<%BANNER%>

Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Level of Service on Two-Lane Highways

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 E20110319_AAAABW INGEST_TIME 2011-03-19T14:02:38Z PACKAGE UFE0011833_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20110319_AAAJMT ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH morriss_j_Page_038.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
1855ea5f70f829738beb5aa91e4037b6
SHA-1
4b1acf4856c7f8a16055cbb4971668881c78df2d
48051 F20110319_AAAJNI morriss_j_Page_046.pro
095eb17e4f7614f655509e63536da59f
9ba79c3a1f2206ed21c666547f2973c118494b71
93676 F20110319_AAAJMU morriss_j_Page_017.jp2
6d317f8878cba8ff25e0965f3547a37c
3e4b58f7c92a2b7e307be287e02948cd7e87d98b
4563 F20110319_AAAJNJ morriss_j_Page_033thm.jpg
d5a96c8eed435eea721fb2ab985b0073
58b3e2b81197bc2f5fd3b42b216136b7c3a19f31
F20110319_AAAJMV morriss_j_Page_125.tif
8670e55a26350fa3dd18fbe57110643c
e1e392cfec4ec859fff9266b5f0c63a43d3c63c7
6271 F20110319_AAAJNK morriss_j_Page_027thm.jpg
e79693711e6448d5e725bae57c162db8
dd4161c1c979008656f9515b0cc749073302e546
53469 F20110319_AAAJMW morriss_j_Page_032.jpg
40d0ec2976183156d8cf90ea23ad203b
e480a63650ada9df2a30095998d1286ea5935ff2
21012 F20110319_AAAJNL morriss_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
c918b3cb5be589df11ad7d60c8d279d3
a91264d1129341e6710fea82fdaf8865cf3c0968
F20110319_AAAJMX morriss_j_Page_014.tif
1a3431d026d2b9bbf299edd455b7cfb0
31cf0dc46d78b3feaa70fc228b208fac150b4fa3
702 F20110319_AAAJOA morriss_j_Page_053.txt
c49345985762d7fafff67e1bbab0cfaf
ff93f48e205a2b8f4b762f9cb528212a396a6dbd
77005 F20110319_AAAJNM morriss_j_Page_045.jpg
77883e92352ed0370a1b70a6abb66fd6
eb3a5a26fe54fff4268540435a641f5f0b3af836
6702 F20110319_AAAJMY morriss_j_Page_079thm.jpg
40a0c5e58d43fa04b73fd1af0ca80f0c
4c41957d93a6261e52c9c486b45c98acf599e98a
25678 F20110319_AAAJOB morriss_j_Page_059.pro
78e116d7159be3b9df2df3fea7093c7b
9c794921891f2041a3c8fd6635a4f3837138caf6
24639 F20110319_AAAJNN morriss_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
dfb2c8d25333a0639c60a08c9cd8fad8
fd42e5b9df6766a08e08c966350cb0d9984e54e5
37527 F20110319_AAAJMZ morriss_j_Page_129.jpg
c10375c339f69f69afa9dd566b41345b
aef79346aa593b31dd5582398ab776ca61035d47
F20110319_AAAJOC morriss_j_Page_039.tif
577bc7494e98ed0c5e766052fc19f27b
1afcc124c9c58b9c257c818383e6f9215f1c7771
99084 F20110319_AAAJNO morriss_j_Page_109.jpg
71ccb22ba2a9c8ed3d87f804e0481995
ae995e4c42436313d0c78235d6e30a9b40cc458a
6127 F20110319_AAAJOD morriss_j_Page_048thm.jpg
a069fb5eec72b6490c2f492381c08c1e
a66b865131a7594ef7fc2e1416ec76ccc2e8d445
65143 F20110319_AAAJNP morriss_j_Page_012.jpg
d3eeb4525a95c43391b56144e5a7fe89
4f57c918c7c6a7acf4cd16d9209cb8272fa67d67
18871 F20110319_AAAJOE morriss_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
e391559214690ceabda4e45e91da35ce
aa180ab572bb9fd43a94a7db46a35fc6e9f08091
85727 F20110319_AAAJNQ morriss_j_Page_036.jp2
b1eee8423257c6a8d95dac9b2718137e
065bf48a34f4b9ce43e9f093c009c870b0139962
71047 F20110319_AAAJOF morriss_j_Page_010.jpg
f504d453746466caa7d894cf4f5c8f20
ec208ba9e9d5584c855c87ab8490a99166fe41a0
47424 F20110319_AAAJNR morriss_j_Page_043.pro
ff5ce35b1ed0f36e39daf7546be548d0
6d04dafb6608c8aaa69841b93e878edd8e758b52
6861 F20110319_AAAJOG morriss_j_Page_073thm.jpg
d693573dd58c3714cc2909d0e41c9d8e
e9e606865b6c9d42f5d84f6af3a9d7830c1e47cc
88545 F20110319_AAAJNS morriss_j_Page_054.jp2
e158ac67f675ae056bf10345b548f116
a4bfe74ed16985b28cd19219087818d2b74a8ec4
1997 F20110319_AAAJOH morriss_j_Page_013.txt
4af47228931d144001b2a5c0cf1e1dd1
b80ea6fc1912f2c13dc2004ddd2dfd1919fc27b6
73484 F20110319_AAAJNT morriss_j_Page_050.jpg
7afae2aaa5da02757abf02e17e00a85b
72acb0a70657c2b4df95bb02d9e3cabea3e033eb
1904 F20110319_AAAJOI morriss_j_Page_018.txt
1d37e807df84459fd337222c72427671
1a9ddebcec31d768c1bcc1b7647f97f66c95b5bf
104637 F20110319_AAAJOJ morriss_j_Page_075.jp2
1b1ae708e5af0d0b05c9ec161bc1e7be
7fdbfcf19b9a0d5a79d1e8675166d7c602966393
25271604 F20110319_AAAJNU morriss_j_Page_084.tif
7ed4b830d9f12e2fdd31a93f0fa1f3d2
74d86401239163d9822142d0feb4dcdbec0b9208
F20110319_AAAJOK morriss_j_Page_001.tif
5ffd5af46be055fe9fbbb04e44da4926
96abc40d7ddbba991e2640e582436cdbb98cf4b1
5858 F20110319_AAAJNV morriss_j_Page_068thm.jpg
12587ca5933a48b7f02b4ac344a374f6
fdf66c7970e6d5d456d44c21f4406fe6815c1ca0
19318 F20110319_AAAJOL morriss_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
c857bdc8a2d94a948059584e871a4cde
0a93163ae7a95ec560e12563cf058ba1f01c2586
11930 F20110319_AAAJNW morriss_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
053ef43dafbce8a898e58fa67deeec2a
45568b4450a0a9b996256e0e6569914fd785a487
1873 F20110319_AAAJPA morriss_j_Page_062.txt
bfaeadfeec824f370813d9092100270a
36054de571a8415896209c8449eacff3a59d0db4
1932 F20110319_AAAJOM morriss_j_Page_023.txt
90d3568693cf0ca6e4494c77ee70e7b8
d8768d7ab74e1a0f40722d5cb588a838b8f6f5e9
25463 F20110319_AAAJNX morriss_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
2e837304c0f131f3e261e51de551b91b
15fcb04d10a7c0876702cb6facd792677f8b992f
1698 F20110319_AAAJPB morriss_j_Page_054.txt
1706496921f9116d4208215f84d8c048
b6cb64dcf45bad667145f59e85c94e841e683e1c
17771 F20110319_AAAJON morriss_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
b1031f37298b45341c8894b38ea2c16c
ade18fe13f54e1a4ffce6457a60edbe1d7d10a1d
655 F20110319_AAAJNY morriss_j_Page_123.txt
2bed7f56533ade040f174972336a454b
998b7360484162e00d4938f8af718cf0d1be3cf3
2014 F20110319_AAAJPC morriss_j_Page_055.txt
4b5398c32a529efc7ffe504cbb46fbf0
f9cb183e6bf377b70d0bab3888bf0b1bf6b06124
5749 F20110319_AAAJOO morriss_j_Page_064thm.jpg
f1605455f510ee022accbf4bfe871362
8ddd89dc499c734529c26f0e9872d0dac6d32f66
25119 F20110319_AAAJNZ morriss_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
98e2b5764cd0ab8be908270869a73a62
9d9e73fe76e12c03559e4476926f9d0fdb39170d
48586 F20110319_AAAJPD morriss_j_Page_024.pro
5dfbb49809cf098cf4c61de5c0fe3964
1b0b3d064a9636e742383f88ddd03fb7047a43b8
26962 F20110319_AAAJOP morriss_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
ea442e79607863ba69a7b51eec75f5d9
e366a973e493304df984239fc07372089e234e96
26780 F20110319_AAAJPE morriss_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
4dc91bfcb4752a40604434b889a63bbb
5513e4af7198832c36a4c7452d55e3e375679098
F20110319_AAAJOQ morriss_j_Page_057.tif
7249c105ffcf204d7d05c1f13ad6836e
b6c3b25db3e784dcd91e02f632db08222d1b9096
4455 F20110319_AAAJPF morriss_j_Page_005thm.jpg
00712d17028ae0cd891d6f11e8ef4db1
c4bf5edeea624a601d72e53c06f50019398f3d87
1985 F20110319_AAAJOR morriss_j_Page_092.txt
10e65d81ad980660ab413bb15805a72f
baacb602d706a9499d1c04fb3fcf941634f60bcb
6945 F20110319_AAAJPG morriss_j_Page_071thm.jpg
551e736a9bb793711c3486998c8689e5
e0d823c16429eb2c13d69dbcefe215b540f9a664
10151 F20110319_AAAJOS morriss_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
35402f6ac0f36a3e0bcdf0b442967d56
dfa63f7b8a58fa9ad4a556c78127fd7f0709a03a
1011 F20110319_AAAJPH morriss_j_Page_059.txt
b4a8a447c89b737abde07ee19f6ec0d3
1e4bc8becd566b130a216b8231eccd3c16c506a5
F20110319_AAAJOT morriss_j_Page_102.tif
513afa5a4dd6055387bf626d3b44a724
cd6e84bd2e2caa09adb8935576a86ea134173ade
3544 F20110319_AAAJPI morriss_j_Page_108.txt
0e8a996db5e6d1b48cc02b4d1216755a
6bfc9430325e124a0da78b106b7cd622316d7350
24456 F20110319_AAAJOU morriss_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
77f493fa120b65c71c049592e62ea875
c8127cfeb132a599443dc96f09ed2636b0580524
26303 F20110319_AAAJPJ morriss_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
3d6f90938b0ae959780400c5ec0e7438
e02b1f6b1b6618740a0c354db478e8fac05cec3e
47795 F20110319_AAAJPK morriss_j_Page_028.pro
9743993016e9fd67ab6dd6aef137bb2d
c11e6cc45cd5777aba30f3016c428a89658cf61b
25926 F20110319_AAAJOV morriss_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
f005366cbc98432446406043ba3513e8
b3c49e8e9a0a2148af8813ad4ced0a3db709a3c7
7052 F20110319_AAAJOW morriss_j_Page_063thm.jpg
513a58089a681905a1f2d75530fb504f
143de375fde3aad8a496da04c875b21d486a07b5
13181 F20110319_AAAJPL morriss_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
5f516b8d63a4fc11e3b5ba71488d2ebb
74ea69141ff864f07715aa821493f895f19c0d29
26767 F20110319_AAAJOX morriss_j_Page_079.pro
fa1dc2541000457599b58c8bebc600fb
aeb05c16131827f87c4de1863607e0ae5cc57838
1003 F20110319_AAAJQA morriss_j_Page_004thm.jpg
9f9424658054c22f670dab0a62ff8f65
8b1366b0cc6da073207b9c71afcdfc0d9cb40921
77195 F20110319_AAAJPM morriss_j_Page_022.jpg
8111163b7305eb51fdd3971de91ea527
745c91515cdc5b5e8822634e2da31c1a145e017e
94602 F20110319_AAAJOY morriss_j_Page_077.jp2
50374d2f9f80951183b832ca16c1afc8
a5b70d905a46cde5922633fa50dcf1c2b4ce3828
683393 F20110319_AAAJQB morriss_j_Page_044.jp2
e744508b62940b9704fa8d107bf76472
2de5c9b3b6c7e35aea5ec2ca7ce5069764726d58
809 F20110319_AAAJPN morriss_j_Page_060.txt
482dadbd98f61451d01597e059c242aa
5abfe0f8a5f96b75bf711058971bdc85401c517f
103499 F20110319_AAAJOZ morriss_j_Page_043.jp2
55faef85076de3ed760ebad20d740c03
6d0fa2abb9d06ff1e63a7f1e41ceb9c7a3702863
39617 F20110319_AAAJQC morriss_j_Page_010.pro
da1df152e29e3138bfe5cf30f4bc01f9
3aaacd42ef74cc4bf5321507b122db50d988414b
82080 F20110319_AAAJPO morriss_j_Page_005.jpg
87a66f939ee77eb8648bbe6b7712ba3b
ca6bf441ed29024cb99dae5f53036bc438d7b10e
1051957 F20110319_AAAJQD morriss_j_Page_071.jp2
586d2358b1b83f0a2bc248c93ac6b592
c309f315fb9ececf6728ee3e94bd61b5da98b249
18637 F20110319_AAAJPP morriss_j_Page_131.jpg
e934d3d324baf034b4542400fb5184e6
08bbe9cd01a6a35958abac7b75b384b773d4e2a1
1516 F20110319_AAAJQE morriss_j_Page_033.txt
c7d18e9d94028777591290b52b28b6d7
8ba782e0246b2ad1dad86378ba6860530be821b3
76829 F20110319_AAAJPQ morriss_j_Page_063.jpg
68f4869256d8b414cdb8678fa99fbd3d
db7963589f88b5fdef1be570581359f1d905ff00
21036 F20110319_AAAJQF morriss_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
b054c3345a124c7a1be6b7af1e1272d2
52fe9fd96924c28e715a4526757239181f8c6104
78176 F20110319_AAAJPR morriss_j_Page_072.jpg
7a8315ff31acffcaf113ed3b604f1d54
d7452e31ab757cb93ba440d253d00458c9787a0e
4934 F20110319_AAAJQG morriss_j_Page_010thm.jpg
9339ffd4793e95cfb9138f08bb1e1f84
1e6327a8e38baeb9e3a5a31e0ebe8355132bee7d
1051981 F20110319_AAAJPS morriss_j_Page_121.jp2
f182fa96a08f652ef90cd90b4d4d2517
eb7ed11e7bd0f8f2e180cc5caf07266e9f8c0ef1
22617 F20110319_AAAJQH morriss_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
97c59dfaec1401259ebdda6893371d35
9d3be65ec81fe9384bb0ae6d444a98d8597568cb
60686 F20110319_AAAJPT morriss_j_Page_038.jpg
e50be7527616a88fe8019eb16b7d4c0e
d2296e3559cff1e6a21aeae4c07e5f748bbaa007
26202 F20110319_AAAJQI morriss_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
ce3620b3a18c8deeece09b98f2d14930
b601e9b5573b6ca2e1f8ed2e1d3a9c6ce78516d6
3277 F20110319_AAAJPU morriss_j_Page_130.txt
97daeb3134593b0427f455ca1228f7a5
a25f34ffb2b72a572ff62877b8f157796e0533c2
1051952 F20110319_AAAJQJ morriss_j_Page_006.jp2
3490f081f7c50d5e9b41f1a096cd6004
f16a766b57d7bd4a23ac71744a3a4d773b9c4c27
6329 F20110319_AAAJPV morriss_j_Page_018thm.jpg
e0889e95b60c078b1c8fe84eea7523d3
6b73858e3169c74aa9313d6a08a8ce78d0bcb5ed
215 F20110319_AAAJQK morriss_j_Page_004.txt
ef5b19a27731d5871a4f7d4a007bd5fe
b29fc28d772dd666febe198eb5b61ea1cd5be980
1771 F20110319_AAAJQL morriss_j_Page_010.txt
26462f4d5b90c774a284940eddd17ee4
e7fdb964dc1456aac8df64207ab91eaaf0f4141f
25838 F20110319_AAAJPW morriss_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
0b4fe791bb18f9d156848f270841bf8c
294c919df4863dfac6182469a5116fdeac908c20
1051983 F20110319_AAAJRA morriss_j_Page_132.jp2
06265722b881c47477228717b5426e5d
3847e785283b01af5bace00451bcb77fa42dd4ea
24915 F20110319_AAAJQM morriss_j_Page_001.jpg
bb77e539c926bbafe630d16d8a74862d
7f6dd1684dabab11e79249801994577c095c45d4
5954 F20110319_AAAJPX morriss_j_Page_002.jp2
24a6c9517f1450a06c25556d2b4c0c1c
aaf1c09219ec1c2fc5337dc6ddddf3dedc15304a
49698 F20110319_AAAJRB morriss_j_Page_097.pro
a6190e9500012f6a0d625e8d7a6824c2
60c9d8471abfa77c25ce7abb6b8af55e088c7091
75132 F20110319_AAAJQN morriss_j_Page_121.pro
9f729be7e6679abb4fca059c8e62eb52
a02c403a4251bbb727f7d96211114ad8332112c0
49492 F20110319_AAAJPY morriss_j_Page_041.pro
5fbf645a6ca439b2da09651595a9f684
475692f2dd867ed4617735ec3c3d0ba7192d2a35
25683 F20110319_AAAJRC morriss_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
3a836ce9fe2ceee256e945298629e4ec
3f7c275bb096ea88ca658fbb42be40d0625872ab
107569 F20110319_AAAJQO morriss_j_Page_096.jp2
b408296875178dcc125e1348914320d1
5a6c67cf6d6ebe4dc2c84e7b517d0e3ac92e5f3e
23443 F20110319_AAAJPZ morriss_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
3de7e8f67fe2fbf0a4bbda21ab896a80
d25e679f4953fcded0aaf050f98e3a22af72781a
43543 F20110319_AAAJRD morriss_j_Page_122.pro
fe8b0b9ab27d313eee34d41cff2a17ff
fa14aace778348aca9c6098e4ae1ff8b32b6a991
1051958 F20110319_AAAJQP morriss_j_Page_105.jp2
811aa9c9804eb1338ae99748ae76bdb5
b3e99d4556530d91fa3bb887e8091ac214b000c1
1213 F20110319_AAAJRE morriss_j_Page_131.txt
c72a0ffd6ca68103c8777bb1c58c4f4b
a53ba577a3d3028a3898e2d09064d5210d3cbea9
960 F20110319_AAAJQQ morriss_j_Page_081.txt
8633b3d64e7ff13cd2275f8eddc20ae5
23df986176f779ae5e29194f7070703f937f2310
5887 F20110319_AAAJRF morriss_j_Page_028thm.jpg
c5a6b5754108ef5e6f1ab2abf4b05137
e935bcd243e5f2bf82a6ee6d0eaa9248430c081b
27601 F20110319_AAAJQR morriss_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
d61dbbcbc841aa1c7a02e8a050747514
d0e78e008b344cde03e1207e2d5787055bab13b6
49816 F20110319_AAAJRG morriss_j_Page_066.pro
8f0998683bddc2d9744d1b5c8b130baf
3539b461c0b61184e9bcac5d1e17dbf6ca3af9ca
7397 F20110319_AAAJQS morriss_j_Page_059thm.jpg
32c0db1824cdd68a9a69bf6b51ad8fd7
df2d18930e6d9f951f9880c024c18db89ef00d4f
F20110319_AAAJRH morriss_j_Page_133.tif
5e657cf14fbacd8b7edf2f4070950d3f
72229fb26a2ab893f344d7116b517588787ab095
6496 F20110319_AAAJQT morriss_j_Page_095thm.jpg
8ee21bfaf6f6dd44b3a40b70e3c286a5
d6ca7f28d6d83f142b341ef2a53a9ae90882d56e
F20110319_AAAJRI morriss_j_Page_006.tif
b5c71210d63e328d521b471ed855c24e
d14cee5007fe38c9d449f4e57d5f63792c6ddb79
F20110319_AAAJQU morriss_j_Page_078.tif
26c18fcef57d9a012eeee88e669e8517
4189b11149acf5aa9fea286e562688abae7b3273
5248 F20110319_AAAJRJ morriss_j_Page_006thm.jpg
f769bc8ca5f85207f15b19afb0868229
ed040282f2711a4e4d9ed76ba49e6cb4bf02552d
6537 F20110319_AAAJQV morriss_j_Page_108thm.jpg
0678c9120885ebc5b717b28006389992
07521eadf6853f4b703581486154a267f402b76c
23726 F20110319_AAAJRK morriss_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
fe5cf097399ba3c8f15c5a0a09176cfc
a288a4b42e7d5c2bd6dbd91f76dd7a73ab10c5ed
1902 F20110319_AAAJQW morriss_j_Page_043.txt
84c4daf4e0ba068bde155b1e0e8f693a
41466ff8f4579c5626d2f2a2974fc3e9195884c2
7895 F20110319_AAAJRL morriss_j_Page_109thm.jpg
85b3e9f9f98a95a554e12c959dc4e4e7
01f618875b3453c3594fda383b1f397fe618889b
10548 F20110319_AAAJRM morriss_j_Page_106.pro
1ad614b9ef6acb55daddd87f8bcac645
7da5862004a57fa1c7f2e3024f78b62e7ba6be83
500 F20110319_AAAJQX morriss_j_Page_125thm.jpg
f1bc687ee390ecb2196976d65bbb1342
ae348d8807bdb1dc36006cc4271516ca31e3166b
96364 F20110319_AAAJSA morriss_j_Page_006.jpg
1fc4f935d837c9928625cd6c8eab8b1c
37127e63e1d8e99859036919dd9eebc831abe272
1488 F20110319_AAAJRN morriss_j_Page_045.txt
f09df30950a0c10866da19e95125b2fb
33a635a1c5858f7fd2180098fbf0eb8e6fa5d8c2
83785 F20110319_AAAJQY morriss_j_Page_041.jpg
d71ba775dcc6e4cbffaae06bd4f045b1
568ed3eccb0988db006a0139f62d3af013e6754f
1824 F20110319_AAAJSB morriss_j_Page_131thm.jpg
9efec25c765050e591765928a5891e64
f71c173c06e33d0c490ec193e0145aaf2bc73060
F20110319_AAAJRO morriss_j_Page_025.tif
39545d12b11dedb47ba8a04e9bc299a3
6a9daa11becc5f87cf11dfdbce0890e3982d729c
67259 F20110319_AAAJQZ morriss_j_Page_029.jp2
5b122c4024d8bb19d04fd0562b2c6fd8
ec35406945fb12e3f7b519951c09a1dd139e2fc9
106 F20110319_AAAJSC morriss_j_Page_120.txt
8564e5243be8f5b5ac2d9dfe60a540e0
168bec20cc5d1fb227dc7c41b8b627436edb3144
6068 F20110319_AAAJRP morriss_j_Page_014thm.jpg
f0513feebe1cf076d5e2effde43d3720
769886cf4b59439ff59ea677d030b70a8dfd7327
23055 F20110319_AAAJSD morriss_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
2e9ff72e409037b6e353d45c4bb596b6
2b8711717fdd639fb4f712f44ae68176e4a0cbf2
6308 F20110319_AAAJRQ morriss_j_Page_050thm.jpg
7cc04afb4d616723b4db043233fcc31b
5dcb7b5e193829e4094570101a533f56224abfd6
F20110319_AAAJSE morriss_j_Page_082.tif
9237a25f77935172c73314d5ae543f38
482922d50c35bd5e9f4336d62656e929b4d9d7a8
26228 F20110319_AAAJRR morriss_j_Page_076.pro
3cbe5d4f4b0f5f730dfa23cae71b91d0
789178bdda62a1e5c7d3c8e20d79dbf1f6d0c577
119 F20110319_AAAJSF morriss_j_Page_002.txt
0fba3c67e0dd87ed1ca0e15160af6628
97bde77c52b9605b8c65652c3712c58a6d3c4c2f
79849 F20110319_AAAJRS morriss_j_Page_075.jpg
b1944a1a29091923ffabedaf5d0e1e8f
b39fd898e05fb827e8c58a1ebbdce499a1d21263
F20110319_AAAJSG morriss_j_Page_030.tif
a6dd9fb7beecbaf7cc3072a457ef3b23
bfe4430700fe2f0a6ee2925ef1376792afebab22
25537 F20110319_AAAJRT morriss_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
