vice versa.9 Alumni preferred to use rail

over bus.

To determine if fare-free transit would increase the likelihood of public transit

use, respondents were asked to rate their willingness to use "public transit in general" and

free public transit. Results for the free fare vs. regular transit questions are shown in

table 18 below.

When the whole sample was split into groups according to classification, the

results change somewhat. Freshmen more strongly prefer free transit, and a paired t-test

confirms the observation.10 However alumni show almost no change between fare and

free-fare transit. A paired t-test confirms that the means are not significantly different.11

Table 18-Regular vs. Fare Free Transit
Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean
Willing to Ride Transit 3.73 3.18
Willing to Ride Free Transit 4.13 3.19
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy

A hypothetical question was posed to both survey groups to determine their

behavioral response to stringent parking restrictions found in many TDM policies,

including on the University of Florida campus. The question was asked: "You know

there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do?"

Responses to the hypothetical question are shown in Table 19 below. The top three

responses are bolded. For freshmen, the most common response was to take public

9 One Sample t-test for bus willingness on the mean for rail results in t = 1.59, failing to reject the null. A
test on rail transit willingness on the mean for bus results in t= 1.67, failing to reject the null.
10 A paired t-test is used to compare the means of a population before and after an event. In this case the
event is the application of the condition of fare-free transit. t = -3.49

11 t = -0.06









transit. Public transit fell to the 3rd most common response for alumni. The option to

drive to a more distant destination went from 4th for freshmen to 1st for alumni. Parking

far away and walking to the destination was the 2nd most popular response for both

freshmen and alumni. Fifteen percent of alumni responded that they would "not go" if

there was no parking at their shopping destination, up from 6.6% for freshmen.

Table 19-Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction
Behavioral Response Freshmen Freshmen Alumni Count Alumni
Count Percent Percent
Public Transit 42 34.7% 24 15.7%
Park Far Away 26 21.5% 39 25.5%
Get Dropped Off 18 14.9% 10 6.5%
Drive to a More 17 14.0% 50 32.7%
Distant Destination
Not Go 8 6.6% 23 15.0%
Bike 7 5.8% 2 1.3%
Taxi 2 1.7% 1 0.7%
Walk 1 0.8% 4 2.6%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with public policy

statements. The 5 possible answers varied from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly

Agree", and the answers were coded from 1 to 5 to allow numerical analysis. First,

respondents were asked if they feel it is important for government to provide public

transit. Overall the group agreed with that statement. The mean response was 4.20, with

a low standard deviation of 0.82. The most frequent response was "Agree," and only 12

people (or 4.4%) answered "Strongly Disagree" or "Disagree." There is no statistical

difference between alumni and freshmen when the sample is broken down into separate

groups.

Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with the statement "It is

important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic." The









level of agreement with this statement was very high. The mean response was 4.45

(maximum 5), with a very low standard deviation of 0.66. The most frequent response

was "Strongly Agree." Four respondents (or 1.1%) disagreed with the statement. There

is no statistical difference between groups.

Respondents feel that government expenditure on road infrastructure is more

important than expenditure on transit. The mean responses for agreement with road

expenditure (4.45) and transit (4.20) were compared using a one-sample t-test. The t

statistic value was 6.21, confirming that respondents support road expenditures over

transit expenditures.

Alumni felt that "traffic congestion was a serious problem." An independent

sample t-test shows that the mean for alumni (4.27) is statistically different than the mean

for freshmen (4.02).12 The most common response was "Strongly Agree," and only 23

people (8.2%) disagreed that traffic congestion was a serious problem. Respondents also

believe that transit reduces traffic congestion, and they generally believe that transit is

effective at reducing traffic. The mean was 3.99, with a mode of 4 or "Agree." There

was no difference between freshmen and alumni groups. Table 20 below shows the

frequency of responses of agreement with the statements about traffic congestion.