e63bfe9d8fdb9e02c6aacd6916dfde58
0e2c3eaf9e80f7004103fc38bf764692b311e1ee
80869 F20110319_AAAJSH morriss_j_Page_097.jpg
498ccf9c6186a759a39d0815e0d433ce
5f7dd97b782aac0a9a906482d96993ba9ba2eb77
1051963 F20110319_AAAJRU morriss_j_Page_067.jp2
c2251625f1db5ea1197669252043fe6d
67fd9cf5f1e6f9ede7014f22a1141fa4cb31e434
16342 F20110319_AAAJSI morriss_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
de26c5e07ba695b578db5f9128a3871c
27221f072c3bdf858b15494367bba50c17c33624
62164 F20110319_AAAJRV morriss_j_Page_132.jpg
3bd2ebe7a06bfd9ee8db6c1e31bcd242
f31bc9f1d588a19e1b5d317c1a674ef313c9fbec
25436 F20110319_AAAJSJ morriss_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
ed669efcaebaf7ff7168a94357e7be54
fd64ae21aca20a23ff05291683425020e385fa43
1051970 F20110319_AAAJRW morriss_j_Page_081.jp2
b1499bd8e2334daeb896a9367006f46d
162f3876bca48b3065b7b33ea159ea34eb543bde
431568 F20110319_AAAJSK morriss_j_Page_123.jp2
f70145f608ea60a7283209a7bdd92332
214e43626c05b734eefd5d3171244cc3e9d6f798
25265604 F20110319_AAAJRX morriss_j_Page_129.tif
3f67ea9cb9f5a4169f66421eb2456b1c
6a678aa32d8a0cb2c36a8b253dbd6626132199bb
F20110319_AAAJSL morriss_j_Page_076.tif
46ea1c53438279067607d4907680a7a2
7b0a6658eba85a97ac3e5ac38ebf324b3011077a
29399 F20110319_AAAJTA morriss_j_Page_053.jpg
9ab976164feeb3a67163467b622a293a
fd91f33383cf41560a30c6e931c36f86f640501e
25890 F20110319_AAAJSM morriss_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
29527b5e1c58dba8efc6542c2b542957
e5ece9afa84c1cec7fa14a9af7266397002339bd
105285 F20110319_AAAJRY morriss_j_Page_023.jp2
9c42f59fad1d4f179de74ecb1bee8fc3
fa6929ee8acdacb9e8a0769ddc43d6c5a95446ee
41415 F20110319_AAAJTB morriss_j_Page_039.pro
b9224e6f6575cfa42868d5ba2669846c
3b0b76227c63ba2e5c67a6eef44fd3a800fc422d
26414 F20110319_AAAJSN morriss_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
34e9db021cf1451ec28ae378c3fe41ce
ef95075a4bd4cbfd755b8e5b189c6cf88d25636d
2735 F20110319_AAAJRZ morriss_j_Page_050.txt
10ee1e7de2c375879f8df9db6ab5fd66
bed8ecb0aa29278c30b56d9ca16f8070f13ead41
F20110319_AAAJTC morriss_j_Page_019.tif
c364b6e6bcb3a7d6155d9f1f17c141f0
23c120d233eeb0d29083c894b2eaf9ab9cd93dc7
F20110319_AAAJSO morriss_j_Page_096.tif
0f5531db1fdf262d8d75bcb7cbc8c107
7fb2445ef9476998c9aff198d4099177844005c9
1051985 F20110319_AAAJTD morriss_j_Page_113.jp2
3ea04851f9bf038493cc55f1fde91e90
30a2a126c627bad7e7b7bfba52ce00e33e7506be
6106 F20110319_AAAJSP morriss_j_Page_090thm.jpg
ecde5d884e999b37047923d9d1115e3b
ed6f99af26bca7266feb6c1918ccb0190709db43
19519 F20110319_AAAJTE morriss_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
e9d6b5391678ec18e10699ed495859b1
5c8011789f41fbcb5c766d6dcfb7b2d1ff5f589b
F20110319_AAAJSQ morriss_j_Page_122.tif
827f288c8a7dfe097129804a58ab24c3
126953a3f28ee09cd7f451492acba9f430d17cc1
106920 F20110319_AAAJTF morriss_j_Page_020.jp2
a5850a2f48d413fc64796e99e2c0ae6c
1439cfb0e63e95bb2da83f2874f8953c82b444f7
6164 F20110319_AAAJSR morriss_j_Page_092thm.jpg
1a107dfe4bcc1eafad083686a2bbd4b1
4478706bdcd1da6c987a011c60091f51e4411017
43240 F20110319_AAAJTG morriss_j_Page_034.jpg
4be2402411220251d629eaf3529b6baa
197d8d0941da34482741adeb91fb522fec691a49
448877 F20110319_AAAJSS morriss_j_Page_101.jp2
ffd6d355c60b55057f8b90fe9b3979c8
566911a4c87748825aae4f8aaef82bc63604039f
28401 F20110319_AAAJTH morriss_j_Page_123.jpg
8ef03f7e4f1ae4a67a2206bd11786a48
d10d19622dc87d24760e41622f66281b01358144
1973 F20110319_AAAJST morriss_j_Page_066.txt
70a5071f2f17fd32a0af765b1463c61f
c6cf8d59fbeae5eacf38fb0c3f681534b7e0620e
25500 F20110319_AAAJTI morriss_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
c5c4d9244f31360b3fd467999e8d57b2
cfe8f101e2ab8f3b407891f2224b929b1b9f9a46
80894 F20110319_AAAJSU morriss_j_Page_023.jpg
1e5c83b31522db7049e1018bc8dfe85b
eafa56aa1b55bf960dc28de4f75d5f33cc0c91b7
591581 F20110319_AAAJTJ morriss_j_Page_124.jp2
90fae672af294d2016eeb79e6de22dc7
50d66ea4819ba8d7997fcd3b0f71b85468914dce
F20110319_AAAJSV morriss_j_Page_105.tif
003902d6e9132a0b413024e07d0009e9
703c69d3b626c5996259a5c67e11209b4a5dcca5
100934 F20110319_AAAJTK morriss_j_Page_058.jp2
427d4b6e342115fa5b385a62b30759bc
d162440c3c96e0dc160db9a1e5202e52a8230a45
1037133 F20110319_AAAJSW morriss_j_Page_047.jp2
40876f279cd75979b78f9f98dddb07f0
2aaf05af167030ace97f1478ca97a6ba3b374378
21593 F20110319_AAAJTL morriss_j_Page_008.pro
7bb296db9f8989c638bcc805a2e003de
3671770efee4e9d8208e6577d5cb6a951469b0b3
F20110319_AAAJSX morriss_j_Page_059.tif
0e0749c809e945e871d76b7b52e85bfe
8d8b1cef29477ace9749b8f7f620f0d1ddd7a861
48056 F20110319_AAAJUA morriss_j_Page_018.pro
2444158cb4ac7a345022fba81b76cda4
b7ffe39ded285f56f88ebcc68181b9b11b152b8e
14238 F20110319_AAAJTM morriss_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
3dd2ac8d4898aa50069fbd4bc27f1284
f65c0d715492f3cc0d8e6333561a7d596636386e
F20110319_AAAJSY morriss_j_Page_131.tif
ed95fedfacb28a8775a403d1dcaaec17
fe4ec798b6ccadbe3d94db4fc33cadf417649015
46498 F20110319_AAAJUB morriss_j_Page_068.pro
c09320b8d2b3d39a454ae18b9b3d5528
e181b80d8475e1521a8a2ecea6bef3dc18471a39
F20110319_AAAJTN morriss_j_Page_060.tif
a9fb7ed91f27f7562c921e0ec6e8d892
2befe73741b1877d50e3b040ada81eb4aadf3f9b
F20110319_AAAJUC morriss_j_Page_055.tif
891a387aa10937af36b80ec68d66c102
e2053a3b49208131bafc7b24b2a2e4f9568af88f
11650 F20110319_AAAJTO morriss_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
c9e8009ef22a7ebc1f8480d824652a4f
15369cc635a46fdac130991474ad41dcdbca473a
5076 F20110319_AAAJSZ morriss_j_Page_133thm.jpg
cec733472ab755d0fdf86852324edcf8
6d8c1a94214d785cb168edfc06550b6c4f845d2d
11283 F20110319_AAAJUD morriss_j_Page_134.pro
a48900fc7f0653baecc8cbe2a8bc06a7
ff3776a83db45742d43232ad73e1d23c13070c79
76920 F20110319_AAAJTP morriss_j_Page_090.jpg
5be76f16760248d31758282c93c7bba0
f4afcc6b31a62342dfabc22d2cc9949532b09de3
28288 F20110319_AAAJUE morriss_j_Page_078.pro
aa7049001ae12a310cdaaf7b6698b90a
fb11c371414378a9d2310ac8363dbec047de8457
99441 F20110319_AAAJTQ morriss_j_Page_133.jp2
dc17055eff46b61c92aa0980065856fe
1d85d00618673759e54dee5eaae946440bfb4d62
13407 F20110319_AAAJUF morriss_j_Page_003.jpg
1e195931b1809b75d6a55f9a58e6335d
37c7b7f56fce4da20f348e3d96484fd2b27f7cb5
37489 F20110319_AAAJTR morriss_j_Page_007.jpg
972ab2c039241b19a149929721786062
57e1ab76d5a4126c28708cab0eea54f96f3bdb61
62834 F20110319_AAAKAA morriss_j_Page_119.jp2
50bd949919e0e61065bf098686d8cd72
866aa95a095462b35d67233e9d8f29b0e6d0b67a
60009 F20110319_AAAJUG morriss_j_Page_130.pro
f3e6c8f4c2b10cdd44916fc9fbb65c02
67bbe15be28d2f3c476a23ac880de51939766369
1727 F20110319_AAAJTS morriss_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
0bec7511be101b81e3ce9d4e1f7905e4
b4d5844a26dacafeab1432adcff151b35c5df480
25122 F20110319_AAAKAB morriss_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
c5aac6ba9d5f512620a379ea5752339b
dc91e69e11fea0d9d27dbe83f50157ec283156b5
3511 F20110319_AAAJUH morriss_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
2193b9f597409c8161de862e6d8c8c1b
4141455b178572e83f9e74e34cff13ef8240342a
69794 F20110319_AAAJTT morriss_j_Page_039.jpg
100b54058a19bae74ed3954fa4a655b8
fb5a731e93a811168efecdb739fd54b004af674b
F20110319_AAAKAC morriss_j_Page_103.tif
27466d060e8db35509b07f578f2c6526
51befd3633ae6aa955018c2394f66e549a6b89f4
25206 F20110319_AAAJTU morriss_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
b089272b3f2718913e88c2524b4297bc
5a1a7b35ff4a8020bb5dd624dbac1c194fc772b7
47498 F20110319_AAAKAD morriss_j_Page_040.pro
d03003d217459751bbfe98e3c759a3fe
2c067e0e812b0789ae73d8adc559edddb95b6539
43171 F20110319_AAAJUI morriss_j_Page_077.pro
a2a6f1364fc6a8fd2d844e0c44309587
8950f04d196bda5aa6996383f8bfbb07c700d0d3
12868 F20110319_AAAJTV morriss_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
67aedc525af48a2944ec9adfd2c89a80
6ecb701027d1fdfca3f9e0f0c2f8f9f6e40758d5
86468 F20110319_AAAKAE morriss_j_Page_026.jpg
da77561bf22abbe50348ca10f2e5562a
55c75cf492d5fe2d08c022c3ede47716e4d678fd
84675 F20110319_AAAJUJ morriss_j_Page_094.jpg
2580b89d9bece4987594c6463aacf74c
963bb57fed394634a639c22a3ad2b8c673f3dff5
5931 F20110319_AAAJTW morriss_j_Page_058thm.jpg
9c66101b6c7d2dcc2a09fa84d0b8383b
ea9453920baa180bdbe0b887d232e44c948956a0
102605 F20110319_AAAKAF morriss_j_Page_062.jp2
af6758dd6f9ddba8800f1c3c69533563
834465e0e312b07cd15943b64f98b7095a96c266
F20110319_AAAJUK morriss_j_Page_090.tif
4a776cecc706d6b126dd308d29fc79bf
a34c37de4547488315bc8a860ee7282d84d1a602
50176 F20110319_AAAJTX morriss_j_Page_100.jpg
b32567d9f24a445e14ab9b1739c43a0a
beb069da14e2a9638b97c28c5a3069292ad7066d
F20110319_AAAJUL morriss_j_Page_119.tif
459c9ebb3b79332f7adfa6b6c29b242b
c6e552402e86322d097bd35f61463bf863ccd476
F20110319_AAAJTY morriss_j_Page_058.tif
c4ed0f93c60da314f39f8e946226aca6
d0a7c0140b7e3e50cd83eecfd9d94adec50e80c3
21709 F20110319_AAAKAG morriss_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
dbb853d4e37a6d580c737eb80bb64205
230d82d9e95ce44b7bb5b478d0543f22ee1ecaa8
6999 F20110319_AAAJVA morriss_j_Page_067thm.jpg
ec6de284d894f2217e26b8fe695990c4
7b738ca2a1645c104b305a1ff768804363ac4f99
858795 F20110319_AAAJUM morriss_j_Page_130.jp2
334e47af7ff96670775e26fcf66f6db7
8c0e574dc872c6f3b1171d825a30fb255b87f423
1785 F20110319_AAAJTZ morriss_j_Page_120.pro
f17367ac35c002ce9274f4a7ecfefaf7
9d3cbadafdceebb177a7d7ca796052eb868076db
6454 F20110319_AAAKAH morriss_j_Page_003.pro
52e5440d7e369a7b4a426967ff830e3e
a18db259d70426e9d497e5c2bb6e8f0b11a73da3
43513 F20110319_AAAJVB morriss_j_Page_126.jpg
2a91cfe7c4a8066ba6bf3b4a0821b21f
123828f8d22afed2ed3d6b30689be10f845a7041
5494 F20110319_AAAJUN morriss_j_Page_107thm.jpg
278b51f93ee213a84ab6f12236240030
3d045d02b398a1651832c5835f90064ee9d00e2b
58941 F20110319_AAAKAI morriss_j_Page_021.pro
157703fe29fc8cc5235d910e75038807
f2b738fbe6fe218a740ee31da9fdb0f6b3e31d62
2712 F20110319_AAAJVC morriss_j_Page_123thm.jpg
1e31a809f0ced0ca5b409d56e01f10fd
bd598693ea62e94e667a235e0fee4aa66988d0e5
F20110319_AAAJUO morriss_j_Page_094.tif
32d0f0632f913ad4c20eb781c3eedd7e
ae0a7c4b2e77f1130ff701290b809b3b3a7eba6e
3079 F20110319_AAAKAJ morriss_j_Page_111thm.jpg
e36038d67f9c504b507623b04b135a7f
08fc1a5e6aeef9fc04cc5a4d579fde029e806757
763787 F20110319_AAAJVD morriss_j_Page_050.jp2
3bfaef21afd42473b9e39c4d3e31f1fd
f69c108b14c2795d80fd810c91be3821e8584c91
8423998 F20110319_AAAJUP morriss_j_Page_116.tif
5deb00d0f3cd909fb9865ad0d7d115fb
d758479c889030b4f4018c0d354881722de9230f
81128 F20110319_AAAKAK morriss_j_Page_066.jpg
cd6420c2474dbc9501f1735a32fe8e3e
e04fc8422d5f8ea89491450fa0d8d81211481fa8
22715 F20110319_AAAJVE morriss_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
fa66a072c5ab65f653e969a2243b4d1f
3c01209d38d7c6ddca9d8079bbe048e56ed2ee9f
967 F20110319_AAAJUQ morriss_j_Page_084.txt
22e0adcea4e2f11b3cf7e1ca0a2cfc41
bb0ec280625397ea79a3feefba77847d0db45840
1306 F20110319_AAAKBA morriss_j_Page_002.pro
5db810bdc3e986fab3f9ec56e92561f2
cf929e61fe1a6cfd9e4073368b58ef53cf35161e
1183 F20110319_AAAKAL morriss_j_Page_029.txt
2dce64c191913afeb495f88db6eebc0a
e942218d4eae75c48edebb09ea930088585b35fb
26949 F20110319_AAAJVF morriss_j_Page_042.pro
0b3295cd4f6239073f3f59a25cae6655
96767b6cc04243030587255359b1906b796312f1
70812 F20110319_AAAJUR morriss_j_Page_082.jpg
893890fb4b0034f339c52b6b4694bb01
0aec8ab299afb7214ced260430842f5abd42ee20
75701 F20110319_AAAKBB morriss_j_Page_057.jpg
9b89036eece38eac63d98bfc1e95c50b
ac3b2ff36b31a9a7269718e3e36f3feac0dbdf06
F20110319_AAAKAM morriss_j_Page_117.tif
0ac75c86e3e2ef344a6d10cc83b3a987
c867f64a0cedd159464830a453442451d30414d4
28548 F20110319_AAAJVG morriss_j_Page_134.jp2
ee0358a8bfb9f21e55ce28f0bb0f9034
d1c4c5cc98ae8df7369f0ba70e86ef62a5961abd
F20110319_AAAJUS morriss_j_Page_085.tif
c7fdf5f05f120af7ffe4939229b946eb
daa6e1831ddd06b3981815b416b02cfd0e2228ab
37615 F20110319_AAAKBC morriss_j_Page_012.pro
9927d31121a1cf014a4e1f79d82fc64b
73797d2eaf705f51f3f6471f394a34c0abb71949
F20110319_AAAKAN morriss_j_Page_032.tif
8239b393db52e0c1348f6bf0731d2e9b
77027eb2f91aeea619157ff7d2e7fa860b32ab46
26089 F20110319_AAAJVH morriss_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
f7d0ba395bf2552946904a670ed5d11b
3e45deadc1ff2f5831d8ea87d1ccb37155b7b2dd
19452 F20110319_AAAJUT morriss_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
6b60e1c7828b4b38fbbe0fdb193d03da
d35adf84b946fc6f87840ea01cabe4bf782d69a8
1051965 F20110319_AAAKBD morriss_j_Page_079.jp2
8c263150e3db712c4550ca2f242a467f
b925d70bb23de4d199674fa96a827ec20925dcac
24579 F20110319_AAAKAO morriss_j_Page_116.jpg
96fd4245a434265facc64fd59ea73f6c
95e29f0f39b2c4bc0cae4a0a1430680a6c083d29
F20110319_AAAJVI morriss_j_Page_112.tif
fc42abc89d9ed3f965107210097eb5ae
41af18328e0afd3afea8a6c7bbb4ce331e95c05b
6281 F20110319_AAAJUU morriss_j_Page_075thm.jpg
690a46dff08e3c4ccfc31b90e7853364
78544d26f07606469bf4a1195fdbd337bd7a080f
1259 F20110319_AAAKBE morriss_j_Page_057.txt
7b381e44d4ba462a9f776be3afc3c05c
418f7c7685487a657cb5aafec98211d2342c5eb8
47429 F20110319_AAAKAP morriss_j_Page_085.pro
f6b9968448300d203ac43ad063d0f430
735c0e2bc7ff9660a293133c564d4c70531122ed
74850 F20110319_AAAJVJ morriss_j_Page_109.pro
1bb3bd7c697e8bda1c2eae3e8078b74a
af4b674a4c6789affbfc512980d9b0492e005e28
84156 F20110319_AAAJUV morriss_j_Page_012.jp2
1e5e3daf1844e42a8beb76ddef3a33e5
66e022c9828e9622431bb10119e6af2708f495e2
F20110319_AAAKBF morriss_j_Page_009.tif
c8724eeeae8781e397a57f3db84e788d
60a39f7059cd22708ed4fcca8470124cbbb71af5
24140 F20110319_AAAKAQ morriss_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
b560075f8a80b9c5ce2b3e3c455d4b1a
57fb4a972bec954f74d393ef4b089b3c6aa77682
78099 F20110319_AAAJVK morriss_j_Page_043.jpg
be16d3c7c008dd2853604cf3d54b4e25
80becbe1a635a7d65e67fe7f35d5f69aa6f1b08c
1922 F20110319_AAAJUW morriss_j_Page_075.txt
00b7eddc6fb1fcab4d083e6b1f06fcf3
d605f7247091820c63e18a0d1f487a7c7d51b5c8
3617 F20110319_AAAKAR morriss_j_Page_102thm.jpg
5efee6224ff04495be873ed4d7c103da
c28b8f2cb0fae3e224dee26cc96e98857f6899c3
10722 F20110319_AAAJVL morriss_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
61451733e92897c6d70180a3411725e3
8be3ceab1a14b0ab9d7b0935fae9ef403659853d
5812 F20110319_AAAJUX morriss_j_Page_086thm.jpg
49a37ad290707d6c0dfdac92545c34fe
71e972656257d834863e8f5eae7e12b2cd6f13ec
6160 F20110319_AAAKBG morriss_j_Page_052thm.jpg
52aca9a0755904b8560b99ac8b606691
e288b0004f3e8e5ffb2f15c136b79d83759d9398
54367 F20110319_AAAJWA morriss_j_Page_100.pro
61e34b4fda3259a65979dd54396b0a01
b8a63c9eac8066e6cd83663069d2643dc890139e
1051884 F20110319_AAAKAS morriss_j_Page_078.jp2
6651a0280d0501c1badbd3716733dbdc
e4e1c995706eba4c2eb39a4bc68e91b537631542
4031 F20110319_AAAJVM morriss_j_Page_029thm.jpg
8586911f2ad2d728a51eb7ce1ac85436
f0355a8b555016bc94464ff11fb681fa69ab2a16
2705 F20110319_AAAJUY morriss_j_Page_126.txt
c45143b5b18acc08e557f4f3fe7180f5
8be3b6a8f1475197aa814575d4cc4b278100a003
23818 F20110319_AAAJWB morriss_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
d0f3c7ea7f05eb02d8f4c4a59444712c
a2019b14d29da6c63fe4e097ca2328583ff7bff0
43389 F20110319_AAAKAT morriss_j_Page_011.pro
77278000cee50a0fc218b51a107d5340
23baefcc772be3d57ebc7c9c5135c5e8ba5f123c
6004 F20110319_AAAJVN morriss_j_Page_020thm.jpg
d9760317bde2203a897ee3dc59fdcdaf
e415578204d734aab45d08759d2410f9fcc4f415
81166 F20110319_AAAJUZ morriss_j_Page_070.jpg
8e1ffb49c7989e9d830420ff13cf3b9c
cb07c6e0e978fc98993e3a0f699967aadb45b73a
26195 F20110319_AAAKBH morriss_j_Page_001.jp2
01122d68c10ba6b33f6d545fe99b7d5d
c10fb690c01be4c22d6b7c1c33204831de5cd1ba
21077 F20110319_AAAJWC morriss_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
f88ed5e12d3ff27b302c430969387f14
d7437994769e62c7228bcb7a96fd1f4462f900ae
1209 F20110319_AAAKAU morriss_j_Page_119.txt
6a2767a0050386d83265fd72262b8baf
45364365bf58a6d142cfde5784c4553c7dbab981
F20110319_AAAJVO morriss_j_Page_021.tif
33299d58e83ae05dee55656efdc05a27
9d6c00f9d08e76117ca99b4db92a131f291a7e4c
1146 F20110319_AAAKBI morriss_j_Page_067.txt
3d276808813f7acd23466a548f5c2cc2
5151532b8511e4bbbfe2872ecdd5d3a4cf820ea9
42361 F20110319_AAAJWD morriss_j_Page_082.pro
553ba8f6167b711c6f9c4a4f9ad83d12
fc5b91114137aae7320518342ef461b30b74a0e4
99238 F20110319_AAAKAV morriss_j_Page_086.jp2
d047a35a55e41c894ffb0d9b70047526
4e5189f470da740f19561e7b2a505f4dc88418d8
49619 F20110319_AAAJVP morriss_j_Page_013.pro
43125f1150822bc457fcdb3d9bd96d50
2c6e9f05557b468c280f931faca9313c056f4cbc
110509 F20110319_AAAKBJ morriss_j_Page_055.jp2
93e8851b0cdfc63de3fbf24ffbe899af
b24e0622028e8d6b4c2ab00e73fbfb83bf851896
F20110319_AAAJWE morriss_j_Page_113.tif
6ea3377ff334ce0a456e33b9ac08491d
4ad28b4003e491e76384fca0056c318970c787ee
F20110319_AAAKAW morriss_j_Page_083.tif
0f88b61ffd86176c757d70c95b9db894
590f64d796d8c93e7dac7138aa9b5ce12cfe81ac
6078 F20110319_AAAJVQ morriss_j_Page_085thm.jpg
8ca9ed09bb22568775ebff8e87affb39
9948e08c9744e2dfd879b4dee7ddd37cf98eb1c1
51773 F20110319_AAAKBK morriss_j_Page_094.pro
ba8313d0a516716a48198b66b2d24fa0
736b561c17d2c9b9f7b7a1b900b9b25edfed32ba
13317 F20110319_AAAJWF morriss_j_Page_004.jp2
3910b29483a1ebfa73a0b71dd367dbce
e74d3f57bc27d327cd155b197671badf29cc153c
1095 F20110319_AAAKAX morriss_j_Page_042.txt
dbee324c23651998b58dbf7d7e205720
0468a057b78838046e3481d5bda55cecf89aa805
2424 F20110319_AAAJVR morriss_j_Page_101thm.jpg
2f4f1fe5debd30517095dd50cac4c064
2318326c4d72c14cdbb78f25f7ba8d5b17fdf04f
68 F20110319_AAAKCA morriss_j_Page_112.txt
dcef40e42899df07e014c81da06ce346
d179b3d6a097969417e006fccf81676408141c84
F20110319_AAAKBL morriss_j_Page_101.tif
6f5f3edf604159f8df85ceb0b3052eb5
23c869fe336ea072ff5dfae3d01c0b1a1a10cd0a
22267 F20110319_AAAJWG morriss_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
7e630e5c58661e37c75095b6d9c79799
aed4e9c8d7192a4d77014c53608a99254827e356
5157 F20110319_AAAKAY morriss_j_Page_036thm.jpg
72ff3d9eb63844b5e4ab62310d90b46a
9064853770c3c4c2c9d8523e071476505ddc6973
7440 F20110319_AAAJVS morriss_j_Page_084thm.jpg
f49996f67c82a269b0142e35c2ecd4d6
c13de4488de851fc7aa3a46e88a546cea4ee64ea
76027 F20110319_AAAKCB morriss_j_Page_086.jpg
6621988c0670bbb1cca5c0240212d159
3ff0df2275d9c5bf2f5c1adc87662f8bfecd63a9
49636 F20110319_AAAKBM morriss_j_Page_048.pro
48dbc7141b52a3784d3c25673a7e1c9e
d40e129a44afa89f43e9962722c3e485d69709f5
3587 F20110319_AAAJWH morriss_j_Page_130thm.jpg
fd6cf734b2a23d7bc687b045bdf2f6c4
347cb3a3d52b68151436063415a73df5768ff2aa
25130 F20110319_AAAKAZ morriss_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
9dac66e200dda18d0f27b8d8fabafa0b
967db5dcddefd63cf9b4b977c32db259870a4e87
F20110319_AAAJVT morriss_j_Page_106.tif
62ef76d1a4dc64db566702dc5118ba4c
16bdc808e8d3e68fb644c6b2e27aae73bc4fdbb1
F20110319_AAAKCC morriss_j_Page_121.tif
5c3463a680497a35072e1ba1b2219f87
a6cf4468fc4ba7b6d26a180c13fe29435615aa35
75772 F20110319_AAAKBN morriss_j_Page_074.jpg
b0965d6d7e99151a9484252eb326d056
9d50e31cf8a7883e87e2798651f6304990778280
71342 F20110319_AAAJWI morriss_j_Page_017.jpg
ea67c2926770ec7acf38ba0b33b78ab4
f43908b7db207754ac94efa560f50de280c21cbc
F20110319_AAAJVU morriss_j_Page_022.tif
7d98bc4503e95f957ee4e19f0f0b3bef
f11bc098b57469c3ec134bc514b0cff53678180f
82510 F20110319_AAAKCD morriss_j_Page_025.jpg
54b50870e9ed54872f4b28f827f327ef
4887f58924414e171776dc9230dce48cd7616092
F20110319_AAAKBO morriss_j_Page_098.tif
59acb5619df0c1001fcebf38487ea8e4
b6b5aef4c163bc609fe3890edef9906e32a77a6b
24577 F20110319_AAAJWJ morriss_j_Page_073.pro
5c2303f91becd54a55327dbed19184c4
4e252bdc65fb3c0a82b15cfdafb0e0f5daeb36a2
20862 F20110319_AAAJVV morriss_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
fd1fba77108d1bbf4cb15e0e0cb7ff53
72c922c4044c6589fe3d323d0a987b9ea2f67706
95683 F20110319_AAAKCE morriss_j_Page_011.jp2
60c0db9a9851fc7d425adb85296db958
e51510cef04f86a656a25de06f4e40d56f9ae669
820535 F20110319_AAAKBP morriss_j_Page_126.jp2
c1cb327780ecdba2917f853a965bc6ee
38055565357602ec8e77f900364c9d1dda9fbce8
23754 F20110319_AAAJWK morriss_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
4d58e821b02966cbf2c6fd11ac306e07
d019a24f06d30a4e38a7c5949e1ffc2aa725de0e
65901 F20110319_AAAJVW morriss_j_Page_036.jpg
e25d4d65066a5bfd10374ebe9632edca
6e9daa623c6e5d0b05969deb509063dd14a31171
52431 F20110319_AAAKCF morriss_j_Page_033.jpg
e0e029400c67b2269e5a9416b8c2571d
52ae9b36b59d75c29113fdce7926fefb3c66a525
28100 F20110319_AAAKBQ morriss_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
2d4f6fbf76d530c03d1573fbd278935a
7eb5fc4a34a9608ad3c0f3f92ec5c9e2fbeb71da
80269 F20110319_AAAJWL morriss_j_Page_027.jpg
2fb4d19e8b1aeac71101fe96aaec3079
907270d175faba5ea8899e87d20d4559b367fa8c
5431 F20110319_AAAJVX morriss_j_Page_082thm.jpg
7b35667af9c8df8a1d2f84ae471413a2
05d7cd498323ece3b5278183f0bc213f46320cf7
1567 F20110319_AAAKCG morriss_j_Page_031.txt
36c2092f63f3f5399f3a594f27b6304f
14945b379fab5c1a4e55fc20cdc8d05a4699bc0d
107135 F20110319_AAAKBR morriss_j_Page_070.jp2
33414f48a49f29ca8ac2c68de384469d
6c92fb5d860ee08d6a68da1351cf5d6573b87a3b
1729 F20110319_AAAJWM morriss_j_Page_011.txt
a9478549b9247020bb949b97858fbbf9
4069e606f5d40f75c623806273932435306ce7d5
3085 F20110319_AAAJVY morriss_j_Page_016thm.jpg
bc3d2f6468b97633fb606a42a361f1a3
81a0d24f784e8eae98b02816f9524568bd16608d
46308 F20110319_AAAKCH morriss_j_Page_058.pro
3aaaed83eb9d8dd6f4f8eba467b9f5d6
b5bda345a9e73011f5893967e7991c96d9583d28
41527 F20110319_AAAJXA morriss_j_Page_016.jpg
c7d1ff46e1d22bd0a8bfc378faa44cb2
3986281767ad541c222f9470b9e3e0d13a6c84da
6519 F20110319_AAAKBS morriss_j_Page_042thm.jpg
73ca60eb53b22782b1af5fb1f8f63fd7
45f7beead000f365018b371eac3d52730e64b8cb
466 F20110319_AAAJWN morriss_j_Page_112thm.jpg
e3b721147387bf02ea56e426e2056565
73bd8224396d8169ae62297270b5539836580de2
F20110319_AAAJVZ morriss_j_Page_033.tif
42d9f1a67d5ebe89add2cb477cf8e9c2
80789cc8a520a8776117d253d34782a2cb440455
25401 F20110319_AAAJXB morriss_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
774c2a8d34ccd96bd3910c5362fd39ad
53d8e5950b65949ef39bbfaa2cff3b706e5d4811
75630 F20110319_AAAKBT morriss_j_Page_038.jp2
760a75708c403e76d47637b3a983ae9b
ec3456a3c6afab8ff72c45ee773f82c2d8e6da2c
1049 F20110319_AAAJWO morriss_j_Page_003thm.jpg
65a2ed9bfadefee3019af8a6b7a23e67
ffc752b92b3cb862bf77c2ec01aed026c9571a10
51400 F20110319_AAAKCI morriss_j_Page_029.jpg
723a5f0b32cd29085cc8cf5dac1a0df4
c797515fee6c082bfd586f88964aea3d13b35e9e
5037 F20110319_AAAJXC morriss_j_Page_088thm.jpg
e47d6efc7f89599451822ac78706e121
b449074d04556c1c4951397647ea85f8dad064af
23958 F20110319_AAAKBU morriss_j_Page_016.pro
a14b506f52041d65fd99ca3049e35fa0
90147c594ecdcf8128e1081b4a82f873bfb18164
F20110319_AAAJWP morriss_j_Page_010.tif
784cfaa7cb1ba166374f21e44a433acc
76660ae28c152776213228fd8a582dd93f677210
F20110319_AAAKCJ morriss_j_Page_023.tif
8b306dcbf39de5dee01192ecb33258d2
24400af5803603eb912c20b01fb615d3b784318a
1895 F20110319_AAAJXD morriss_j_Page_122.txt
319d29455066dfe7a739f08d91de9d79
e2d3c98c1ff5ae06ae21a01c8e603341cc46c47e
16362 F20110319_AAAKBV morriss_j_Page_003.jp2
91a4c22321097a1cce987ea32d846966
cd9e32adb9d443568c8fd0ab5f9e37365470fafe
7775 F20110319_AAAJWQ morriss_j_Page_120.jp2
4aa9afc84ba7533569ad4b55a758dd35
dee4f26b57c4abffbaad8278a0ec31da7e439add
26676 F20110319_AAAKCK morriss_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
74088339736f20962c260a18234cb884
62ea7c2054ce57b7d6caa1f2c258328a43dbb166
41197 F20110319_AAAJXE morriss_j_Page_015.pro
78fa8f09323cd67d2a798c9dcce7d298
5fb6a873963ca2eef465512bb885a7f7bd1bb436
289203 F20110319_AAAKBW morriss_j_Page_116.jp2
bab939234d289a98cf2e084d4921185b
cb2307cc47c8eeb5130a465d9f9bde095651e661
F20110319_AAAJWR morriss_j_Page_072.tif
fa71ec5ff6cdc671c2b69f56ef495034
15dff5da6698fd259584f7ac1b54770fa467e5db
F20110319_AAAKDA morriss_j_Page_017.tif
4b593eed8156226ebe76dca62aca2c3d
01b0a0f7b71de39a6860382036016a36c0bc2116
F20110319_AAAKCL morriss_j_Page_034.tif
167f5876e559cbf6060d44321763f691
c45e0d8532fc197752ddf2610690805f57a0aed9
31606 F20110319_AAAJXF morriss_j_Page_032.pro
4615fa9848a5508b6cad16f2720b1c19
abed3c8060a0f20d0fb8a074256ce854025cfe7b
50067 F20110319_AAAKBX morriss_j_Page_126.pro
16e475ce97cc7cc8324239400a32542f
046aff8859e476d6bc63fcec014710402e918c78
F20110319_AAAJWS morriss_j_Page_108.tif
54690f7842f0ff3741a67d39592f6d38
667949a4910c6af91825d05d6cd154b273c7199c
26613 F20110319_AAAKDB morriss_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
76b05662b3bf198f14e87aab64101179
c0d305cd665711778e16cf2af4cc16f3e7054809
F20110319_AAAKCM morriss_j_Page_056.tif
088129a8af737f7aaf6155fe03d8714a
21cecbe6b0570e4aa42901f7d67955d2dff933df
4136 F20110319_AAAJXG morriss_j_Page_132thm.jpg
64eb4b24d012db3fef2407d463dacb5f
882f939ac27ea9a7c4808b9e2cf5d2dc14c77633
4775 F20110319_AAAKBY morriss_j_Page_012thm.jpg
63b0009fd8837218c4a26966f06f5210
57761fe727ce3d6fd1213417b35d22802213253b
7458 F20110319_AAAJWT morriss_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
01ee7f32de5431d268a45512f623a680
31ea1c7cc7de915c6e5fbc70c0bbc61e1a462161
1052 F20110319_AAAJAA morriss_j_Page_101.txt
fd983f022d80ffdeefde9a545cbd68cd
8c4118611448246d05439b5780f2571e91e05e1b
50535 F20110319_AAAKDC morriss_j_Page_052.pro
7a6926ca5510493043c1bc995d761629
650a895067bd386ae3b4b1c50abf70504c3f8347
1637 F20110319_AAAKCN morriss_j_Page_036.txt
5ba48a2550054c537488dc71e2a758fe
c6f3a1fa85bf344aeac433f987646c08f722f3eb
1869 F20110319_AAAJXH morriss_j_Page_022.txt
bc1aec73784b248038629d935454a3f9
2a455aab3dc6dc5178c0ab5f6068679517a12b05
F20110319_AAAKBZ morriss_j_Page_066.tif
af313c1d1de0fd8062f206702171fce5
3dea89b7788bbecf1ae5190e203097ea297c24a0
1962 F20110319_AAAJWU morriss_j_Page_041.txt
1bf9651105dbf116206be08ef1fbcbab
be8e3dcd4f7cdb7e5952c39b3ab8082cb50a9c01
F20110319_AAAJAB morriss_j_Page_088.tif
613d10fb4b126f2b0fa0b288bd3e2467
b7270c3a349e8210e46936d060fbfd4f57506dfc
87777 F20110319_AAAKDD morriss_j_Page_049.jpg
1b799ead8890d74a9789377b7bbd8989
fd4ab338e3447d62773750f880a411c134538360
3787 F20110319_AAAKCO morriss_j_Page_034thm.jpg
784f47143e14de25870bc25ee0a989df
8a7d1c1d446db0c8f26b06207faf96fd7a2b26bf
6345 F20110319_AAAJXI morriss_j_Page_094thm.jpg
2097782aeffebf75acf5404e4d96d75b
799d5b35811183eec03bafb57104832520bbfb55
5230 F20110319_AAAJWV morriss_j_Page_039thm.jpg
77ffa315ac577b29cb505cf0612b6c8f
c009f037a28e448e6da9e97dc4e8fed9d961b458
47961 F20110319_AAAJAC morriss_j_Page_020.pro
8b7f77b4f51924f9df8937ea50ab4d64
500b01105285505f934726572d3db8e9af2d2cbc
F20110319_AAAKDE morriss_j_Page_051.tif
d87e6297a982b89cab42bbe7c15b3194
22601e2a2ca29b21cf7e84529483a209ac2f78d7
57756 F20110319_AAAKCP morriss_j_Page_110.jpg
19994bbe85397388b6d51ab2c9275229
c152d15bdbbaea3d228f731656a4b85bf9147cc9
28369 F20110319_AAAJXJ morriss_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
15eace4d994464778605233b5b202205
6800922eb4f09062102798af2cdd684f8914e3ed
1478 F20110319_AAAJWW morriss_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
de2aaee6fc69a6ac092b38df9deb8e40
c3048fa38e48ebcbebad3eee3659a3c931eec5b8
21832 F20110319_AAAJAD morriss_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
1650ed09ed505ef7d783d7f5b0854cb4
2985dd68076df3d2ec1ccc3ef6f9e8c5a7f50dda
1051979 F20110319_AAAKDF morriss_j_Page_045.jp2
8fc5f05d6e5fd5310735a0a53ed96b37
e8510f52e897f028894735581af3811aa7a0a186
4218 F20110319_AAAKCQ morriss_j_Page_004.pro
0c63a7bf699d0c9b61be7d1d0ed2bbcc
7b7ac9cefd21123ffc78205db401bf0e188dcec6
75962 F20110319_AAAJXK morriss_j_Page_133.jpg
929cfeadd9fc5e6573a51dc580191fa9
62a15a798b3edc0cdaaf3c22a93bd603be06a7d2
47910 F20110319_AAAJWX morriss_j_Page_056.pro
5dbc452a2173241918402ae0372a8e99
b44c60d054ca87dff765a47c9b6afa958b9a2fe7
6911 F20110319_AAAJAE morriss_j_Page_057thm.jpg
fc396ff15c0790ca0a71668911ae170c
3e2442b7eb4dc7d77732b48becf40552fdc69bba
1925 F20110319_AAAKDG morriss_j_Page_046.txt
563b4b95a25a53b31f20ada22d2d547c
2537c503e2ac80f85894663e29a6e62ea5a69a6f
1487 F20110319_AAAKCR morriss_j_Page_035.txt
9622532d647bad7df98dc7897207cc0b
79b1511ef5d575522fca371c60fef3023f9ce4bc
337 F20110319_AAAJXL morriss_j_Page_107.txt
fefd7937bbe0f9e47949de2a17025610
b0aec3a1026811305130e140355bc681a830501c
6029 F20110319_AAAJWY morriss_j_Page_089thm.jpg
65e9a86b176be04e85240a5f3ebde32f
0d3575ef251ef92a5f9f9941dae64c3e49d5d931
F20110319_AAAJAF morriss_j_Page_097.tif
d9ca23ede1107b72c5bf47171d429f99
0d9a5a96969378d80cc32084a822021e01912c3d
6151 F20110319_AAAKDH morriss_j_Page_043thm.jpg
5162e59a0ad26ab4d04606926a8b9531
a109fc133abadbbb30cba12c2ff4c25e231986a2
6411 F20110319_AAAJYA morriss_j_Page_091thm.jpg
9005f5f4d3bcfa5e6682d34889bbdcf0
beea8938c05d67f8ce67377f6002df6776ac20a8
4265 F20110319_AAAKCS morriss_j_Page_121thm.jpg
13fc879ad36d989d80d4fd2e42959b0c
e28c4e2df92dddd1180aa11748ba62a7d1d8924f
21849 F20110319_AAAJXM morriss_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
a31345358d1e615129eda55b1d647149
65ef2872df95223c6ddf4becd28c30b45cd132e5
71734 F20110319_AAAJWZ morriss_j_Page_037.jpg
88140ecac517ea75c6d7125db4783116
9499ef574475c1675840269fdf2076c03d6758d6
39858 F20110319_AAAJAG morriss_j_Page_088.pro
2215833a5140e83f1b373b3fd1808166
1f7ae668cbdd7b3d8885aa32555dcc53c72167a9
82117 F20110319_AAAKDI morriss_j_Page_020.jpg
c884c0a2f2e321efe7d43f0e9b33df55
244231c5a4404471da3fef6748b771733fa2146e
44984 F20110319_AAAJYB morriss_j_Page_133.pro
f9a09acb10537ffb49e4492a4fe3372a
2e50eed5582d5ea1fc99b93a3d208b8d04b93a1a
163 F20110319_AAAKCT morriss_j_Page_105.txt
97d019e979385d2f61b4d36fc48e10b5
627b2e7caff732fe66f55954635a3772db4f5395
5595 F20110319_AAAJXN morriss_j_Page_077thm.jpg
979a959684792e2c5fae141e857a0377
d14aa2c11b46d8d7411badacb199e64cb885d13f
75906 F20110319_AAAJYC morriss_j_Page_058.jpg
b5daede37162a209821672b1893e0502
6877804c1bfdd61cd44f7fc00b25744a99ac1f4c
35691 F20110319_AAAKCU morriss_j_Page_031.pro
7c85e2174dce91e7fc508ff87b240f0c
bedf23e993d734034162abacd52b0b614253434a
26415 F20110319_AAAJXO morriss_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
1ec31c753a1ee9ba84b28a26763c4678
b63d40af404c568d8ea89a5979755c0c15f12bb1
F20110319_AAAJAH morriss_j_Page_073.tif
34381c6357a2b751bcc9ee8f6d58861d
6b4385bdda0561cb7db844fe53a5e397e2be8743
1878 F20110319_AAAKDJ morriss_j_Page_085.txt
508a47b37dd5988ef5ff023e800dba62
1fe536b147a3f437e347bcbbc49ff809e3321503
F20110319_AAAJYD morriss_j_Page_086.tif
50fdc5edf462e2453affd641b15afd65
924e1d2750307169722653ff5effe627db250d46
15421 F20110319_AAAKCV morriss_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
2143eb87289b65ae588efd8d86acd4c1
e8ae8db102791676f25e04f74f2831525471b81c
F20110319_AAAJXP morriss_j_Page_049.tif
7582bbcf8784c2a5db3c6310d33d2f1e
e8f05bc4af6d51b2ac529edb337dc8ad83c9b316
23638 F20110319_AAAJAI morriss_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
a05f9abf3992db390b871094defdd199
ea406ae0b2c3a49a171fb71f88246fa137ad8b38
896 F20110319_AAAKDK morriss_j_Page_008.txt
b96a6ca5ef6474bd2778f6d8d61c7eb0
19e6ea755d110d1ab52171c0fcd1faca5cf43a6c
27125 F20110319_AAAJYE morriss_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
fd36defe644bcbb2daa62b40bdcb4f91
05d0932476bdbf5343637bccfb59f207c26fae58
101006 F20110319_AAAKCW morriss_j_Page_061.jp2
140a319d219ed52d90abef8dfce00c0b
fa127c4c2c726cf2f64bac197229a36f628b6629
65944 F20110319_AAAJXQ morriss_j_Page_031.jpg
5f0ff8005862fe3e17a37be1efde7b73
25cd02bda7dbeb20276385de9ec90878654fce3d
39879 F20110319_AAAKEA morriss_j_Page_054.pro
42017cdb0cce5b7e1f74e8b0d21beb85
4b2bc0c13b37f9a01994a7e83f90822fdda02a96
94970 F20110319_AAAJAJ morriss_j_Page_021.jpg
456b6241a684613b088eba561e1f36c1
012dc60d181722c01a35777a2580757ab7748ac3
F20110319_AAAKDL morriss_j_Page_035.tif
5eb6901ef89a5ae275a6018c8cf4b7a0
1005217c46f9cd64f3e56769c8201b228582700a
24354 F20110319_AAAJYF morriss_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
eb6a95e30f3bbb5f428b5cf5b01ecb70
37f798db4e38bc94edb8903bad95849319777630
6319 F20110319_AAAKCX morriss_j_Page_021thm.jpg
7587bb1c39cb0f7fe0a0a11d52d1b753
d1780b5c225c35e5233388fa9e928b5f7561297b
840 F20110319_AAAJXR morriss_j_Page_098.txt
f320874307ddd1d571b13641081b7419
a2dd75dd461a2f49ef859d895ac67636e74a1ed7
21937 F20110319_AAAKEB morriss_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
d08b819cf33e426f0408f2561d31edc9
62336616ad80cb3d4e63a8cb2f9c09613d3481a3
114891 F20110319_AAAJAK morriss_j_Page_095.jp2
cf6f2ac32edc0296e02d6e735649f60a
0098d30fd49781e6d17c4213fd37f8dd760254a9
1051951 F20110319_AAAKDM morriss_j_Page_037.jp2
1d8c6ceb526c24613d80fee2a9db3ec2
619f6719fcbef7dac9077c1c42f9f9a42de03395
21736 F20110319_AAAJYG morriss_j_Page_131.pro
534fa23a47379904a94f4dbb7277554d
cb8ad7b820cb1f45131a395f43bd9431b554bfad
3221 F20110319_AAAKCY morriss_j_Page_129thm.jpg
73ec2613a066255cd18a073a310bfaa3
e3145db247140bbf1578c3963ee92c35ad57b7b1
5567 F20110319_AAAJXS morriss_j_Page_037thm.jpg
201533bc00b8efc36ae53f92b9e23183
b5b093d1b985697ab3ce0c3afd7e2e163cbb8427
82880 F20110319_AAAKEC morriss_j_Page_018.jpg
70e5d95ae8ae8fe71e90678c3472a99a
46953c69ad94fd18f3b3511309d93a0cab4aab00
106057 F20110319_AAAJAL morriss_j_Page_024.jp2
aa8f8007cc6c6a1700623b852ad9559d
32b489d7a082ec7d5a5ad27ea4a3b27a00855e3a
53011 F20110319_AAAKDN morriss_j_Page_087.pro
1c420590ceb402f106d49e7be978d536
b42a056c172ad3a06f12eba18afd9422b3f9e0ee
3048 F20110319_AAAJYH morriss_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
a5c02f641b475ab8a58f994b8aa69fbf
943dabea8749c7571b10e5a1eec4ee230ca421bf
F20110319_AAAKCZ morriss_j_Page_128.tif
eaba45f0d600ccd2f57e88a8ddb67a3c
23d97aec6ae180654c7f5a5227fafbe79dd03117
105087 F20110319_AAAJXT morriss_j_Page_028.jp2
c7b637e21a56b324644011f2f84f63de
835691a9dde19ed04c0cdbd6f029779f0447b0b0
F20110319_AAAJBA morriss_j_Page_065.tif
bd0016f1a78b872af211d62055ae3291
540d3eafc7fd2d008569a27e9632f663bd9c6147
F20110319_AAAKED morriss_j_Page_074.jp2
877091922e543d955ac506480157e628
ac46f6b30c45913a3332d25b2f57a2fc62c24e12
26097 F20110319_AAAJAM morriss_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
3bd215bd790439049d46ae7ebabd7c33
d3673f2c6fb640c8d4e271e59f925f89737320a3
52565 F20110319_AAAKDO morriss_j_Page_091.pro
7e2982f5dfe7b8d745828c782819769b
18ca07ca2f73389f2d02e28b31a9bc7e94ab80bc