Table 20-Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Traffic is a Serious Problem 1 22 26 108 113
Mean = 4.16
Percent 0.4% 7.6% 9.6% 40.0% 41.9%
Transit Reduces Congestion 4 19 42 120 89
Mean = 3.99
Percent 1.4% 6.9% 15.2% 43.5% 32.2%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


12 t = -2.23









When asked if it was "critical to own a car," alumni agreed with the statement

more strongly than freshmen. Freshmen responded with a mean of 3.84, while the

alumni mean was 4.25. An independent samples t-test shows that alumni feel more

strongly that owning a car is important.13

Respondents were also asked if they would be willing to vote for a political

candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit. The mean response was

3.06, and the frequency of responses is show in table 21 below. The responses are nearly

normally distributed, with most respondents "neutral" on the issue. Statistically there is

no change in the responses between alumni and freshmen.

Table 21-Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Vote for Pro-Transit Candidate 15 39 149 57 14
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Freshmen report that TDM measures such as bike lanes, auto-free zones, and

calmed traffic makes them more inclined to ride bicycles or walk. However alumni do

not value these TDM measures as much as freshmen when choosing whether to walk to

bike. Table 22 below shows the mean responses for alumni and freshmen, as well as the t

statistic of the independent t-test on the means. All three TDM policies were less popular

with alumni, as all three statements presented score statistically significantly lower

among graduates.

Table 22-TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk
Alumni Freshmen t statistic
Mean Mean
Auto-Free Zones Increases Willingness to Walk 3.15 3.48 2.62
Sidewalks Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 3.61 3.88 2.34
Slow Traffic Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 2.64 3.21 4.58
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

13 t = -3.32









Finally, alumni and freshmen were asked rate their agreement with the statement

"I wish transit was a better option in my city." Table 23 below shows the frequency of

responses. Forty Seven percent of respondents agree that they wish transit was a better

option in their city. Only 16.% disagree, with 36% being neutral on the subject.

Table 23-Wish Transit Was a Better Option
Mean = 3.42 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Wish Transit was a Better Option 3 41 99 100 31
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Self-Selection for Transit Use

Certain groups may be more likely to ride public transit than others. The

literature suggests that inner city residents, those living in multifamily settings, and those

living in major metropolitan areas are more likely to use transit. Alumni make conscious

decisions about where and how they live after graduation. Some will choose to leave

Florida, others will stay. Many of those who leave Florida will move to large

metropolitan areas where transit is a better option. Some alumni will live in multifamily

settings, others will live in single family homes. Whether or not transit access is an

active concern for alumni moving to major metropolitan areas or to multifamily housing

is not known. However, these two lifestyle choices may create more opportunities to

travel by transit.


Florida Residency

One hundred, or 65 percent, of alumni live in Florida. Eighteen percent of

Florida-based alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit, all but 3 report living in

Miami-Dade County. The remaining 54 alumni respondents (35%) live outside of

Florida. Many out-of-state alumni are moving to major metropolitan areas, as indicated









by rail transit being present in 48 percent of their new cities. Fifty-five percent of out-of-

state alumni lived in the ten largest metropolitan areas of the United States. The most

popular metropolitan areas outside of Florida are: Atlanta, Washington, DC, and New

York City.

The transit ridership frequency for alumni inside and out of Florida is quite

different. The breakdown is shown in Table 24 below. Zero alumni in Florida use transit

on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Seventy-eight percent have not used transit at all

since graduation. Those living out-of-state used transit more frequently, a fact confirmed

by a Cramer's V value of 0.469. This indicates a moderate-to-strong correlation between

transit ridership and being a resident in a state other than Florida. Out-of-state residents

are more likely to use transit frequently, as 16 percent ride transit daily or weekly. A

larger proportion of out-of-state alumni use transit infrequently. The percentage of

alumni who have never used transit dropped from 78% for Florida residents to 39% for

out-of-state residents.

Table 24-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency
Frequency Florida Florida % Out of State Out of State %
Daily 0 0% 4 7%
Weekly 0 0% 5 9%
Monthly 0 0% 3 6%
Infrequently 22 22% 21 39%
Never 77 78% 21 39%
Total 99 54
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Alumni who live out-of-state are significantly more likely to use transit to

commute to work. The percentage of alumni who drive alone dropped from 90% for

Florida residents to 72% for out-of-state. Twenty three percent of out-of-state residents

used modes other than a car to get to work, while only 2% of Florida-based alumni use

non-automobile modes. Walking to work also increased substantially among those living









out-of-state, from 1 percent to 9 percent. Table 25 below shows the modal split for travel

to work for alumni.