124614 F20110319_AAAJYI morriss_j_Page_021.jp2
29430495f014016686c64f8224fe783b
2999f4867c2c9eb7d4a659705bd8735b33918272
2675 F20110319_AAAJXU morriss_j_Page_009.txt
4e8c05f5e3260bd1fa7f4adeddd958fe
ed3f0c0eb3539e98f6fb94aab3a60ca3e6ffa7dc
5411 F20110319_AAAJBB morriss_j_Page_111.pro
e05becb4f1fb55a432f04f32c262dffa
7cc662c048dba15c6cc706101a31cdad1733c2b6
25586 F20110319_AAAKEE morriss_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
ec78fabbb9709d714cec9d745ab2ed49
8a3e93877ed303c93269158d8096b17b5f6d02b2
F20110319_AAAJAN morriss_j_Page_052.tif
56ea2e7d8101839c9ecada4d9ef3138c
1051bb6ea55f2c40770e3869dd161f1bc109f8c6
108485 F20110319_AAAKDP morriss_j_Page_093.jp2
1bfc6edf475fd07047bc703663a237ee
3b2ce0576db17bd9c16355567c2569df3a8af069
24580 F20110319_AAAJYJ morriss_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
f1e73771e45517eb82c7d8a0ce1bed49
a9fea8828366b62e288792b53eaa97c2e3c7fcd3
17237 F20110319_AAAJXV morriss_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
d22b606a348af2e0ba5dc39ded11f77d
5465448c011eaf4bef687141a2be389b7cfb9f47
25284 F20110319_AAAJBC morriss_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
4a7e71399ae1e4763f56fded89ccf497
4a6fd2302838f21237f88c1f90faefa5823437f4
33223 F20110319_AAAKEF morriss_j_Page_103.jpg
1dad1d083e68775831e249c79993bf6e
bde08c114bfcd07f0cd1cbe058ddbb7c26b94d65
F20110319_AAAJAO morriss_j_Page_107.jp2
face55afec9b35b2da1a7aa34ccac115
7c442b69e95844e5342ea24248fa10344c75e9e4
1968 F20110319_AAAKDQ morriss_j_Page_093.txt
2ca1af1dc0adc667f59f21d07557f415
2603a2c5a61fea27fde2a0c36a8f5d78e017fef0
F20110319_AAAJYK morriss_j_Page_036.tif
540a773d902168a1c5ce0b2c7cfaf7eb
3199454a87c4678ae1c03fcaadefaad3eef80458
93751 F20110319_AAAJXW morriss_j_Page_064.jp2
018702bccf3a8534cb25f91d91604ad8
f54d7f570fded5f978f7757b9fb829f4ab7094e8
49985 F20110319_AAAJBD morriss_j_Page_025.pro
3fa5c96be5a95d14fc82dcaf8c46ba09
5945d3a2b458321ebe9d0c17c0706cbf7f70cb6e
1051923 F20110319_AAAKEG morriss_j_Page_060.jp2
1f3733ee0e14781430413d5c82332923
8897617a7d1a3ca794a1673200d3c2bf9222a40e
F20110319_AAAJAP morriss_j_Page_028.tif
c344122b8d044534c1ace55338dba959
c349daa3fb5c3ed9f0b281603e5b8bd5af895219
9881 F20110319_AAAKDR morriss_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
421133245617d99778dddd71d5c9d305
0ab76a75a4d13580a67f154afb9550f285021b71
1899 F20110319_AAAJYL morriss_j_Page_014.txt
ad4c687b722479d133c1e044ac938d5a
c7f718846be6f42f9df50e875ed0898cd2cd6bde
F20110319_AAAJXX morriss_j_Page_061.tif
a19233b9503072c985381cec29327350
923a0b2de25bb8d43004b3ff7841334916b2a323
1887 F20110319_AAAJBE morriss_j_Page_133.txt
31de59c15667cf9440f5040643e5084c
7ac8d7c0f634d0a94f8567ac766350fb99f92cad
91389 F20110319_AAAKEH morriss_j_Page_006.pro
575ebdf5fa7fb4a54f8b11da4cb340e1
4efa4ad749b1902dcc586b4878eae4cfabb7a8e8
628 F20110319_AAAJAQ morriss_j_Page_116.txt
9744a3cdc49e3d3d367adf69597d777a
68ab4ecc410142e59043579a0f783c98288849c7
2005 F20110319_AAAJZA morriss_j_Page_134thm.jpg
4add4c09c7e53ca20290da735d8b3ad6
60b227d2a7b931dcc40165f4e46cc259fe7e301e
65937 F20110319_AAAKDS morriss_j_Page_107.jpg
58cbb5f375691b1be856758cf76517cc
4b4475d3aa176003eae56fd7c3dda8faf6a6e63f
1957 F20110319_AAAJYM morriss_j_Page_097.txt
9fd17cf27c56d7e3e0d066e65a654858
a3c930ff1e5ba4b798d52a473aeffc3b70d0e3b8
16010 F20110319_AAAJXY morriss_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
0431f8919cb6a3b18fa4bf8204e8b670
e8a273192e1a6b414fa95ffe17b3cf6094a9ba77
2606 F20110319_AAAJBF morriss_j_Page_100.txt
49fb99afdc918ee361e76a706b112cf0
3b3e92fec1a864f77638205d7c560b74837a4262
6834 F20110319_AAAKEI morriss_j_Page_081thm.jpg
c807b65ecc78e2fa7a4a998f3dffadc8
d3e9eea8daa727ab5744a114dbb8a7cc4b687cac
7394 F20110319_AAAJAR morriss_j_Page_106thm.jpg
b9718e04f1de48b6699c54da6d9b8eec
3d8a6fcdbf1e5cebbfe2157887a25d6797aae2cd
2237 F20110319_AAAJZB morriss_j_Page_103thm.jpg
77aafdca93a6d31c4d2e2f0f05b60529
08fb83778ef89b72290b2ccad799d5db0696bd56
51122 F20110319_AAAKDT morriss_j_Page_055.pro
a175d881d3cf1770977cfa30d32dce10
38825037fa684c85c3278001093e5f02c882a42b
F20110319_AAAJYN morriss_j_Page_054.tif
d266a6ed87835c928c5278b6d24ab6e6
805f938ccbda3847caf966519aaa345193e60807
24988 F20110319_AAAJXZ morriss_j_Page_083.pro
200e149f27638290c7a83f1a2cd41970
b160d7a7c7a0ea63d7a968c03edf94ae657d8ec2
80144 F20110319_AAAJBG morriss_j_Page_024.jpg
5af9a7571558522d23eab257e9b460ae
da3d91aecfab12f29ab70786f6903ba11d0e048f
362989 F20110319_AAAKEJ morriss_j_Page_111.jp2
212275a83778d3d963bc81879cb1ce1b
3b21d41193893d8bb98f9e6f58e5261e50a06986
6181 F20110319_AAAJAS morriss_j_Page_105thm.jpg
6cc5bffe8e87ede5932a51291eaca212
d0c401561fd140eb67eded35fda8a34d0b84b4bc
27251 F20110319_AAAJZC morriss_j_Page_074.pro
73a3e8d84b7de4c78eecf14a09849139
a87b99403de2950329bed0e5ae4f83332ee2262b
12620 F20110319_AAAKDU morriss_j_Page_115.pro
fcf35a0daed0f1ac592deb1a0f7ac78e
b8ad99a1e2a44384a043fb7ed5d7f98006e3ddd8
1569 F20110319_AAAJYO morriss_j_Page_038.txt
9eda1b29040ea2b60e4f8284e4523ab1
a99e7b4fb4d80485705446cc31193aa3dbd063aa
49734 F20110319_AAAJBH morriss_j_Page_070.pro
9a55b71d7db7fbba0403f6d8f3abab9f
59f06b1cf1678da62f202d644e1581c7d9db2f1a
89359 F20110319_AAAJZD morriss_j_Page_088.jp2
0ea3d4195aa699fc3c9e06a5d7558c53
e1b233bf08ccfbdd27f5110bf2ecf11af2af0e32
88690 F20110319_AAAKDV morriss_j_Page_010.jp2
633bb03eb4aa0e7fc5d95d3f92651f85
f00521aaf11cc1aa64714b987bbeabe3e5d10928
F20110319_AAAJYP morriss_j_Page_031.tif
3de0213b89a3852dcfedcf1291b3d83e
b479e6ff4161439fd092387134b871d2b0e323d8
4595 F20110319_AAAJAT morriss_j_Page_113thm.jpg
7de21e983f9f395318624b82223c249f
6d0ff765576a5d12e5a4852a1b5519f110c4063d
2450 F20110319_AAAKEK morriss_j_Page_044.txt
761c532eba41ef43b766ae110fe4ab5a
96e88673c2041b7fddd5da8f3204e819c632af92
117286 F20110319_AAAJZE morriss_j_Page_132.pro
6a0097bcad610b9ed58307f0330e17f9
df14019d13242958a44571434093e4e21b421cb0
6364 F20110319_AAAKDW morriss_j_Page_026thm.jpg
0c1445e9643e561edefa8470393285cf
7192d7d0c3fbd190c8df9799f14a828d823da388
F20110319_AAAJYQ morriss_j_Page_008.tif
ad6fad845f81f643c23f9486739473ab
a0b53a6ff8e9261c2ba26cc23b251c8264b97be3
5852 F20110319_AAAJBI morriss_j_Page_112.jp2
e3977a1e2f4c2177c6efd00fdfdac33f
c24ca8bd183c2e6d626c38ae6db1e3ee09680f23
377 F20110319_AAAJAU morriss_j_Page_114.txt
292e8012ce387452c73c0550e3b1c1de
3db39d0c4d5ed6540f2207f6b8a045a2e808aa70
47655 F20110319_AAAKFA morriss_j_Page_090.pro
1b0e68c9338254e3dbd644066a1ba528
47abae84decd2e947c0ca8426d4f40b3c97cb0c3
75352 F20110319_AAAKEL morriss_j_Page_042.jpg
4151ecd3ee355a76f4d060846e290e97
81d3a620281ef22bea1003545fcc811fd091d9f6
48226 F20110319_AAAKDX morriss_j_Page_023.pro
eaa19a86c6c33029874fd50fa34530bb
6f33b29cf9cf9ce8246f4c12fb6f3b64da960a40
105970 F20110319_AAAJYR morriss_j_Page_018.jp2
a2f0bc1c7fbce3834023611e105f3553
a636888bf3155c9473aac6e81ffa95bd795d6784
41070 F20110319_AAAJBJ morriss_j_Page_128.jpg
96ba4008cd5e4645a5ba4bf4a0d43aaf
c0e822444354a735807156fe744fc7ae93f242b7
9753 F20110319_AAAJAV morriss_j_Page_099.jpg
e36244864c5724b23df0486ec720ccdf
8724a09a7c7d12064188a502772492a3aa0d7cf8
49338 F20110319_AAAJZF morriss_j_Page_027.pro
6dd1de20cef22a27600ea8ba3efed7ff
cd7e7441cea69edcc72caa083ec96dd17ea41955
12361 F20110319_AAAKFB morriss_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
991850dced1aeecd20534b1f81a1915d
47717bed326cdbba41c15bbc27ebb974e7ea9e5b
51432 F20110319_AAAKEM morriss_j_Page_019.pro
d1fbc987636119b7df844e3a0764372e
06de3db2a476e46e45a6998589315b86d87cebbb
F20110319_AAAKDY morriss_j_Page_095.tif
a0de5237c6683e13d80dbcc730b87da8
5431db257f6bda75cfe1b7ad65caeb07e4b85bb2
5125 F20110319_AAAJYS morriss_j_Page_054thm.jpg
cb42cfd323cd08a8bad5bc205b2d395a
4e0c791dc16dbf78559c4358e8f869267df087c6
1051978 F20110319_AAAJBK morriss_j_Page_106.jp2
57089590be5c94fc82c3797d8acd9486
8c97d353ba55118a972fa55ecf5cc50443cd8e9c
51607 F20110319_AAAJAW morriss_j_Page_122.jpg
381787bbbe01e3ac250cfb213e3e30f1
c6a30923fdc61a4fb8d74a87a20c74f0f248c458
43600 F20110319_AAAJZG morriss_j_Page_064.pro
b9638ef2b1e13db1500120a8dd728f4a
8a61ef842c5a42594b7c63aa51c4798cd0d8a4e1
81797 F20110319_AAAKFC morriss_j_Page_093.jpg
2f38bbe076f389cf7a8d7ca94e17db23
01eeb90edfa56f2cad793fad9cd2937725d126b2
22287 F20110319_AAAKEN morriss_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
1dcc1630b1ef501780ed90bb963870aa
ae6c7a43533e40c8b9bad9889c90162aa6e6d255
1300 F20110319_AAAKDZ morriss_j_Page_079.txt
e203d86139ef7f3ca3ce763dc4296050
aac14229d8c5a6f27eee7e7c43cbd89b81b0563d
312 F20110319_AAAJYT morriss_j_Page_003.txt
64a61ff3fee96c12336dfe5ee58578a9
6bb5f109d6ad80d82aa697577039a231ecf7eb04
13797 F20110319_AAAJCA morriss_j_Page_113.pro
784e91da349e10f3d21017856725c500
0097888bbcbfac2366c80567986290d384c5adc5
989555 F20110319_AAAJBL morriss_j_Page_122.jp2
05f025e618e17122febdac94e755173b
437cd66b5cef70dd9bfc11ea4a2852e68e0571dc
3929 F20110319_AAAJAX morriss_j_Page_009thm.jpg
348e5c2d0f574994de58a7eae893a858
31bb95956d3f0cdce8f2de0e0f13fa56419e0c45
8484 F20110319_AAAJZH morriss_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
0bc4d3fa83956d424ef81651ad635135
d5b952a8ee1dd06bb3f682b5d64f504dc4cb70db
105146 F20110319_AAAKFD morriss_j_Page_040.jp2
82e358c12b8216983f482386d8e5205a
d74b66b7f2a5888b0b90f08e71aa9cf5b7d4b581
F20110319_AAAKEO morriss_j_Page_012.tif
b8e7b9ae9ec0b821d82b48a0b46b7696
d4a0fe87b11eaec0fc458b2ce23d5a45a57d46b3
49123 F20110319_AAAJYU morriss_j_Page_119.jpg
a3a5c35213072fd2fa0c883847ff1697
6d5df54b1917a50773069315388cace21a44fa0b
24817 F20110319_AAAJCB morriss_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
1960a3e7b630b7ef9b3e406325784f31
9d52f62fb94731f439712cc7c242fa11d4297fe3
665421 F20110319_AAAJBM morriss_j_Page_008.jp2
2bb8bdfce0726e9becece2cb61c7a9a8
e470b42016b0fbaa27e6925861fb3f49f27f92c9
67370 F20110319_AAAJAY morriss_j_Page_009.pro
3215916cfdd6b658b31e299ccf67ca4f
483220ce1e7f81612bfb9bec9d9554ecccd2ef9b
38974 F20110319_AAAJZI morriss_j_Page_036.pro
3d53a552ec4edd01d30da96be322db7c
19d660a0032f3d7d62af035d857c2c8976eb9b60
F20110319_AAAKFE morriss_j_Page_125.jp2
7e97d59db1ee24817f94b7a049076466
3580100a13b445aac3c04be3dc321877a26a324e
F20110319_AAAKEP morriss_j_Page_114.tif
9f862355eb2aafc0a1d98776ad0a13fa
f6fcf0275cc27a91495d8e09415d778f2d09aab0
672 F20110319_AAAJYV morriss_j_Page_120thm.jpg
73c174e519c7b218797d30c4da6b7e57
9f6fd88306e06a4c8e1169350f4d048daeceedf5
1809 F20110319_AAAJCC morriss_j_Page_086.txt
1129e549fe1c5ed59e4c28cf72ff2b8b
132eab4ad00be0ba654e49907414c0ba8cd07326
112574 F20110319_AAAJBN morriss_j_Page_091.jp2
dac1de0f85588308153676f493f5a0da
f5e93e8f29cea6034dd716ef71abc82079382965
19013 F20110319_AAAJAZ morriss_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
b8882c902f8d76ccfadcf11db4aa0f9e
3ec619b78460fa36211c36001c6c4c39cb49255e
1852 F20110319_AAAJZJ morriss_j_Page_061.txt
973ec2ddd76fce3ceaceac2330db4c3a
72ba0effc9228a884aa6dbbc2730a36fc5497d91
14370 F20110319_AAAKFF morriss_j_Page_123.pro
bba07d72bc992b40962c3bf13c219e2d
8937d9c8a353c1e3f71398a2f06fa684d21c137f
2002 F20110319_AAAKEQ morriss_j_Page_026.txt
a6bf9ad747a2f9b56960c19b672fddcf
c397ad7360bb13e0790bf648331ee5831fe8e17c
F20110319_AAAJYW morriss_j_Page_050.tif
574a166a5463b6486a29ff41b098e71e
a8f9afaf5d592604c557af59b8ade0c0ec90283d
71 F20110319_AAAJCD morriss_j_Page_117.txt
fd4a6c0763a90d2e3a61e2ae8b788767
4b61b6f6ce5a1f963a00abc9bbf513b2bcba516f
24213 F20110319_AAAJBO morriss_j_Page_063.pro
5db7ff151501acb3e5fc7b5a9e05f698
20b3f929e42e1d2c857417a234d1a534596af6a9
743840 F20110319_AAAJZK morriss_j_Page_129.jp2
2c93278af0260e59babf67f6f2dc03ca
043c12f0583f0369cd87a882196464c57907b210
2022 F20110319_AAAKFG morriss_j_Page_025.txt
3e9289c74f18dbddb26be92a4007a32f
e393e426650b793af1d2afda0b08a75daf6c75f7
24219 F20110319_AAAKER morriss_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
200f4dc79db8ac66f7ddc343b762b8ba
317e20058df5e4600522a526432b4dd6c3ef7afb
5019 F20110319_AAAJYX morriss_j_Page_030thm.jpg
82cae728038d1d17c4065d867888f34b
3d5408e6f9734df94448c543c7d7ecec74930e70
F20110319_AAAJCE morriss_j_Page_075.tif
487fab2afcdcc7764a983fe5e8122300
90dd68140c1e7b83b79282e910dd5040c9c97d78
1614 F20110319_AAAJBP morriss_j_Page_012.txt
d4ebbcf1625cc0df125005a419cad761
abd3d98121d395424324486e05ffc077abbd8a77
4497 F20110319_AAAJZL morriss_j_Page_038thm.jpg
4cdde603a634523de6143dad0e311c76
930e7ce00523e9b91a9dee85a589f336c0711833
1996 F20110319_AAAKFH morriss_j_Page_052.txt
787d51c5e2e954cf89b49b5b08f67067
127987f4f83263df457411709297fd24d684125c
F20110319_AAAKES morriss_j_Page_040.tif
d1c29a11e17645a549a6dda9ac457b0a
c3b299f50b1ba7e59674d24a0f8c865d9c4683f6
110601 F20110319_AAAJYY morriss_j_Page_051.jp2
cca268bac5cfafee03ba1a3a5422ab5b
f03df6c5b5bddcfe39dba9a986bbd4df5a371107
1051986 F20110319_AAAJCF morriss_j_Page_063.jp2
c81bb2d987659ad2d9829948efad1e01
12606e766e0a97d57388a7c14d061ab30fd9c893
3251 F20110319_AAAJBQ morriss_j_Page_109.txt
a8c43c7beb92fb5dac9bcfb1d0b8ccc3
a6f4195671d7884c32104ab22c20b989407cd5f6
82716 F20110319_AAAJZM morriss_j_Page_096.jpg
38ca94b4ea532e454a685e86a1446025
ede973dc019146b0bfc186c697a17bcc7ea22633
1981 F20110319_AAAKFI morriss_j_Page_089.txt
e267762b5e25c1d0230f24ea02959397
0567ac9203104d7d8a904b5e69c9ce66c4187e64
6930 F20110319_AAAKET morriss_j_Page_069thm.jpg
b525f05eb74e689514e1529e3075a9c0
a3a804026ab0ea0bcd74c08425bc1bcbd74f27eb
16092 F20110319_AAAJYZ morriss_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
51004d215202a686d1180fcd5756ede1
71d45f8c2fad8dd88d874844cd82993e126960a5
3683 F20110319_AAAJCG morriss_j_Page_006.txt
18ba4ffbda3722915b7e418de6602da5
7c4682500f7ad85f465c9db7cf42ef307f97eca8
80186 F20110319_AAAJBR morriss_j_Page_081.jpg
81d162b04ceba316cb0c7d2cfef1b7e6
cc0f5b1ea18de7aafc8e706c47522a7814335fb6
F20110319_AAAJZN morriss_j_Page_068.tif
acc2106afdcc4d3cb0a6213e018c6161
9d279ec7d46cec91b7e5740652c83cbc236dbb69
59145 F20110319_AAAKFJ morriss_j_Page_049.pro
b51b661036046d7aa9ac5aca3239b519
845ba6a1fc2151874716f2266f9a70987be01268
F20110319_AAAKEU morriss_j_Page_069.tif
ca9946b027095e448e0fb482d5264e48
ff4c1a2d46285274832d78667cbe1a0011c07484
6215 F20110319_AAAJCH morriss_j_Page_087thm.jpg
467b2fdd292dc87bd77d64bd5e2d10da
226ea1fce1f92608c014440f30d5701b6341c7e3
F20110319_AAAJBS morriss_j_Page_003.tif
e832fd79635856928d7a790bb9003f68
5032788da4b14cd54c5d95514014d68e04754449
2374 F20110319_AAAJZO morriss_j_Page_021.txt
56e32f37a80ee6bf1bab5e981de65b9f
21ae3701511fd1b9ec63f4529fe5c29a2fc768af
6572 F20110319_AAAKFK morriss_j_Page_078thm.jpg
0049a88556ed88b37a44c71d211247a1
b18cdb9c64e8a2d29f7a1fe3f06e7d4f7a038386
6831 F20110319_AAAKEV morriss_j_Page_060thm.jpg
f7e129a24b84f692906cf1f8137249df
acd4506d63d19a9b3e1db8d42e843448144ce990
498 F20110319_AAAJCI morriss_j_Page_134.txt
83317c221529b85023686c8a6f791232
fad0ea4af9ddc1e198e6d06afe70c8abff699028
F20110319_AAAJBT morriss_j_Page_015.tif
11b8abfe3b5fb2410b15f90df0313544
50647608216506fccc7bb2af798045a862857307
23742 F20110319_AAAJZP morriss_j_Page_034.pro
df86b5d152c6e2a79b02a7c253582e9f
7f9dc55407b0026f61008452f1c5a5528bfc2d9f
80921 F20110319_AAAKEW morriss_j_Page_028.jpg
e850d00a606805408ae2edebb23e9008
dab578f0b8b16bed083c3aa0162bb339226f8c9a
6328 F20110319_AAAJBU morriss_j_Page_070thm.jpg
31d69145695e53d27b26d0a625e1fb8c
2ff82c99fcae07f8241a2bc470e842ca635eab09
F20110319_AAAJZQ morriss_j_Page_077.tif
e72cd61b673c9791aeb4610d4c632344
a282696cc66a2d185d8d5ff0adb58a613b42e947
F20110319_AAAKGA morriss_j_Page_118.tif
1cf55fcd04b7392bee56a9b14e60e0ed
bec243af6bf2ce079a38f9c3e3aefe642ca5bb6b
25766 F20110319_AAAKFL morriss_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
ee4493ee16215dff5e90d232dec128fe
961ae5fe89e2538e053821978711df49da474bed
53518 F20110319_AAAKEX morriss_j_Page_037.pro
5194f541d634fd649e5e56ddcbff97f7
1f8726b485b8de37f1e6ff107a4f0ea708578579
25545 F20110319_AAAJCJ morriss_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
2f3becddbde83f2857155219c7c03ba0
681b3afc6d53661fdf87bbeb29705cfee69e1b45
113100 F20110319_AAAJBV morriss_j_Page_026.jp2
2df5405891aa58387f635ed2a4a2bbee
23f1550ee7dbf2a938fd8e77024c2e08fa32fb58
24724 F20110319_AAAJZR morriss_j_Page_067.pro
add918c042e3d540fa102a60763c58c3
ff861e6a71a66117b48aa173bdaa748502ad8cba
105579 F20110319_AAAKGB morriss_j_Page_097.jp2
40d4461ee30b116a3f03577407a11a80
1ce5061fcba3f43a1dd4369398081ff324e91844
1068 F20110319_AAAKFM morriss_j_Page_007.txt
8c320efce4410e344fdd8748e0efe03e
eb6c7674d4efd0bed3036b4781fc0fda1bdcd678
15271 F20110319_AAAKEY morriss_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
0c9f2f65c0210ef1113fea0073434d8f
b074752e31c8a4dfc3813384db3729e5c864eba4
901705 F20110319_AAAJCK morriss_j_Page_100.jp2
b66b0c10138d7c8fbabc09de0f909dad
7c946195ba069c0e07362ae59a3fd95f9e71e5c8
F20110319_AAAJBW morriss_j_Page_005.jp2
b50bfe6ebf1f377851196004ccfcd6d6
d662ff5284eab52e9caf42fba0e8b336c20bc4a2
F20110319_AAAJZS morriss_j_Page_110.jp2
460bbfe4446f713d25dfc894701a6e66
7e86b1c86fa7e115aa13b72aff5ef3e19a14a36d
21120 F20110319_AAAKGC morriss_j_Page_098.pro
dc0c3c1a4822c201e8313a4984b02ac2
9eaa03c05ca4703587a6813e9e16863bd9d0be0a
F20110319_AAAKFN morriss_j_Page_053.tif
528d42a0bf13b0d4c882b040c6860edb
7f3315e3624ee3d5849b5eb227c231ecbbb1062e
F20110319_AAAKEZ morriss_j_Page_018.tif
9b03a177331b4f050346a9b885a08f14
bec1a0eb7bdf04695ca84c45795606f973d68478
47746 F20110319_AAAJCL morriss_j_Page_072.pro
bb4b42f46d8d2d678c9b4238c6f6bf63
6bb9fd87337aad2e6ba8c873b0061e8bd9fc17fb
62991 F20110319_AAAJBX morriss_j_Page_035.jp2
7abab698e8ab39783e339349b41e7da1
4a32850df8e725040f821b455325c5d697b1c23f
46932 F20110319_AAAJZT morriss_j_Page_022.pro
7448c2e6fafcbf0a11bfefa15ac6e435
ce439a7d22550f7c1ef7263174768bb0c0600b32
67376 F20110319_AAAJDA morriss_j_Page_015.jpg
b59692d02b3f8b8486f2fc57354f7902
8de928a05ac5048f8ae8f6fa93f1e1a68fbc8098
F20110319_AAAKGD morriss_j_Page_005.tif
df56566855cc3993402770bb89649149
b73bb0fa0336353a2596b0bf5ef46eef84c46076
24168 F20110319_AAAKFO morriss_j_Page_124.jpg
3687a791f7e3c0f75dd8eefd7c1b8d6f
2dfe061aa7001b308d2112afabcd2ee680516936
1051984 F20110319_AAAJCM morriss_j_Page_103.jp2
8929eee7ed50c218cfd5b678d11cb15e
2f1925e3f1e341827c3c03b67cd855c2db7849df
151 F20110319_AAAJBY morriss_j_Page_099.txt
6b2c80eea80472e601f7ba94e886d5ea
208950ccf3bd395484c8d92376cdb6f3340c4300
1787 F20110319_AAAJZU morriss_j_Page_116thm.jpg
ca01c0bdfad347373a393a475d79d680
028cb07a77d27e76debf9ddd90c9e5b8413ebbca
101972 F20110319_AAAJDB morriss_j_Page_080.jp2
af5fe7dd4e86709de46773a05e1608b7
95b10b13fe3547a53624686d70cb09d722640d96
6192 F20110319_AAAKGE morriss_j_Page_055thm.jpg
2e6ad3764620c1292eb491c7b0d83f6a
6de6a8b90ca0ae780f8a7d79858617f8089c30a9
26821 F20110319_AAAKFP morriss_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
99641c9dcdc4e4c9e2a8fd3c8876800d
59334cf71ffdcf2ff03971c03730cf6b0c3a11e5
824 F20110319_AAAJCN morriss_j_Page_113.txt
1851b0bcbe366f0cf4ec43122e0d92af
14c9235c23cc3144ee9c697f8dfb25f164aff5fa
67007 F20110319_AAAJBZ morriss_j_Page_054.jpg
e5851d4cd65b503a60a35ba2eb677770
20b4381dc2f3dfc378bf303e13a056d2d10eb9cc
83834 F20110319_AAAJZV morriss_j_Page_013.jpg
16a5137bd364f6608a7f4692a571f15a
48e828d4c6ee0b092dd4e453f4fb392906e2edf3
25483 F20110319_AAAJDC morriss_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
f486ca71d0dbfeaef7bfcf1a90a3337f
0153bbb7357f45e3d1ac0068969984afb66dd530
F20110319_AAAKGF morriss_j_Page_109.jp2
726f41e9a4572dc51010751f44af6075
d18f3da7856d8d9fbc740de7d8895d7bc9556003
3353 F20110319_AAAKFQ morriss_j_Page_127thm.jpg
dc838b1df12380148dbb0a039f363381
a06cac95d3530cde954f99f9259ba3abe51c1560
38117 F20110319_AAAJCO morriss_j_Page_098.jpg
86f315121d4e52cbc9d503627b41e55d
e7ff5d335676b06cf2c16d3bb4d34d11f00e2720
24167 F20110319_AAAJZW morriss_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
47743963e56fe37885bec8415bb278c3
fcdd977f28e016104ecc01cfa92da22e81f55d28
473 F20110319_AAAJDD morriss_j_Page_117thm.jpg
294e9241bea1bcc3c8df2c53068f060c
72a6f45786535cedfa39eac6860898624b1669d7
7173 F20110319_AAAKGG morriss_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
150aa1475e47bce0d3938cb88dbddca5
eb2c8532acb488337ee005baee323a25eab483f3
1154 F20110319_AAAKFR morriss_j_Page_078.txt
271ae0ffa8e5b918b7aeda898c8a14d9
29a28171aa701496c0137ecdfbdc96d3a9c43006
F20110319_AAAJCP morriss_j_Page_089.tif
dce9a3a5724e37ed3553be9d2744f093
b9fa196172eb57a6ac5ff69ee34bb2aacb38aa33
75774 F20110319_AAAJZX morriss_j_Page_068.jpg
a7163d1f70f092b3e734fb6291143509
c2515dcbed82c616a8013e31f28398ab4fe58f77
19260 F20110319_AAAJDE morriss_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
5cafd6a27052faded8fdc8196d00186a
4114e0eae16ac5bc3a72eb40bd68bee4f679da5d
15941 F20110319_AAAKGH morriss_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
d08dc27e3b386a19609ebe713b70fd48
53f75b8f577701af278dc77c19b856d5279e6b35
78330 F20110319_AAAKFS morriss_j_Page_069.jpg
f766e870e2571ad6ef309e266b27565d
5af4dc6a0d9ef52dcd82fa81f299a6cd14af7059
1689 F20110319_AAAJCQ morriss_j_Page_082.txt
6b13f429d6e82d902c025f17003ecf11
af4caa7365972fed9ef14d23a1ae173f04ae041b
24706 F20110319_AAAJZY morriss_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
0f05bda5aab92683da8d095ea8ae7a4d
8f7ce3cff138346b08cce37145baf1655a0b23c9
F20110319_AAAJDF morriss_j_Page_013.tif
953a6f1e67e9c5bc61ceffdb516d1a6f
a17f2ad6a10816e3045e4d667102656f34feaeb0
4754 F20110319_AAAKGI morriss_j_Page_114thm.jpg
e16e6f45d6cd375e019598e41ca5bfe0
d471342e591a1e6535809d19a36bfa05d109f06a
40530 F20110319_AAAKFT morriss_j_Page_118.pro
6253796d424855260178f5ec0f1b0702
66cc0069f552f1e627bd064452198fc724646666
5804 F20110319_AAAJCR morriss_j_Page_061thm.jpg
3cfa034d0e98395b3814db3164e4e62c
fcf138e5619b818b97766d2d4f547c8835982d0d
F20110319_AAAJZZ morriss_j_Page_091.tif
fce870657b4d6e669c54b12b2b10e97c
b1c0d6184b45cc630555c5a3d85293e50265aaff
42026 F20110319_AAAJDG morriss_j_Page_017.pro
4ae17b1820cfb86cb5f00650868a29e9
f0425cb7dd98336b4671f02fa3f3668807a95f41
108375 F20110319_AAAKGJ morriss_j_Page_052.jp2
ed7ff182fdb8d2ac2088fdef73520013
041aafc72fd0f1aa82a232fcffe37ca70322d2ad
F20110319_AAAKFU morriss_j_Page_070.tif
1ebb07eff28d5424bd736ab5d5e0e268
88c948f797bed40ef41accb87d487f0e09db1473
2886 F20110319_AAAJCS morriss_j_Page_005.txt
5a88ae1fde4835b25edcfe00b22d6646
bff9217af82d0666cc9532d3260916bfd71ab5e7
F20110319_AAAJDH morriss_j_Page_062.tif
31e0c9a5881a43d033a4a68f3823e955
f984a1045376e4afead29b8e3055da3fba56f3ed
109707 F20110319_AAAKGK morriss_j_Page_025.jp2
76edb6c481dac6726e9e1d98bb8bdf4e
dfe407ad004ea920f653ad51690363f2f2a04a50
14033 F20110319_AAAKFV morriss_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
af74d8f9fa707c4dadb36d65cba0c422
aeef183ca8a1c17c43158848d39c547b952d2cb7
1970 F20110319_AAAJCT morriss_j_Page_070.txt
c0b7ca120ae175f49769851397cd5da1
41d7f3b6cf218e9a0f8f440021870547deabe0bb
F20110319_AAAJDI morriss_j_Page_004.tif
6328324478677f4a0a7889c853f1e697
8bd242feb8782acf65b34a2a2e563f61f658e7e8
27123 F20110319_AAAKGL morriss_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
df050eacb9f15692c1effe13606121b6
4d5cff330a910ebf12c3a98d086f30ae71b73cfe
83183 F20110319_AAAKFW morriss_j_Page_048.jpg
b61eb4f4f530c95416b7f127ec0f32f6
919dd3f66f1cfc3a2c09c29feb733a241e22435b
81454 F20110319_AAAJCU morriss_j_Page_089.jpg
a309a63ff2a5c6e28f7d0fe811907769
e4596d203cdfe65815e616b421351d8922dfade7
1764 F20110319_AAAJDJ morriss_j_Page_017.txt
bced5ea62013c20c9eebb55a0c1fa65c
3316e25885cd01935fa7d4bede50c4a98012f50d
F20110319_AAAKHA morriss_j_Page_041.jp2
2b95df29d148c96ff9ffc61d0372ac36
418e8aedfc4cb4f9b00ae589965cfaf0690f44bc
1681 F20110319_AAAKFX morriss_j_Page_088.txt
8bef9769b504a125009d0061b3eb8f04
0743c5fc568a41f236eb5e6f04de461a8f9e5110
67110 F20110319_AAAJCV morriss_j_Page_088.jpg
e9c9a03f370663e00c6ff8ef211bc3e3
2ded7963733b9b00b1570ee75b1fde246087781b
20376 F20110319_AAAKHB morriss_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
d85005a8f9ff19d52db3d9180f71d3c7
195fc46b26d9aafd841578f9f548e567911d4cba
4540 F20110319_AAAKGM morriss_j_Page_122thm.jpg
e98a231daa25afa8180f8aebcb03878e
06131364dba2b52347a80df151b8cba15bd69a7d
1051932 F20110319_AAAKFY morriss_j_Page_115.jp2
2549c6cfe03b679afa288569d051bc73
437302c5f3c630073dcf4a93c639f1da868b1b84
309 F20110319_AAAJCW morriss_j_Page_111.txt
b75994d03be9f89349475041c66b8ed3
32902f9a9dbac3a5ed5090b873d38f6defad256a
91014 F20110319_AAAJDK morriss_j_Page_039.jp2
c4204692a582e08385e8ce1882df1a6f
c4a5ec223b0e1a94ea350307003661c1d6d27b07
1051784 F20110319_AAAKHC morriss_j_Page_065.jp2
cae2e3de8ce4fb58a0dd3b772c654a81
516018580beb8b37d0fde8194be9acf495c114d7
7426 F20110319_AAAKGN morriss_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
2ef07c72e1ca2e210deb463eda92f070
280246ac5750374602255a4180fe442aff1f6870
F20110319_AAAKFZ morriss_j_Page_042.tif
350b9541175c6209067a140143583abc
ee7acd0483698a4951d126cafd0988cc37171185
7841 F20110319_AAAJCX morriss_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
82356c241ce3e5422a70d1c2af00c9c6
489a3e8e1e486b560c848fe330abc791f6e058d2
2429 F20110319_AAAJEA morriss_j_Page_037.txt
549dc3474aec63f3041057d33f651013
a0380b86a9c7d86a2914e52e2ede7d3542e96c5d
F20110319_AAAJDL morriss_j_Page_032.txt
f743da02b5e30fa60ab0fae15bc2939a
1b880b590c8cea33c38e83056f5c1992a4471bd0
65133 F20110319_AAAKHD morriss_j_Page_121.jpg
2dc9f94c52737b5cb5645e8d18ff431f
e4fa31522ccc4d4567adb2f8b6ba7c70f2bf4af1
687 F20110319_AAAKGO morriss_j_Page_104thm.jpg
c25eff57d1a1c108f2e6b970c993f385
be4518e21d928f3a0a3e30cd7eedcd8b523088dd
8088 F20110319_AAAJCY morriss_j_Page_104.jpg
07694101d9536941f320d10b7d7840b3
b504974f3cb34884d99a5fd525e55dec3badd54b
2309 F20110319_AAAJEB morriss_j_Page_104.pro
12e18d3ff81abd3178d9d8e545e951f7
eaf213d5c3678d15df5f6cde84e1380eb22193ef
53725 F20110319_AAAJDM morriss_j_Page_095.pro
121fb47a65d1e508f81e6d1f81c2cd89
df077233bce9989b5787ebed4c9a8eb89fa09c87
1723 F20110319_AAAKHE morriss_j_Page_077.txt
49a181828315207003c5f26f6f334278
dcf56a43397b2925258bd6975db49aeb512b3343
F20110319_AAAKGP morriss_j_Page_092.tif
6edfdce357f8be61dff65f35c4abd2dc
e005cbab3cc5bd985a20bd4b88e0b44c1d762f64
4762 F20110319_AAAJCZ morriss_j_Page_047.txt
c82ca5665f9e7a40778b9c8f91f3e09f
9b0d4bfd2722ce96ab0fb36fea4a6dd2a609716d
52835 F20110319_AAAJEC morriss_j_Page_102.pro
2edd54a70c88ba04f5a43c6b6f1b9ec9
5852bc88b579a088587f14fe18d7c448d78ea8af
1606 F20110319_AAAJDN morriss_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
373a74071f986f2592e92f179a19a0ae
0766cf8302cde4dacdb3cf434365594bc6aeb284
25061 F20110319_AAAKHF morriss_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
5db9d1d545e384c4b1f3b0324c83b251
9ae5667fb3ec27ab122bf70b6e2e7d63dfb3b6cb
40663 F20110319_AAAKGQ morriss_j_Page_110.pro
178f95954e4ed44a3e2741271277944c
dd7c842b1037faf43da0dbf80e93680ebe84f5dd
F20110319_AAAJED morriss_j_Page_002.tif
51a4525fceee31ea57aad290d3a6e92e
9a8d1901519fc2a7c62a041b5c9b7754fdfef617
42998 F20110319_AAAJDO morriss_j_Page_127.jpg
ad0e049659381aad81110e4292f35555
e10b2c45d565a39d3542eb6d3523a10947f33d81
5310830 F20110319_AAAKHG morriss_j.pdf
435bfe7958e76ca166d60a888507e905
5df231c3a38c42114eac6541abde1fff9322125a
F20110319_AAAKGR morriss_j_Page_024.tif
4b59f69128b1b19b7551b11e4339a649
595a4789c974131cfa1198668fa93f138472e76d
1797 F20110319_AAAJEE morriss_j_Page_129.txt
bbcb3a9d182302276fb1e19328fb0c59
dab120b40fb571c1f61d13baa963d2d3f08414ff
75444 F20110319_AAAJDP morriss_j_Page_079.jpg
4278712eb14a4720cc6fd97d8ca3957e
176efaf54b9ba2c62ea00bc9ceb48accd5c91759
77941 F20110319_AAAKHH morriss_j_Page_061.jpg
af7682931bce905d2facaeea5493ef80
741bb33deebab74e7626833aea0b6f664fdbc369
823317 F20110319_AAAKGS morriss_j_Page_127.jp2
07086316517d1827a6747d23e278f22b
10e6a030e7143799fd66f0750acdfc065d861e49
14635 F20110319_AAAJEF morriss_j_Page_116.pro
d4d4f88d1765fdab12160be5f05d0dd0
31e63497ab508983c2aa1f623f7ed5245ea147a4
100814 F20110319_AAAJDQ morriss_j_Page_068.jp2
9164ce6342e7935a3dd735ba34065e01
0578346cba51b845ff1fa660e1d1365f727a59cd
28471 F20110319_AAAKHI morriss_j_Page_035.pro
4b846f9e3e33409e194f57c22f3f0812
3fdf56256d83c63b45d5180072336ce6af359c1b
2357 F20110319_AAAKGT morriss_j_Page_008thm.jpg
3624f47947d49688130cc81cee6493ea
eec064e52558339ccb67e6e4c7418422cbcd8563
3154 F20110319_AAAJEG morriss_j_Page_049.txt
0b416170cb2472d8d9b09590ce3d6556
1616b7a2db0c67ca2c2903d5922fc5e0478bad6d
20793 F20110319_AAAJDR morriss_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
8a9da753ec0fc781ef75c25a141073fb
c6bd99d0ff8cb095faf0c601155a855403035913
3999 F20110319_AAAKHJ morriss_j_Page_119thm.jpg
efd54d53e9798880b25d8a4f6267b7c4
c10b9920cf6a880a1296eb0d04cc4ee3264ac498
63208 F20110319_AAAKGU morriss_j_Page_030.jpg
e6b0e3f6e626521b4524e699adc64c84
05f9441d759dbfa5450937081c83db136736ff47
113239 F20110319_AAAJEH morriss_j_Page_019.jp2
f11a63f63ac2a96f55f58e9d598e4a95
a37ad91e82fde56d153b48d3a3e0dae93dc52423
55059 F20110319_AAAJDS morriss_j_Page_016.jp2
25205ea5198454ff2b0a4a40f77c0457
f297af8e1b267ab169bfb23d29925d913bdba724
6188 F20110319_AAAKHK morriss_j_Page_115thm.jpg
94c0d229dc7c965831a57926b337b7dc
1e268c1df4084d36adbc56df35c17645edd5fa66
9366 F20110319_AAAKGV morriss_j_Page_104.jp2
aa1129c7cceeea37dd75b31579bdee5e
d413325e579ab0b5a99aec110c5214d9c0bb2e47
16898 F20110319_AAAJEI morriss_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
dd2746cabaa8e5c7800ec91f86d9602f
f90a9b882588f065d6433d63e576ca655f50d8a3
6019 F20110319_AAAJDT morriss_j_Page_023thm.jpg
e15ec3ce5cdf6503f6d8345be4bc7d56
829d69abdad07f1bf38348d9504fc6789a3995c8
27858 F20110319_AAAKHL morriss_j_Page_101.jpg
af740479a1745c264f4349ca5bbf5e17
4834d2659642871d5c96d0c610a7285929846ffa
78437 F20110319_AAAKGW morriss_j_Page_056.jpg
d5f4d8ad0bb30ee7fc159408ec8a6f6e
175c18e33998f67e6a7934cd25065e657bc94449
2221 F20110319_AAAJEJ morriss_j_Page_102.txt
db00ecd230e0954f656fc7f2beab27ee
8a70a7d6562a99b3e7bf5b8d291e0996bd8f50c5
F20110319_AAAJDU morriss_j_Page_076.jp2
9c0d1a3cc9028c6c1693951135699a4e
ef76c049bc68074e57561f19c5a7e63f4bd5215a
1995 F20110319_AAAKIA morriss_j_Page_096.txt
da67e0f532c60553ba6f53cf9c9604c4
e061df9bfa15d5b6ad8502cb9b8dad3b491ab508
158104 F20110319_AAAKHM UFE0011833_00001.mets FULL
5787ad03736b2664703dbe666e25497c
c2c409c09495b5c82003a8544420bd7958e51f4a
6318 F20110319_AAAKGX morriss_j_Page_132.txt
e75f0362d5b4be07766e9e93ec4b571c
76014787570bdc880155eed0132e30e88f0a828a
4536 F20110319_AAAJEK morriss_j_Page_031thm.jpg
e4a2072becd6241706705faf885ff005
0cdeb2291badea3cf2c09cecfafd4bf0074be295
6267 F20110319_AAAJDV morriss_j_Page_024thm.jpg
4a0ac4f43b9c781af60362257ac92dc9
9f41da850edf588ad27fad7b2b2fa310c24ec52d
3603 F20110319_AAAKIB morriss_j_Page_121.txt
42df338b81faac7fe9103360ed8b70a3
16fa0f0637c26c5cfff629982fdaaf27344b08eb
1207 F20110319_AAAKGY morriss_j_Page_065.txt
724011b58084fdae0dd3b184b3be8a15
6feb6727145e8b7a3135885f745746adca5c2035
29411 F20110319_AAAJDW morriss_j_Page_029.pro
4285c5250a67e2e832e91c9a5bfe2a8f
4c5d4ec94988ddab66ea0ad686aeb0784a35f0b5
71626 F20110319_AAAKIC morriss_j_Page_005.pro
23ac950c7ab5e6bbd7dbaa307bfa1d95
cefc09e2b13666d9e0d7a11c5b5532f698177e57
2433 F20110319_AAAKGZ morriss_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
43c4ead92e801cb2775e9b68651dbb16
cc9c3b27acf1e11cbb26a8c67b131384f3644902
1882 F20110319_AAAJFA morriss_j_Page_080.txt
a163c2f5624af4dbcede4a6d7c678073
b276aba824a8f64fce65b7654e23054f91ce3e56
22958 F20110319_AAAJEL morriss_j_Page_134.jpg
fcd3740e2c3b1d801d5a2d48cbd1d614
100c7d8e5eb71c5b4ea0fb077d4db3ee0a3006eb
81663 F20110319_AAAJDX morriss_j_Page_014.jpg
592ea0f8995cdfd1a3c211284c51545d
0ab39bf4bce4726e5fdde4bb69efce20eccff4cd
27351 F20110319_AAAKID morriss_j_Page_007.pro
d857612457a700a926e8be32bffe9077
600f807410e9dfdf20496fc493fb608cb5894318
102881 F20110319_AAAJFB morriss_j_Page_056.jp2
dd9c1aac27f4ed1eace45b357d06e620
2e3377b896698e80f027e0be2025590690d9469e
4568 F20110319_AAAJEM morriss_j_Page_112.jpg
0177e40836f0a2a87be37fa8eb862197
a994b3a2bcc08ddae6cfb9cd01543399f5a88aad
8425398 F20110319_AAAJDY morriss_j_Page_044.tif
d6af8ea5ee3aa25d92f01fedc4d00f56
616733327394904cadd2ecdab120936b443d3409
48256 F20110319_AAAKIE morriss_j_Page_014.pro
c79eb797e8515980d352ecd40987b6ef
9038fdc2bdff6e88624dec1ac5ec3a68026bca45
F20110319_AAAKHP morriss_j_Page_026.tif
c6d9e9b5a7b3c8c8a9f2434c231d2431
35010605194411f30c140789d58bba4d3238a1cd
85867 F20110319_AAAJFC morriss_j_Page_108.jpg
6ad160d1f828b7875715ce5800fc8070
f8cfa2513d8afe655c1261eb41c33b8f7fb95cac
50326 F20110319_AAAJEN morriss_j_Page_092.pro
cf653efb415d3a952b27b34c67bb607b
877ae5582a6622fe7a09f7fade12eb4bff7ef139
101749 F20110319_AAAJDZ morriss_j_Page_085.jp2
4e3549f92f4bb03adebf3506358fa320
af85500dfe4652803d97e8544aef7e659ae98a58
36577 F20110319_AAAKIF morriss_j_Page_030.pro
37987b021720f64205da3bcd11f10abf
3bbf4dec316b749e9fa90815b84b57387418ed02
F20110319_AAAKHQ morriss_j_Page_027.tif
13fa8320589e0dde2a5d30daf68f0384
d5c7fbf41d5132fca1b671108bb70c4d5d8d21fa
F20110319_AAAJFD morriss_j_Page_108.jp2
e1ec58a168508de390ace3a7ad1b0731
f9c806f893c6cb1c758fddf81b8f3f3885c549b4
F20110319_AAAJEO morriss_j_Page_107.tif
02edb111e224ce425fb9da2d5dd237ba
51d6d65c480da91c79937b0ab48851ccf6e29fe0
35468 F20110319_AAAKIG morriss_j_Page_038.pro
f8358c6d80ac71ba7179c65dc631320e
97af094d4c65d53b3b0c207da141db6eac859c51
F20110319_AAAKHR morriss_j_Page_115.tif
6891b9ad14500f24a5d12df0b4edb789
14021ca0375eed09300e43ffb3eae0e41d2e52fe
680 F20110319_AAAJFE morriss_j_Page_115.txt
8c12bf1ee2bb82de92f0ebe0d85b1a96
04deafab2e786fee517c75ddd4f76b354b11e3f9
92388 F20110319_AAAJEP morriss_j_Page_082.jp2
5e2e34336f9cc9cc6140b90b06c2c5e0
b3ebfe01b8bb813dbb651106d11563ba2370f19d
34732 F20110319_AAAKIH morriss_j_Page_045.pro
1fc2e5998e0a35145273f9a1386a0212
207eeab09b519554593a01e3234fdf16162445b6
F20110319_AAAKHS morriss_j_Page_126.tif
ba3f81379787c8a7430879fd0983d678
a7b6eb07f5068cf20f1129da1cfbe2d4e040ef4b
801057 F20110319_AAAJFF morriss_j_Page_007.jp2
9f33a0d73af7f663ebd57e76839a9c72