Table 25-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Florida Florida % Out-of-State Out-of-State %
Drive Alone 94 90% 42 72%
Carpool 9 9% 3 5%
Walk 1 1% 5 9%
Bike 1 1% 0 0%
Bus 0 0% 2 3%
Subway 0 0% 5 9%
Other 0 0% 1 2%
Total 105 58
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Table 26 below summarizes the willingness of in-state and out-of-state residents

to use transit. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use transit if it was free.

Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use rail transit than bus transit.14

Table 26-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Willingness to Use Transit
Willingness to use Florida Out-of-State Significant15
Transit 3.12 3.31 No
Free Transit 2.97 3.58 Yes
Bus 3.02 2.98 No
Rail 3.29 3.61 No
Carpool 3.55 3.39 No
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey


Multifamily and Single Family residents

To analyze if people living in multifamily housing are more likely to use public

transit, the alumni survey was split into two groups who reported living in single family

and multifamily housing. Possible multifamily responses included: apartments,

condominiums, townhomes and university housing. Single family homes included all


14t= 2.04
15 Using an Independent Sample t-test, the means of Transit, Bus, Rail, and Carpool for Florida and Out-of-
State were not significant. Free Transit was statistically preferred by alumni living out of state than those
living in-state. t = 2.74









other survey responses. Two respondents did not report the nature of their current home.

Eighty-four, or 55%, of alumni reporting living in multifamily homes, while 68 (or 45%)

lived in single family homes.

The frequency of transit use was higher among people living in multifamily

homes. A Cramer's V test renders a value of 0.251, indicating a moderate correlation

between living in multifamily housing and using transit frequently. Refer to table 27

below. Respondents living in single family housing did not report using transit daily,

weekly or monthly. Only 31% reported using transit infrequently, while 69% reported

never using transit.

Table 27-Multifamily and Single Family Residents' Transit Frequency
Frequency Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single %
Daily 4 5% 0 0%
Weekly 4 5% 0 0%
Monthly 3 4% 0 0%
Infrequently 23 27% 21 31%
Never 50 60% 47 69%
Total 84 68
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Living in a multifamily setting makes one more likely to commute by alternative

modes. Refer to table 28 below. Driving alone retains the largest modal share, with 81

percent of multifamily respondents, and 89% of single family respondents. The only

alternative mode utilized by single family respondents was walking, with 3%.

Carpooling was the second-highest utilized among both groups. Only multifamily

dwellers used bus and rail transit.









Table 28-Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single %
Drive Alone 73 81% 62 89%
Carpool 6 7% 6 9%
Walk 3 3% 2 3%
Bike 0 0% 0 0%
Bus 2 2% 0 0%
Subway 5 6% 0 0%
Other 1 1% 0 0%
Total 90 70
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Single family respondents and multifamily respondents do not differ significantly

from each other on willingness to use various types of transit. See table 29 below for

mean responses to willingness to use transit. Multifamily dwellers were not more willing

to ride free transit than fare-paying transit.16 Multifamily dwellers were not statistically

more willing to ride rail than bus.17

Table 29-Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit
Willingness to use Multifamily Single Family Significant?
Transit 3.06 3.32 No
Free Transit 3.05 3.31 No
Bus 2.87 3.14 No
Rail 3.41 3.36 No
Carpool 3.40 3.58 No
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey


Discussion


Transportation Habits

The data supports the hypothesis that incoming students to the University were

brought up in automobile dependent homes. The suburban/rural setting of their homes,

high vehicle ownership rates, and low rates of alternative mode use suggest that incoming


16 t= 0.62
17 t = 1.74









students are highly conditioned to automobile travel. Low density suburban areas are

generally not supportive of public transit. Students will have to adapt their transportation

habits to conform with the TDM policies of the dense University of Florida Campus.

Some of the University's TDM policies are positive ones that will improve their

transportation options, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvements and transit investments.

Other TDM policies will force a modal shift away from cars. These "negative" TDM

policies include parking pricing, parking availability and auto-free zones.

Incoming students seem well educated about the TDM policies at the University,

and are pragmatic about their options for commuting to campus. Very few freshmen plan

to drive to class. Most expect to walk or bike to class, which is not surprising since so

many freshmen will live on campus. When choosing where to live during college years,

freshmen appear to be taking transportation into account. However they do not consider

access to transit to be very important when they arrive as freshmen.