e63497b708155d0c2da214ed456784a2c87129dc
47345 F20110319_AAAJEQ morriss_j_Page_080.pro
658d901ca1470254195017d5b6ba3d9f
dde6584fd401413ce523848ea3ddb613d5a1623f
86746 F20110319_AAAKII morriss_j_Page_047.pro
d799b47e0732409557dca3abde3cc0a2
7b9eaf08e7c4b2f87097d51a7026fcf1ccb021cd
1934 F20110319_AAAKHT morriss_j_Page_024.txt
e4738711f25561ecde10f9e7638fc76b
d3a0d85a99f87843e5119bcd0ca60696fa408355
F20110319_AAAJFG morriss_j_Page_100.tif
f1f050024866640085784262f9aa26d9
6090d466dda4b4cfd1cbc9a17a0e5479dcab8a98
F20110319_AAAJER morriss_j_Page_134.tif
195da2fa8ad841411c970ca91652ed62
4385615fcfcaea8c9e15488281e0d2a3064a204f
26383 F20110319_AAAKIJ morriss_j_Page_057.pro
77428bdd819af6e2fa757b9b3a2d3288
52b6ca84f5e3a05f9ca0be68329c020ae72b3da6
1890 F20110319_AAAKHU morriss_j_Page_028.txt
d2d10fcb72964cd8ebc8c89b8b65f442
f936a4961d28301c153b766b385a07dfd2f88595
6125 F20110319_AAAJFH morriss_j_Page_041thm.jpg
2a8af42dc41efabf40b1d655be575537
86957d2adba9101fcb52a675978ff96744d69130
16506 F20110319_AAAJES morriss_j_Page_053.pro
073c12133a548055bea3ca538ebb1a78
690f955f8d5517abd54a555b3a3a6e2b32577963
46464 F20110319_AAAKIK morriss_j_Page_061.pro
e5dfc0264860a7a802c371c1b7d5b88a
217150e8fc856efdaa36bd8c7285a5af9f0968f3
1939 F20110319_AAAKHV morriss_j_Page_056.txt
f602a91bededd3d4e75d4560bbfe49bb
3c4e8281278e822f96e84927f1bca35c6f1f36e2
5965 F20110319_AAAJFI morriss_j_Page_062thm.jpg
e8495123f979b16e24b44a0bcad7d2ec
8a5caf855f531e26c93648d9045cf1ac4ef10207
1051982 F20110319_AAAJET morriss_j_Page_059.jp2
5e2bc227623e1248fc3b5a74de0423e2
608b55aa7bbcd1e5ccaf96fe9ee472c0a7686210
45573 F20110319_AAAKIL morriss_j_Page_086.pro
301cb9296c63a5d2c1b7f5eeda26c7c0
7b084a8e9c81d4b4225419ee45c2a88a098a35da
1055 F20110319_AAAKHW morriss_j_Page_069.txt
7996977d16f99d11b8a0094129ba9170
63e5c72c39afade24571cb442a729ca12d997753
F20110319_AAAJFJ morriss_j_Page_080.tif
be19600e002b5d62855d9028f3b89901
3e212299369905660e7fa9c782b11f78f9b5c8e2
2118 F20110319_AAAJEU morriss_j_Page_124thm.jpg
a570a4973defa7996533bcd7f8116fe7
56422f3c89ff760a71fd49405587b761562a17e7
87419 F20110319_AAAKJA morriss_j_Page_095.jpg
e7dfd0adf4bf03f62fa53ca178fafb8f
92ded99303d4bda07fbba03b54c47a3feee556b7
50029 F20110319_AAAKIM morriss_j_Page_096.pro
8bb6560b7d7e8894866db2a7925e3c94
5ca5fc8630f51a2cf3a00719f01a25f7516968aa
1044 F20110319_AAAKHX morriss_j_Page_071.txt
490acc1a52baa63d425d6679f87113df
948b1f5f7cb727a360a6d8266a22d0db3e0ef219
F20110319_AAAJFK morriss_j_Page_120.tif
259c2c41ce4a8669a464ef26f620b595
cffcbc693847dbdac7609f96edaf6761f36b8c92
1018 F20110319_AAAJEV morriss_j_Page_073.txt
53eb7f30be4d57a8fd33f2ecee2a5870
989dddbdb1229a2ab3e94a7fc7e8777cdbaffebf
49523 F20110319_AAAKJB morriss_j_Page_113.jpg
683f2bba17681da144003a21b3c94247
9f6764a7692f069ebd9f4435df3e58fc05be3a90
1161 F20110319_AAAKIN morriss_j_Page_112.pro
3b22c3670c2449c2dfa57ad4044cf2c2
cd902fd3cbc13142d401293ffa848f514e39d5e4
2031 F20110319_AAAKHY morriss_j_Page_094.txt
017d6824bb56721bc849a4a9f4cd0fee
845ac95db91ae2ca05f53de772122c4dcd95eca8
1946 F20110319_AAAJFL morriss_j_Page_027.txt
5504d370492a6761c0e3458a8ac8c0ac
8bc70d2ea5b912392648544d9106e793275d77e3
85312 F20110319_AAAJEW morriss_j_Page_051.jpg
3efdd13f93895b1c7f93ede1afadede6
1da2c7b512779783de430344d10e3f78381c915b
51103 F20110319_AAAKJC morriss_j_Page_114.jpg
8a7fb186039c97472c279ff9934a6772
e1c70da4cbe63a112d10161fee708762f4fa0eae
2105 F20110319_AAAKHZ morriss_j_Page_095.txt
826e0480ea3fdf6fb961a72bb90ce679
6b5fa51307fded6e17e6decc332e2f5df8a5cde5
10164 F20110319_AAAJEX morriss_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
066a2ec6c551325210669f62ced2bba5
ee71e7a3443fcf62b26a7693c153e5ca302b46ad
7063 F20110319_AAAIZR morriss_j_Page_083thm.jpg
65f21d1537524dc5fecd9edb5c92e295
9e4f13122f7a9f1e0986331c58a3653046c8bd26
19965 F20110319_AAAJGA morriss_j_Page_060.pro
97b4637ce196b425a73d8dd383e7eb9a
377fd9ad3d88e65f5fb150d87f5527480898f377
81384 F20110319_AAAKJD morriss_j_Page_030.jp2
298e2d9079ddb7acd5bd129b852cb21a
b1ae25745d8374589ee31c7b1b8911a3e7662daf
7521 F20110319_AAAKIO morriss_j_Page_114.pro
8bae58bfa56b9be9f4f6d8788e56ed19
92894646f4e91cb81327a7c176d41adb8105090b
25204 F20110319_AAAJFM morriss_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
acb4b2880e0005e33a99aab796b9489b
0af84d958f7a2c1adfb73cbd55a44527d62b5cb1
1051896 F20110319_AAAJEY morriss_j_Page_084.jp2
66cd178f45cf0fc26cdd7613b05abb84
f0b12cdff4eca74eb40ad54ef66e081911d79be9
1040 F20110319_AAAIZS morriss_j_Page_083.txt
6940ce7efac66e29ce6918ad8e0cd5ba
97a02d63d5c9c86b35bde6dbd41f83ff3c3cb789
76 F20110319_AAAJGB morriss_j_Page_125.txt
ad7e04219247c6c7b7fd02416aaea151
8d7a4f063e382ab7312195b02cfa64370827e0c7
1051894 F20110319_AAAKJE morriss_j_Page_042.jp2
1fd2cd2fc373912f1bcea6176b69bdea
8889192a7f73db377574ef3255ef9ee47ce32ecc
1187 F20110319_AAAKIP morriss_j_Page_117.pro
416f507ceca9b3837b088c855605802a
a4f67aa9132382c532d6e496f79d801f9f6ef022
110530 F20110319_AAAJFN morriss_j_Page_094.jp2
5775af456b838a3e42686a63b1a9dc05
fcb8db5efc8ce733b7efa3615af5001d78c530da
6776 F20110319_AAAJEZ morriss_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
99ec1fdb4aa60de647e08f2812ec5bcf
387955618f091fcbdc984b674212076a78064189
F20110319_AAAIZT morriss_j_Page_047.tif
338c830d98f4bdcc9e1f4bd41a81dbfa
d9c9d88b45a8bf70295705c097196d3f4415d3fd
25672 F20110319_AAAJGC morriss_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
ae9757fa09e830b91880211867bdd319
24f4026e60165f24f612f91afe47e6dc4e8846a0
38857 F20110319_AAAKJF morriss_j_Page_053.jp2
0faab38bc8f722dff177dc73e3987da5
136e109f2fa33d2f68a2ca4227d7e4943da62e1e
28971 F20110319_AAAKIQ morriss_j_Page_119.pro
28dc9e6a793b5f5ae4cf0de2070d1b48
cafa6e2f783c1ea859003b607d23c9d4b60ceded
108797 F20110319_AAAJFO morriss_j_Page_013.jp2
2ce0e17da187100c582ffcecce4d5e2f
deaf239be62ef22793e4e6ef8e14155525d14678
F20110319_AAAIZU morriss_j_Page_048.tif
0fa9127630fff947dcabe9cd8fea0cbd
bf29283222f8ba5b6e65c17024f2a996b0a4aaba
F20110319_AAAJGD morriss_j_Page_114.jp2
359da986c091c18d44bf6812b0c84614
a108f4f9dc62a71c46d4102c0de92509685d4df5
1051912 F20110319_AAAKJG morriss_j_Page_083.jp2
0ece6536f4eb46df443e62e0672c8e91
adf81f3ce4a99fdf28117847df9323730e561f9d
26555 F20110319_AAAKIR morriss_j_Page_124.pro
34a256f4eef02091caf88ea76fb4195a
65c8f6decd14bda2e3d16b72c92db7a2f04c6754
50121 F20110319_AAAJFP morriss_j_Page_128.pro
fa00c5a9e926c286d49d34301669e4a5
8de37602ed609d0e78e00f39849e0c76d8a69083
1051980 F20110319_AAAIZV morriss_j_Page_073.jp2
97bb40e30e5216f9538e2641134166b3
aab913794a1a13bc7f92ce4ae99665e90210ca5b
2955 F20110319_AAAJGE morriss_j_Page_105.pro
8a2bb48acaca9b083c26cb326a841f0b
13ee3d7fc6b73299a7f85d07502ee0592dcd4567
106984 F20110319_AAAKJH morriss_j_Page_089.jp2
e7262f1f5ede02960befe91bde67d8ae
989b4962ec5eef67e7f8fc162dc821f8d3b664de
57697 F20110319_AAAKIS morriss_j_Page_127.pro
25040553f8d0cd5ead509f5c8dde4490
f181e774bfe5b0474757710aaf527c61290e43a2
6497 F20110319_AAAIZW morriss_j_Page_107.pro
4dd90287e64816acdebd8b8ecefcbefa
eb65e6dace5dad533a2c5ebae274babf61e80b5c
40818 F20110319_AAAJGF morriss_j_Page_129.pro
b4478deec767ef026b0e9dc4e19ddb55
681480c0db052e7e1dca1b89d8ef924561a62551
80442 F20110319_AAAJFQ morriss_j_Page_067.jpg
4987f07ed82c0afb26e26bfd126ac967
b4e7bcd96798ed15c169f372cbba914699e28983
102962 F20110319_AAAKJI morriss_j_Page_090.jp2
f4b5acad3b64f4b08ce9f33b0098f7ed
c8a071d2207309f61d7709ab0f8113441d708c7b
4461 F20110319_AAAKIT morriss_j_Page_002.jpg
383b9d3fac6c1610153fffe5facf00ea
bfb0605fcf9a3c21a9544f97ce93cb3c1fb5e8e1
4524 F20110319_AAAIZX morriss_j_Page_032thm.jpg
61b665defc03fdd7f59cb53bd2993703
cf928be526d245fcf90d5498c4ba0344c057408d
538 F20110319_AAAJGG morriss_j_Page_002thm.jpg
f42140eb91a41dcf8dbd26273b2f97ed
541e9a0f73ffb392ed30f81f503c9f489a5ab3bd
79026 F20110319_AAAJFR morriss_j_Page_046.jpg
06c5c895bdd7dd24c8b25ebe18c67503
550c4612585a132358c51a0f8092475bb9be218a
49014 F20110319_AAAKJJ morriss_j_Page_098.jp2
9003e9d81bbeaf973111d8a13380de0a
517f9f0911bf29949f7a59b36d1548c65fc120af
88091 F20110319_AAAKIU morriss_j_Page_019.jpg
27f5dbc11d843d698ea34b1d08fff2a3
0fd5722093018818098ecb639379314b998e354f
2500 F20110319_AAAIZY morriss_j_Page_007thm.jpg
790c46055e6609784f0456e4f3ff0e3c
940671aefb0b6c45b916697bea1ecb01776b147b
48480 F20110319_AAAJGH morriss_j_Page_075.pro
48eda5f7c8a0625fc5092da31a419152
f6ba26ff02e473a24a103cc81d644c7872069ba1
77955 F20110319_AAAJFS morriss_j_Page_040.jpg
eeae4293bdfe0424e25556ac80712600
1b99ce72cd6fc87896a62af49b1419d649ad2679
23579 F20110319_AAAKJK morriss_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
c1db9da8772279537cb73a16f92d81e6
8889047a0991a2a10d45f91fc616a406bb962dc7
49274 F20110319_AAAKIV morriss_j_Page_035.jpg
2a36d438f9aff33cc87069649b48cf83
edd67b29af37294c0fe6d4a351207602c1b00249
76859 F20110319_AAAIZZ morriss_j_Page_071.jpg
65c9c4f5fa5e4c266b4fcf722c8a1eb2
be109f4cdf4e8f82450d368eada685bd33735b46
86689 F20110319_AAAJGI morriss_j_Page_118.jp2
6fa222dacb6a181c7eb0254a6246d4fa
141810794150d18995a84b78b96d1766e0cee2b9
90889 F20110319_AAAJFT morriss_j_Page_106.jpg
a5f98e03cd43609eb4f5359ddb4ec080
fee4122dbfbd72ffbe7151f4c57db693d4525574
3533 F20110319_AAAKJL morriss_j_Page_044thm.jpg
8efc038864613936a83d84fdaedf0e4b
7378cdf62780b243d918f0d3e6a330123646ae11
44808 F20110319_AAAKIW morriss_j_Page_044.jpg
6f3c3c72fce84efb2c9cebd9210e5fb9
3539d11f1910dcbbb739c2c6ebcbcef3be2a4a9e
6132 F20110319_AAAJGJ morriss_j_Page_013thm.jpg
970a66397b09ebada593e4a58260369a
5fc8cc6bdcd7d06a1c90e00fa14cf49550146a8b
F20110319_AAAJFU morriss_j_Page_063.tif
a7fd49300e976bbb2775d17784ea9c97
0248c69c9520cfe1eeca7f246e3aa1708fe6d4a6
26040 F20110319_AAAKJM morriss_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
09eeb1ac537f02d844068cac2a9dc159
2cdc605b88987e83ef94bbf36067ca1459d913b7
82051 F20110319_AAAKIX morriss_j_Page_052.jpg
c43083a1318c9c5602c2f8a4bc9aadee
4f8e2da5560ee0215d5a907b37e62cf134968f87
1051898 F20110319_AAAJGK morriss_j_Page_069.jp2
4c46e568798c30d9d67cf57a278860da
c78c047940cdf9b1b6f6b3390ab5d44007694195
90836 F20110319_AAAJFV morriss_j_Page_015.jp2
9611c7be867c79afbe85b327993156dd
35330d291332aaea69914b64d5a04aa402e88130
217387 F20110319_AAAKJN UFE0011833_00001.xml
6267db5d6e1b110748687b23b05c3dbf
4b7a47e10913a6573bc2fc1fe07031332ee8a6a5
83310 F20110319_AAAKIY morriss_j_Page_055.jpg
4404af4e3a445692bb5c10e431b22bc0
d3aa910f8b051f3f1e134d4e4b70c1a6dce87184
103786 F20110319_AAAJGL morriss_j_Page_072.jp2
cf5cbebb3ea8b27377f3a8b41a27b9b8
fc04244ac1cc5aa94c6df5b1e567ef3f77cc36fb
51007 F20110319_AAAJFW morriss_j_Page_050.pro
e1361b2905a5f58985665636353dc283
572cc7665c5f82c913f7b5bffeaab97fd8186e9b
25806 F20110319_AAAKJO morriss_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
c093a309627cd37354990d5c3e1d2c06
953f45de537e116b082f011ed7b613bc79c7ff06
78456 F20110319_AAAKIZ morriss_j_Page_085.jpg
db053ecb209428100f764b5dbac8a24d
b1818db032d3d45dae70c8bb46b3bcf909781450
F20110319_AAAJHA morriss_j_Page_071.tif
92e06791844024696a9530bfbf551a8b
06ebeb01eea98ecf6ea9c05c0b9a70e409de85cc
2866 F20110319_AAAJGM morriss_j_Page_099.pro
891938754c7de9bfbb877a9f17929443
eee964aed6c6d97bba08354de6db216ba86b4f0f
6656 F20110319_AAAJFX morriss_j_Page_049thm.jpg
18f86371d58db83c4340499f7615115d
d05084e1173887f9b5c582521edc3e20a6912499
78524 F20110319_AAAJHB morriss_j_Page_108.pro
0a46c0a03ee97f9a98448118e982b8f1
f3c3c01b8a8c957c821ed094cf23b16dd86d2f6f
3632 F20110319_AAAJFY morriss_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
252033ba55d5603978c3bc73cd8f6a99
f1c127a76868b869db66246c905fb79676fb5467
25365 F20110319_AAAKJP morriss_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
5f32063fbae5ff4c15c151a8f74f0780
ff753559144bfa013c8338c6f7278268574edeb2
51252 F20110319_AAAJHC morriss_j_Page_051.pro
1ab7e2686cf391f66e317e105088fd4b
ba233cf3f9e05344203341abbc9abfc45098d35d
5329 F20110319_AAAJGN morriss_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
6515a0463e2ca371215b64a1c157c0e5
edcc0f0c6db7ef97ba38482111a59df4b36c0b9c
1291 F20110319_AAAJFZ morriss_j_Page_125.pro
1b71593a36883c3854816064208afdc6
901f1c871d2557e7e9b00123c161d1b5781e931a
25352 F20110319_AAAKJQ morriss_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
2235b1ca3f2cd7f92b10d6974f1b30ab
977f1c5b9dc36b125690098278f0da87a2bc05f7
F20110319_AAAJHD morriss_j_Page_110.tif
e3d7d296d6ef033c5c76f9cac6aa9f09
0084f5f87677fc03aa246c7aa288e8292a8acc02
9549 F20110319_AAAJGO morriss_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
ca791f0ef6a4cec6c93440959a9062e5
28e12600513d76eec46e2f9b84406e4a48be4a61
12852 F20110319_AAAKJR morriss_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
e66eb8f1efcaeb6441d5f13e6713de49
94a2750b2021eb433b45f3183674c1b912a9addd
83766 F20110319_AAAJHE morriss_j_Page_059.jpg
d06e0ffe1258dcb421ad05ce9b0eee36
35b97eebd324db4984fda99740ef947fa8982d9e
F20110319_AAAJGP morriss_j_Page_064.tif
d7635a0caa113904fee346f56c363f63
6b000e89754a54bdbfa75b1b4b111a7487cc110d
1515 F20110319_AAAKJS morriss_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
e74227f7ef21e6dd094670d8133342d9
c0fd29e979daa61b7b8bbb06a8c048882fab770e
25661 F20110319_AAAJHF morriss_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
9000fe2b648c7509a970a700fe1f0721
ad07c8cccaebed0a437cfbfce6b29559d749d9ea
30508 F20110319_AAAJGQ morriss_j_Page_008.jpg
5ad1f1dc5c0ef273a385b333a74cd2b0
56176fed41f48c2a47118ed063b00403596af5e0
16939 F20110319_AAAKJT morriss_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
a4238fad4eee028f78f5bb930d37893d
2bcb0f037f7d87efda89ce73c65ce695b708a316
2087 F20110319_AAAJHG morriss_j_Page_087.txt
9a8df8a84245b1d311162da85d6d1c6b
e6067623c17dc0b69978f6d75934aad660430da3
25068 F20110319_AAAJGR morriss_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
1d6f74bf07c7aeae6732a62c786a9d17
6c31667257156b6b413fd9a4c73e10fce26b3aff
5382 F20110319_AAAKJU morriss_j_Page_011thm.jpg
c0056dd2bf98f7cd9d35dfa1250253b9
666d839a460ca2066091e76e06d60c58bf13fb25
25685 F20110319_AAAJHH morriss_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
70f9c0b1c0c5247018326ad31e6a843c
0646e248f77f6df4eca6d911723bcb291c5d66d1
6102 F20110319_AAAJGS morriss_j_Page_056thm.jpg
1180eaedcacd2a02ac1f93f19b513711
d03fcd43b8ffd928c3e67b4cdbb7219e304f27c7
6353 F20110319_AAAKJV morriss_j_Page_051thm.jpg
cba682664a02474505a770d0464fb56c
36e4608d307a9840b17542ae4d89f84ef4bc0d2f
30592 F20110319_AAAJHI morriss_j_Page_033.pro
f9e360de83f21b28d0f9197a128dd97c
badcca37d430aa62b341a762be7a2deff7d3448f
47187 F20110319_AAAJGT morriss_j_Page_062.pro
adcc5c5916eaaa3e2ab647e52abd68d6
9de67a45972b31ad8151e880a3f8bff75a44019e
6635 F20110319_AAAKJW morriss_j_Page_065thm.jpg
153317bef0d182e460713874499a74ab
bbea0fc5e88f75b2948e4a38c7efbabc338c8fb1
80924 F20110319_AAAJHJ morriss_j_Page_073.jpg
15013d4a08e05eab0a65a9cffae0f99f
5efd88f47eee2a20a88501aacfb75e011bf268a8
5981 F20110319_AAAJGU morriss_j_Page_040thm.jpg
6c8c7545240553003d3f1e2575858cee
d7e8b09b2d1f24cb9ca919fc338cbae66923d594
5067 F20110319_AAAKJX morriss_j_Page_118thm.jpg
a9973f78332c925e3cae67056e4b7928
74df6a8e5e2b26864e344f3d36fbbd9b61a8abc4
81915 F20110319_AAAJHK morriss_j_Page_084.jpg
4469603232f478e7a9918ed84774f83d
c68c62a2998346c4c4fc765bb499d067718c35f5
85725 F20110319_AAAJGV morriss_j_Page_087.jpg
118e3d34b71938197da1264eaf9eb9cb
7fe2933d90ebfe8c2c943401410c039985156452
130 F20110319_AAAJHL morriss_j_Page_104.txt
90c786500b4a3da479956748323976a9
1911dffb4c64874eb13e70ea1837cd27fc259ef6
6300 F20110319_AAAJGW morriss_j_Page_093thm.jpg
07228d908e20814838e08099e3c51efc
ada10caf097e16ea8e4e5e0639a8a6edf844bebb
6142 F20110319_AAAJHM morriss_j_Page_080thm.jpg
60f7f2688664a7d93cdb0c261d497b07
49b4c90e51ad53635594887bce4183ab319a5a78
6221 F20110319_AAAJGX morriss_j_Page_072thm.jpg
4b0d92e0c33d281e8028e97bc620872e
42eb1d450ba24a582015bf4194309e6e136cf7cc
27201 F20110319_AAAJIA morriss_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
462887306fd8e562f6426bd3a0903b92
443482ca9fafccb521ad0c4627e4fb84e97c3814
25063 F20110319_AAAJHN morriss_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
1df5595181b755a2b6a30059bd5f228c
e67ba18d08cbc3f1beb50d75cb2bef1f1510e20a
50123 F20110319_AAAJGY morriss_j_Page_089.pro
20a9ab524c7d59a9474dd8d123faab93
bc6b7ba0fbfa9627cc4eeec35c4c30a997da7c99
1051969 F20110319_AAAJIB morriss_j_Page_057.jp2
19a8aa7d1fc5727d6a23ad61119efa54
064b904ef63ada40a358ba1c8a64e9d5824fdb5a
26810 F20110319_AAAJGZ morriss_j_Page_069.pro
8c72a10e0874033ed253f7e19e58d1d0
3e788b9e839acf96cbaacd97ebe818ceaa66757d
106355 F20110319_AAAJIC morriss_j_Page_027.jp2
ac07221a248eda15940c83ff8179ac67
d97dcef26b61fd0313eef9beca9efdd82aae2e66
27985 F20110319_AAAJHO morriss_j_Page_111.jpg
6cb7c787140fb6d8b61a27d050d15cb2
f30421c00a0aacf96a5f7f7ba261e3b306af7f78
24786 F20110319_AAAJID morriss_j_Page_065.pro
03baf74f2938decb4195baf8f8abc689
8512460344b837760574288eae49cf6d13e91d7d
6146 F20110319_AAAJHP morriss_j_Page_097thm.jpg
0766e83d939a35822f604dbb99a2c745
37fb3cbe66fe213b6ffb0839b622f41515faf078