While at the University of Florida it is clear that students are using busses. Eighty

two percent of alumni rode a bus at least one bus during their senior year. Walking and

Biking also drew a substantial modal share. According to Tolley (1996) and Balsas

(2002), alternative mode use while in school could have permanent impacts on

transportation habits. There is some evidence that transportation habits have changed

after graduation. Alternative modes have a small- but statistically significant- increase in

modal share. A full 36% of alumni used transit after graduation, but most of those were

infrequent users.









Transit Attitudes and Knowledge

On the whole alumni were far less willing to use busses than freshmen. Despite

the slight increase in ridership between freshmen and alumni, busses lose their appeal to

the broad population of alumni. This may signal a shift in the importance that alumni

place on service characteristics after graduation. It may also signify that transit satisfies

the transportation needs of only a small segment of the population.

Previous experiments have shown that consumers have no preference for rail

transit over bus transit. However in this study, alumni show a preference for rail transit

over bus transit. This seems to confirm the stereotype that rail transit is the choice of

white collar workers. Further, it may signal that some characteristics of rail transit are

preferred.

Free-fare transit was popular among freshmen, greatly increasing their willingness

to ride transit. However this was not a significant factor for alumni. This is further

evidence that the life circumstances of alumni are markedly different from freshmen.

Free fare transit may be successful at building ridership among lower income people, but

its benefits erode for those in higher income brackets.

Alumni reported that the most important factors about riding public transit to,

from, and around campus was the lack of a fare and difficulty parking on campus. Bus

frequency was the third most important factor. Alumni preference for fare-free transit

while in college did not translate into a preference for it after graduation. This likely

signals the higher income status of recent graduates.

A statistically higher number of alumni have used public transit, but most of them

only use it infrequently. This may signify that alumni have tried to use public transit, but









it is not meeting their daily transportation needs. It also suggests that the cost savings of

public transit mean less to alumni. Alumni show no preference for free-fare transit, while

freshmen strongly prefer it. The literature shows that people value their time at a rate

equal to half of their hourly salary (Hess et al. 2003). College graduates have a far

greater salary than college students, thus they place a higher dollar value on their

transportation time.

It is possible that cost is a concern for cash-strapped college students. Brown et

al. (2002) argues that unlimited access transit substantially reduces the cost of attending

college, particularly if students do not own a car. Unlimited access also increases the

viability of living on campus. These factors help explain why cost is the number one

factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. Parking difficulties on campus are almost

as important as cost to UF students. This supports existing the existing literature on the

impact of parking restriction on transit use.

Convenience is also a factor for transit users. Convenience was the 4th most

important factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. An important component of

convenience is the number of connections required. The literature shows that minimizing

connections will attract more riders. The survey data backed up other researchers' work,

showing that both alumni and freshmen strongly prefer direct bus routes. However,

alumni were more likely to reply "maybe" to the question about direct busses. This may

indicate that other service characteristics are more important.

Respondent's knowledge about the transit system in their town was poor. The

majority of people knew the location of the nearest bus stop, however in-depth

knowledge of the transit system dropped off significantly. Apparently very few









respondents had explored their options for public transit. Only 29% of freshmen and

21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Alumni were less aware of their

city's transit system than freshmen. Apparently exposure to public transit while in

college did not prompt graduates to investigate the transit options available to them after

graduation.


TDM and Public Policy

Transportation is a major concern for respondents of the survey. Both alumni and

freshmen feel strongly that traffic congestion is a serious problem. Respondents believe

that government can tackle the problem of traffic congestion both by building roads and

providing public transit. When it comes to funding priorities, respondents think that

government should focus available funds money on road improvements. While they also

value expenditure on transit, roads are their priority.

TDM policies may be able to shift people from automobiles to transit, but alumni

are less willing to use other alternative modes such as walking or biking than are

freshmen. Common bike/ped supportive TDM policies such as auto-free zones and

traffic calming did not make those modes more attractive to alumni than freshmen. This

may signal that alumni have concerns over time and convenience.


Self-Selection for Transit Use

The phenomena of "self-selection" involves people putting themselves in

situations where transit use is more likely. People may or may not consciously make

these life choices with transit in mind. This survey shows that some people choose their

housing based on transportation factors. Other people will make housing choices with