109064 F20110319_AAAJIE morriss_j_Page_048.jp2
4188ca7059b3c3332473b5e967d53aab
44f6191e673f599566639cfbf0b4339a2d563aa9
3082 F20110319_AAAJHQ morriss_j_Page_103.txt
58e0f71905d38c88b176b9b3ed5b9be8
49e4432c5e45639c4fe9a47461e3fd11aab4c346
F20110319_AAAJIF morriss_j_Page_109.tif
3ed87bac312e05b1123a64b1a305aed5
1fb12b0ff1c36bda125540c5012f7cb917744d78
1751 F20110319_AAAJHR morriss_j_Page_039.txt
c7bff2364a900a014b2c5e7525842897
2422f3bf7a3cb5dbdb18e048715558b398f87b36
3315 F20110319_AAAJIG morriss_j_Page_047thm.jpg
d06ecfba6aea5005ea0cedb21ce3d48e
05545921eb7bea6c78aeece9beacaaeac81e7cce
F20110319_AAAJHS morriss_j_Page_067.tif
be7a99cb8fa2453f1be529b8130338f3
e54c4adb62c2b44af51c0d6fa628e3a165788fca
F20110319_AAAJIH morriss_j_Page_016.tif
7664920b21316b7834690b17dd3529c7
6a08217992a71fee04cf8a31d3202c79294384b9
102337 F20110319_AAAJHT morriss_j_Page_022.jp2
fd27f086b4e33500c84debb2b7637450
0aa44a1e91118c4adfdcfebf6652aec4f8964563
78374 F20110319_AAAJII morriss_j_Page_080.jpg
2f7571a402c17f861fe651b2d4f19cd7
a4198f657d105b20000d440ee76758a6222f01ac
54177 F20110319_AAAJHU morriss_j_Page_047.jpg
be35d8078d24c902e7f1786d12250b8b
ac49b9ef71fd7c0a4e89767902548fa5add7891c
8940 F20110319_AAAJIJ morriss_j_Page_001.pro
ca9d58c3522e4e597b710fe54c59cdc2
5f3a1e88964ea0db645acb91ae05ab18e6790754
1114 F20110319_AAAJHV morriss_j_Page_074.txt
f13448febd590dbfdf263dbe65e253e7
169864c04d4a33eed8713c5f22fd8b721f8d2dbe
951 F20110319_AAAJIK morriss_j_Page_063.txt
fcbaaa266915e9571a298e15f23573a7
66b9d73689b4142537af5be385e26ecf8f2aee53
F20110319_AAAJHW morriss_j_Page_132.tif
83a9118d3441e66b388e06fc9acf3d21
878f3e5e90f4e97f08ea33b6ccdb0954d7bb086f
71911 F20110319_AAAJIL morriss_j_Page_065.jpg
1e4ee845ad3595cd921a0b4ff3b0078b
72949856542ea650b19d14c2b29060cccee29b29
78854 F20110319_AAAJHX morriss_j_Page_060.jpg
b213bb0a6b6d61c610c5f3d3a8fda0d2
5b2aabc33b186fb3f59ae6c7328dc05393f5a3d4
10654 F20110319_AAAJJA morriss_j_Page_099.jp2
993ad4bc6ed953e5af8ecd1834c10398
8b7bf69f28a221f2da539a376b5738922c014967
1176 F20110319_AAAJIM morriss_j_Page_034.txt
cb7dc05bf45c95a7b657dfa5f274b48b
baea969feb899c7e5e5d08c0adbcf46dd015aba8
F20110319_AAAJHY morriss_j_Page_020.tif
8f237aa30b4ac6df0cab548a3b4d651d
c01f36fae2ebcb3c4e4bb515909ae76a3c53e722
2301 F20110319_AAAJJB morriss_j_Page_053thm.jpg
2a9a738c3fb6a081c931515f1797ea27
e31c023a9b21132638129e95af384ac29ded650b
F20110319_AAAJIN morriss_j_Page_041.tif
ecbde8bdfaddfdecf1df50cb8718087d
7999600eabc2626d82ce073075cc678912b363cd
26293 F20110319_AAAJHZ morriss_j_Page_071.pro
869ae7b5e6b3e4c4dc0db7c5e9ef8018
34820c0bee7d5034f58c10c961f2a4b83227e9d3
F20110319_AAAJJC morriss_j_Page_046.tif
cd8ed3586577af2c50c1cc0705a37b30
b1acd84b565fdb5ace814d804c92bb56a3f7f024
71813 F20110319_AAAJIO morriss_j_Page_064.jpg
80fe72e5dee78199e848cac0cfb6bee8
330aade52188901385035c7db63eefafc5bb7b76
3687 F20110319_AAAJJD morriss_j_Page_126thm.jpg
1f2849fa742c0c5609bbb0bb6d42ed8f
8b9e3af6cc0915da3d381e109c0ab377516bf87a
F20110319_AAAJJE morriss_j_Page_093.tif
007a6c157fc0904401a45a90069346e9
937d4c747b8af34b4c097d96bf7597d0de6c5a25
1560 F20110319_AAAJIP morriss_j_Page_030.txt
508f9cd5a5e3799369f8721d03c32cba
2406e4d8f53562da541b4484fe2501ac27d9e3cd
F20110319_AAAJJF morriss_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
4dbdfe367e685d251bda7b51e0e4fdd2
9bb23924eac7c1e3e4e0429a52a599f98c4ae81d
2965 F20110319_AAAJIQ morriss_j_Page_098thm.jpg
6bebb245d983511daac504a27d1f93fe
f8f4fce864c18f2497dc95e73400ad743b146b27
1730 F20110319_AAAJJG morriss_j_Page_118.txt
3c684ee08f1a7745170334fcfd91d824
d27e8362ea205d55162fbdd0a55c358cef05c215
1697 F20110319_AAAJIR morriss_j_Page_015.txt
1108e4c3e212440c9f334d55be0ca08f
1ff88c2994d8c33f27203b2bd41295f8ab91fa66
F20110319_AAAJJH morriss_j_Page_130.tif
cc8c03526850be788504a80f42ea8db2
3138be8b004c12e16fb5560821a5ee64dd0a91be
85494 F20110319_AAAJIS morriss_j_Page_091.jpg
3d38b0145d47cc7b4770e2eb69b88dc5
69bffa7579312420f782722c40342beab4618973
6487 F20110319_AAAJJI morriss_j_Page_019thm.jpg
6f380e868ff1d2a27e3e23494094c0e2
4f481d26633410972b5a50f543eca6908ae14d30
1896 F20110319_AAAJIT morriss_j_Page_090.txt
51436d04f82e78cbc68438ba0a3d1bf6
c3b59f4ac5498ab115d0ecbb4a9c95cc4d3eb571
63129 F20110319_AAAJJJ morriss_j_Page_009.jpg
7ff9a84a7d2fb101215f0f361cacde47
86ca7b30c6b1c8f30b7d4adf489b04fcdf3088c3
790345 F20110319_AAAJIU morriss_j_Page_128.jp2
1cb832fe40f87770e3999209b3ec1b9d
c90ae86636406cf6cee6acd5ba23aae19fa46385
4469 F20110319_AAAJJK morriss_j_Page_035thm.jpg
7dc956ddbae51f18a6929fcb1668617e
b5816f5a88a76b029e833fa585da8abf1a7ea733
2995 F20110319_AAAJIV morriss_j_Page_127.txt
071409cdc47df417ea291200cdb7cc2e
37f75b59b4e732c3a988b4a4cbc74d61ad2bc2ec
F20110319_AAAJJL morriss_j_Page_043.tif
840bf4ae17663cc32756d32a364cc13b
698d52e731d8f132bd65d046ee8836a67cd2ef74
321508 F20110319_AAAJIW morriss_j_Page_131.jp2
74edef9a7eacaf6511c8c95055eb5118
17379cc98a6810b0a8f921ac66cfd693b21697b8
F20110319_AAAJKA morriss_j_Page_037.tif
3ae7faefc4c85cd52219fc877a0cde8e
5bd69fb83a1c05494a0c64a78b7cd2ca7e506f18
76964 F20110319_AAAJJM morriss_j_Page_076.jpg
0af3f2d9c680885ef32a514bfe799fa2
1cf2178e744179c0e73e19aa7b3ec78408788cbf
F20110319_AAAJIX morriss_j_Page_007.tif
4af5f625dc0e0c84d28c85e96d2dc57f
8a91a3ff4ef6ad44f3bba09d4a4dc89baeba9e46
81958 F20110319_AAAJKB morriss_j_Page_092.jpg
77d89b1cc6a4e32a20c085b4b6a74c69
31ffef722e0b61f40038e7a1290e192743b5615a
3424 F20110319_AAAJJN morriss_j_Page_100thm.jpg
a4c492c899d8ad0e4320743bb53ff24a
409dee1923a05b83d72451e6c29d5908af0d118d
6035 F20110319_AAAJIY morriss_j_Page_117.jp2
ae4b75025d32a454fb42017ad9828818
ef25cdddd1137c36c7f489db2539311f38a40866
4964 F20110319_AAAJKC morriss_j_Page_125.jpg
5b5a57f5afb3d9c343f3e7628193decc
daca5012bcc15f633dd98f9c4a90b738935ba6f5
74793 F20110319_AAAJJO morriss_j_Page_031.jp2
347f51019fc25690decce905ea9c354a
527147b0a7c4eb642e9aafacc5c78d3177469ac7
F20110319_AAAJIZ morriss_j_Page_045thm.jpg
6ef6d11e8128eab29df00b78573bdef4
92e585d4621aaf6281ee127ea9c34fe0cc4562fd
1960 F20110319_AAAJKD morriss_j_Page_048.txt
c0e897525711ee6ea726623f98217353
5dcc52e5300addb6318736732c5de37057057b1c
F20110319_AAAJJP morriss_j_Page_045.tif
0ea77eb2d86df0a59daf189b739246fc
0a0679960e926df01f666e255618c27bed522eab
F20110319_AAAJKE morriss_j_Page_124.tif
e0439bfbe76a95fb8e3572df79b4e2a2
a474ed956acee069d4efcef075826ccaa0a9f27c
1119 F20110319_AAAJKF morriss_j_Page_124.txt
4983e5daecfd679ec05303430342b395
b8ba8530b56ea91587abb00151b958f6ef299eca
55125 F20110319_AAAJJQ morriss_j_Page_034.jp2
5afcde518b4e3b787b55d532bf17e631
7f351e02b8b43463fb7ea78017fd302ab1c368ea
F20110319_AAAJKG morriss_j_Page_072.txt
e1168288de99b20a50806daf704a9105
15dc093e4214f21ad97a0468947d4874ff9b4a24
8913 F20110319_AAAJJR morriss_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
262e84479e4edaae5e24b1cab69c3d18
8036669abc002fbd65ce159d3101d9a83c978400
2018 F20110319_AAAJKH morriss_j_Page_051.txt
87a6f8fe22eb43a5714e1b524df636f8
9c1bc3ea7557fd278b3b1e3bfdd18da0504f96b9
487 F20110319_AAAJJS morriss_j_Page_001.txt
7de279ba49aae8b11ca5fc1b13440b55
e6130eaf9f089c791e969e51f98e7619fe4864b1
106321 F20110319_AAAJKI morriss_j_Page_066.jp2
3fa814893f9d2f7b647c91f2d73b63ae
0195b333ad14e3122d2ca9c701c3651ce7cc65f6
1848 F20110319_AAAJJT morriss_j_Page_058.txt
93db286e91782c17d3176bc705bf4fc3
ddd509c8f48b8fcb9fed818874e834d36dd8e66b
74265 F20110319_AAAJKJ morriss_j_Page_105.jpg
2ebde1c32ec61e4452e3fd675dbaa1b8
f72c914b4f8536be37bcc9a8096950742ca25388
10650 F20110319_AAAJJU morriss_j_Page_004.jpg
824df32249a87e98b7f366a50631d2cd
8c1d1f9275d67adae293f88f9cf696fc13d30db4
4733 F20110319_AAAJKK morriss_j_Page_117.jpg
ad28510765f2c3afc826c94bd0e85136
a94b57a1d6c67394614784a89c03a05747b1e713
50792 F20110319_AAAJJV morriss_j_Page_026.pro
325e4a800da06a6d3845597607961132
fe3ece1cbab752a5a74f0e33e8286fe253fc1cf1
1919 F20110319_AAAJKL morriss_j_Page_040.txt
623ff2d394c9f0c461d534f997528eff
f76fc4c41fc85151ea2eb16371053a0097abe0db
6171 F20110319_AAAJJW morriss_j_Page_066thm.jpg
551f051ae1de1b23616e12197e163faa
03a53c084d6a958a5673add04bb6c408e7c89621
63700 F20110319_AAAJKM morriss_j_Page_103.pro
7ca1a60b62066fd11c265608f4548095
d9799190b25377fc40c5f6cd40187a012d44ada4
49737 F20110319_AAAJJX morriss_j_Page_093.pro
60c5e02564d2134a1697cc385dce0bc5
42c4401b4ab4ce451c1675bba23c5fbd9409640d
19910 F20110319_AAAJLA morriss_j_Page_101.pro
ec9984f8bfe5e6c2a6412a379d1750e4
bbd9b5439a5ff7fdf4bc678ec606763645212491
77675 F20110319_AAAJKN morriss_j_Page_062.jpg
c278d5dd937c31d5011d6d6f2c6d0dbe
bd402161993cba7e50d0c2704f87bae89ce7198f
23914 F20110319_AAAJJY morriss_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
8d4ffe9d68f82e182b35d116c1f1d564
ada7262e51d9f010062dbeb60141e271292fae1f
73136 F20110319_AAAJLB morriss_j_Page_011.jpg
578705b9b1c8919f659d31ca73b5b71d
8dfbe735dc69b36b199ee9e8ea75fa9dc551f26d
53356 F20110319_AAAJJZ morriss_j_Page_102.jpg
0a289dd5ca46ad387ebddad9f21bf382
2fcd5ef9a150148c9163758ee381071d81ba8d9e
F20110319_AAAJLC morriss_j_Page_074.tif
6deadac847709f9b661ebce021550f37
924f5ca4f9334bffe11d0fe567ee4a802b6a01c9
F20110319_AAAJKO morriss_j_Page_081.tif
1cf8068aa478626e580ee8710a9975d8
2df57367bb6e995e501919ebe0f38505b04cc0ce
5030 F20110319_AAAJLD morriss_j_Page_015thm.jpg
ae10a5bd100fa380c66edb7d38670e8b
ef32b566c4b2f29c8936f920a8507a315989bd4c
F20110319_AAAJKP morriss_j_Page_127.tif
a02007267ba329696c2cf86ef238b27f
02180fb69d31c5a3247ca5e6b4b8d5b421b103f7
1779 F20110319_AAAJLE morriss_j_Page_110.txt
4a9e7111aa0a0f5bc4e9fd298ec29454
9f9f3a86b943a12d2bbb645dc2eb8ca98021d28e
26524 F20110319_AAAJKQ morriss_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
8d55136d84ed7fa0835c2af433318c71
ab107580cdba7aae8c505ef7aac5adcffb205546
5345 F20110319_AAAJLF morriss_j_Page_017thm.jpg
c8c010a2b61b400e74e34796d70b2aee
2cdc8ff70a4ffc35bdb61319722fe216fe06cc17
35183 F20110319_AAAJLG morriss_j_Page_044.pro
1d0ac9cff76cb3556ac9b9fdc4ddca0b
a7490c2b8b5bec591d48fa5608d8dbdada8e983d
26763 F20110319_AAAJKR morriss_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
21228b1502cf51a4409af82af4bf1b99
ca8c4dc255474e37a4481402f8993badeefd8bf4
6108 F20110319_AAAJLH morriss_j_Page_046thm.jpg
e6d220fa2cc9993900710f7c5ef2a7bb
ea5c8e5930a96101cb90b860e744e41b18e7214e
12680 F20110319_AAAJKS morriss_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
b48273991fdab43a6c55016d2e62ce4d
925e9b6a84709018f3ad4e7f8b05d5e06efce67b
4490 F20110319_AAAJLI morriss_j_Page_110thm.jpg
8422d71afcf8f494963b8de2e594005a
11c9779a2373e3155624687269c75e7d65712416
1846 F20110319_AAAJKT morriss_j_Page_068.txt
2723daa01192271343035e64aa373e27
7bcd040c295098e3997531d142e53cd7a0216ca0
F20110319_AAAJLJ morriss_j_Page_104.tif
3e5d1c96cc68364b5461dc88940269a5
d250cf12c3c9e5aff326ea9072e5d78431da7405
666 F20110319_AAAJKU morriss_j_Page_106.txt
563b00927ad4235a2198992db6bc69b8
c0e874e6f3b7e14c8a14f9a279ffa589c2b4ee77
16292 F20110319_AAAJLK morriss_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
a426e29d66bbfb4855997da1fe645e7c
23bd31df6e895e83656e1aa78858c2123680fe02
2441 F20110319_AAAJKV morriss_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
e0965ff770a99c0c266041077e1a403c
cefd7ad26fca298c78ea4d293fe4e9e5be1a5a22
F20110319_AAAJLL morriss_j_Page_128thm.jpg
32c49b056c910d7e772239853f831e80
1b58b3a75e73b9d87246a6e64ff35847b3fa7461
F20110319_AAAJKW morriss_j_Page_111.tif
020a2d18daa67b397ba45c1b3c92656b
d2cd183d9e3582fa3f0356da74c80d104bd3f311
111879 F20110319_AAAJMA morriss_j_Page_087.jp2
c7da043a0271d24d4912cd0c40b6a889
3ef99850ab62d2582f7d7320ae09c6486e6beed4
44175 F20110319_AAAJLM morriss_j_Page_130.jpg
0fda4d5256b982bb446813d2282ceb14
f35ea453bff400c4a1485f35d881f92fc2936d29
66879 F20110319_AAAJKX morriss_j_Page_033.jp2
a53c4e4cf466aae231916c018fe85f44
c58cf3a7aa3038b266310690425eecd7c0e7fa9c
64439 F20110319_AAAJMB morriss_j_Page_115.jpg
42fbfbeff408e84c719eec54a22b1c3f
e597bb018c3c26ee174001aa7e1662d8fd0fd5e4
7138 F20110319_AAAJLN morriss_j_Page_076thm.jpg
fe0b04498b9da122de9da66fa8bd0117
29d919822a3fec7dad821ed3f693e70124df293a
108645 F20110319_AAAJKY morriss_j_Page_092.jp2
bdf916e529fc6ac2f05aab3dc45fbf52
91ba4f87bfbd9a27ba5e4c361cce9b1dd29f9af9
72187 F20110319_AAAJMC morriss_j_Page_077.jpg
dbc8fea8576a1dd92190421a5cb7c82a
b053a35539626dd385448034df986741ae049679
21297 F20110319_AAAJLO morriss_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
6a893d5d9dc602adc788722abbbc7a7d
1ad13d10645ddfcbe960a94d7532e8411ca94120
105600 F20110319_AAAJKZ morriss_j_Page_046.jp2
61c5fea640113157d7607136e3904d3f
eacfcb93ed0040ea21a2469073a37abeea550c01
F20110319_AAAJMD morriss_j_Page_079.tif
f9c203ae627a95d86cc85822656fd7e9
cd3d419e2a668f5f41030aa8d32e59e01e18e466
2067 F20110319_AAAJLP morriss_j_Page_091.txt
d23e0fc8cd775d6bc458766b285c0faf
dbc35a3c191e7d6a4a9681566f0491ff55d53c54
1918 F20110319_AAAJME morriss_j_Page_001thm.jpg
e8c4f9bb739299cca239fc8afa3bbf60
06c7159f96b748dfb861231702c6ad8ae502f7b9
2537 F20110319_AAAJLQ morriss_j_Page_128.txt
5ecb49cbfa67947e43fb275081d7feac
f02abd3c242a1e7a4223cad116ec50d7d228bf23
F20110319_AAAJMF morriss_j_Page_099.tif
dc364f12dde7f3876447ce401479f933
e4baa0966946d1df986990bcf52f2d83d251760c
24537 F20110319_AAAJLR morriss_j_Page_084.pro
673a02a79a802cea9addca3589244366
631087cc073039686a91f9600f4fad5f20afe389
853 F20110319_AAAJMG morriss_j_Page_099thm.jpg
748178549fff5e439bd3fda26ffd3db4
b9d8771be4d22da1598ed1a132494198f33fc2dc
68923 F20110319_AAAJMH morriss_j_Page_118.jpg
b9f5ada3968ee9cedd5c7e7fa27e6033
d3bc992b97cfa4467ed8fb0d7dc8ba41ff4d147e
953127 F20110319_AAAJLS morriss_j_Page_102.jp2
8fc4c5fa188d6ca405e74020b6b6dbbf
ed38b8d0e5349931a2311e887f1a69db83d0544a
2029 F20110319_AAAJMI morriss_j_Page_019.txt
000241a0632c004c53a38471d2fa3cdc
07d6845ed35cd2428086b9e792d2f482928b68c2
6168 F20110319_AAAJLT morriss_j_Page_096thm.jpg
39ddb8fcc2512fd3b47c2440242bfe16
47e9e3d9fb5302f9083b01073fa5766babbc1b49
F20110319_AAAJMJ morriss_j_Page_087.tif
2851521db5cd510f35995f3bbc39549b
48b190d40550eb5b72565a6930558c76776fc1b0
24326 F20110319_AAAJLU morriss_j_Page_081.pro
7e05b6093422b18d696841edf19fb6cf
3e7b07f28b0f449685845e592e207e5d49ce6e0a
6198 F20110319_AAAJMK morriss_j_Page_025thm.jpg
775b6d199ff4239bf02e0ab70e29322f
771de9892dec2449084590d6f770b502ce99a5d7
5747 F20110319_AAAJLV morriss_j_Page_022thm.jpg
c7a42bfb96f1c119788febc1f51960c6
81a0cc4723c62dc33d9471aa9b22d947ac04d3d2
75278 F20110319_AAAJML morriss_j_Page_078.jpg
6f26d966fabd5ecb1f1d3138ef0c6601
e3afa768a63d84548bfc06918cd18ea029202e2c
106892 F20110319_AAAJLW morriss_j_Page_014.jp2
0ee91b7a6a31765d87558c8b909acdf5
cc6f7de0159dfa35d06783b925b91949014fcbb1
68037 F20110319_AAAJMM morriss_j_Page_032.jp2
c7a2c1c9b118138891b5893a92296e16
065773b17d43b241347e356426d849ab6e88afa9
955690 F20110319_AAAJLX morriss_j_Page_049.jp2
af71203e0900ad7b2a3833d1400f2e32
10b0836ce9420cf00e8b64de20e1befa66bfa418
6789 F20110319_AAAJNA morriss_j_Page_120.jpg
a311ed2da6959f35ef8dab5a5d5f322d
b4b175f59bea403cd117d369dca26dabd4810027
15644 F20110319_AAAJMN morriss_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
c069a84f547be5cd9d3a9672943401e5
a93c8230d5b219eaac88f3827b962a20fb400e07
F20110319_AAAJLY morriss_j_Page_029.tif
72788ba98f505c2a8a5fe3902d55438e
ae4403873014931a041f3ff2892886867d75b018
1217 F20110319_AAAJNB morriss_j_Page_076.txt
42e22a73f9be665ed18f80facb94e8ee
561ce85b3395c85e9e775801df7f64d0e7294db8
F20110319_AAAJMO morriss_j_Page_123.tif
6aacb12d3707e9f98ecf3ec1a76e9101
b75cf775cf014e5873bf103ee0b25f199b3e2623
F20110319_AAAJLZ morriss_j_Page_020.txt
409965c095327b85088c38677b8bbec1
9d75580a75e986f5fb02c93a53122657c66e1085
991 F20110319_AAAJNC morriss_j_Page_016.txt
faf868c0012d7a61f768110ef6977780
4f56d08abee00507248bef5c470afa1495330861
F20110319_AAAJMP morriss_j_Page_011.tif
1489b53a52de9afb14a9540080505fb6
67e06d1d613981fab3b656c0b6c2304798829226
12147 F20110319_AAAJND morriss_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
2ebbaa8bc830c194dd25fd1b5c6cc7bb
c42dd2ce10600ba425460dbe9d93a33ab48c266b
80271 F20110319_AAAJMQ morriss_j_Page_083.jpg
cb07ac1a2b00b876c33bbc1c52f9578a
4c032d6cf35dbf985a70feda11dea1b8760674a5
14674 F20110319_AAAJNE morriss_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
ce280a62ec338065b43e5143f02924eb
ddd1ebfff6ca86eae47f478d6384197a3b3045b0
6830 F20110319_AAAJMR morriss_j_Page_074thm.jpg
9129f7fc298a2a29cabe59e6cb8c96f4
cdd85c74b9cb539df9583c0566138b44ed58354d
20825 F20110319_AAAJNF morriss_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
e764d4d0236291a6856907b58ed846dc
88bd956cba6d31efa5d60158ccf09cf0a18ddd56
1739 F20110319_AAAJMS morriss_j_Page_064.txt
58d115946b5ce4fc062d26f6dba3fb2d
d5bcdc01d17cc135c4773dd637661dc91155b729
F20110319_AAAJNG morriss_j_Page_009.jp2
9c4b605e1496c588d668d3795b5d7b57
b442211bc821cbc865778ad2e9dde97c19ec83ab
24511 F20110319_AAAJNH morriss_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
88275dfc9e37af7736efa85e59372fd7
cdddf04a2e7e0a8bb9d2a5ac320fcc08c9c43ff4



PAGE 1

IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS By JESSICA LORA MORRISS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Jessica Lora Morriss

PAGE 3

I would like to dedicate my thesis to my pa rents, Jack and Debby Morriss, as well as my grandmother Celie Rueping and my best friend Becca Smith. I would never have been able to do this without their continued support and encouragement.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Scott Washburn, and my committee members, Dr. Ageliki Elefteri adou and Mr. Bill Sampson.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background...................................................................................................................1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................2 Research Objectives and Tasks....................................................................................4 Chapter Organization....................................................................................................5 2 METHODOLOGY REVIEW.......................................................................................6 Highway Capacity Manual (1985)................................................................................6 Methodology to Assess Level of Service on US-1 in the Florida Keys (1993)...........7 Level of Service of Two-Lane Rural Highways with Low Design Speeds (1994)......8 Highway Capacity Manual (2000)................................................................................9 Adaptation of the HCM2000 for Planning Level Analysis of Two-Lane and Multilane Highways in Florida (2002)....................................................................12 NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160 (2003).......................................................................13 Highway Capacity and Quality of Se rvice Committee Workshop on Developed Two-Lane Highways (2004)...................................................................................14 Mr. Douglas Harwoods Presentation.................................................................15 Mr. Doug McLeods Presentation.......................................................................16 Workshop Outcome.............................................................................................17 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXAMPLES: PE RCENT TIME SPENT FOLLOWING VERSUS PERCENT FREE FLOW SPEED..............................................................19 Example LOS Calculations.........................................................................................19 Initial Computations............................................................................................20 Calculations For PTSF........................................................................................21

PAGE 6

vi Calculations For PFFS.........................................................................................23 Comparison of PTSF and PFFS Service Measures....................................................25 Comparison of Service Volumes................................................................................27 4 RESEARCH APPROACH.........................................................................................28 Survey Method............................................................................................................28 Video Data Collection................................................................................................29 Selection of Two-Lane Highways.......................................................................29 Equipment Setup.................................................................................................30 Collection of Video Footage...............................................................................31 Video Clip Production.........................................................................................32 Focus Group Implementation.....................................................................................35 Participant Recruitment.......................................................................................35 Participant Selection............................................................................................37 Focus Group Implementation..............................................................................40 5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.....................................................................................43 Analysis Method.........................................................................................................43 Focus Group Discussions....................................................................................43 Survey Forms.......................................................................................................44 Results........................................................................................................................ .45 Focus Group Discussions....................................................................................45 Survey Forms.......................................................................................................74 Form 1..........................................................................................................74 Form 2..........................................................................................................76 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................77 Conclusions.................................................................................................................77 Focus Group Implementation and Survey Forms................................................77 Focus Group Discussions....................................................................................78 Recommendations for Further Research....................................................................85 APPENDIX A LETTERS FROM FLORIDA OFFICIALS REGARDING HCM 2000 TWOLANE HIGHWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY................................................89 B TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BO ARD WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS JANUARY 2004.........................................................................................................94 Presentation by Douglas Harwood of MRI................................................................94 Presentation by Doug McLeod of FDOT...................................................................97 C SCHEMATIC OF IN-VEHICLE EQUIPMENT.....................................................100

PAGE 7

vii D MAPS OF DRIVING ROUTES...............................................................................102 E GAINESVILLE SUN NEWSPA PER ADVERTISEMENT....................................105 F PRELIMINARY SURVEY FORM..........................................................................107 G FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION SHEET AND SURVEY FORMS.....................110 Instruction Sheet.......................................................................................................110 Form 1 Section 1.......................................................................................................111 Form 1 Section 2.......................................................................................................112 Form 2.......................................................................................................................11 3 H WRITTEN SURVEY FORM RESULTS.................................................................115 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................123

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Input Roadway and Traffic Data....................................................................................20 2. LOS Thresholds for Class II a nd Class III Two-Lane Highways.................................20 3. Class II and Class III Service Volumes (AADT)...........................................................27 4. Two-Lane Highway Driving Routes..............................................................................33 5. Video Clip Descriptions.................................................................................................36 6. Summary of Participant De mographic Characteristics..................................................38 7. Summary of Participant Two-Lane Highway Driving Characteristics..........................39

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Class II LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN......................................................................26 2. Class III LOS Calcul ation in HIGHPLAN....................................................................26 3. In-vehicle Video Camera Setup.....................................................................................31 4. Screenshot of Composite Video Image..........................................................................34 5. Screenshot of Video Clip 1............................................................................................46 6. Screenshot of Video Clip 2............................................................................................48 7. Screenshot of Video Clip 3............................................................................................49 8. Screenshot of Video Clip 4............................................................................................52 9. Screenshot of Video Clip 5............................................................................................54 10. Screenshot of Video Clip 6..........................................................................................56 11. Screenshot of Video Clip 7..........................................................................................58 12. Screenshot of Video Clip 8..........................................................................................60 13. Screenshot of Video Clip 9..........................................................................................62 14. Screenshot of Video Clip 10........................................................................................63 15. Screenshot of Video Clip 11........................................................................................65 16. Screenshot of Video Clip 12........................................................................................67 17. Screenshot of Video Clip 13........................................................................................68 18. Screenshot of Video Clip 14........................................................................................70 19. Screenshot of Video Clip 15........................................................................................72 20. Screenshot of Video Clip 16........................................................................................73

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS By Jessica Lora Morriss August 2005 Chair: Scott S. Washburn Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering The concept of level of service (LOS) is central to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and is used to assess the performance of all types of roadway facilities. Many transportation infrastructure funding deci sions are based on LOS analyses and the resulting LOS designations are intended to re present user perceived quality of service. This paper provides an overview of the evolution of the two-lane highway LOS analysis methodology and identifies weakne sses in the methodology as perceived by the Florida Department of Transportation (F DOT), as well as other HCM users. In particular, this study focuses on deficiencies in the methodology (in terms of performance measures, LOS thresholds and service volumes) with respect to rura l developed two-lane highways, such as those facilities through small towns or developed coastal areas. Although the HCM intends for LOS designations to correlate with user perceived quality of service, little resear ch has been done to ascertain what those perceptions are. Therefore, the objective of th is study was to determine what performance measures

PAGE 11

xi appear to be most appropriate (i.e., consistent with traveler perceptions and expectations) for assessing LOS on different types of two-lane highways. This objective was facilitated primarily through direct input from non-trans portation specialist travelers in a series of three focus group sessions. Fo cus group participants watche d a series of video clips depicting different two-lane highway driving situations. Audio recordings of focus group discussions and data collected fr om survey forms were analyzed. Based on the data collected in this study, it is apparent that motorists consider several factors in their assessment of trip quality on a two-lane highway. The function and/or development setting of the facility al so appears to dictate what their quality of service expectations are. At this time, twolane highway classifications are largely based on expectations of travel speed. However, fr om this study, it appears that expectations for passing should also be considered, in a ddition to travel spee d, when distinguishing among facilities. Also, the current classifi cations do not address rural developed twolane highways (e.g., facilities thr ough small towns, developed co astal areas, etc.). These types of facilities shou ld receive their own classification (Class III) and their own specific performance measure. Ultimately, the development of a more comprehensive LOS methodology should be pursued. The outcome of such research might be a level of service function, defined in terms of a series of variables (performance measures) and corresponding coefficients that could be applied to all cate gories of two-lane highways.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [1] is widely accepted among governmental agencies in the Un ited States as the definitive tool for level of service (LOS) analysis on all types of roadway f acilities. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is no exception, and ha s committed itself to implementing the principles outlined in the HCM when eval uating the LOS for transportation facilities found within the state. The HCM 2000 defines LOS as a quali tative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stre am, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and comfort and convenience [1]. It also states that each LOS designation (A through F) represents a range of operating conditions and the drivers perception of those conditions [1]. In other words, the concept of LOS serves primarily as a means of evaluating the operating conditions and quality of service of a roadwa y as perceived by the traveling public. Because decisions regarding transportation infrastructure investment are largely based on LOS analyses, roadways with poor LOS designations typi cally receive higher priority for funding. Therefore, LOS methodol ogies that accurately reflect the roadway users perception of operating conditions ar e necessary to avoid spending taxpayer money where it is not necessary.

PAGE 13

2 With this in mind, transportation research ers are continually trying to develop new or improved methods for accurately estima ting roadway performance measures and translating those into LOS values that hopefully correlate well with the quality of service as perceived by the traveling public. Agai n, with better LOS analysis methodologies, transportation practitioners a nd funding decision makers will be able to make better infrastructure investment decisions in the eyes of the public. Problem Statement One area of special concern to the FDOT since the early 1990s has been the LOS analysis of two-lane highways in rural deve loped areas. Since the publication of the 1985 HCM, FDOT has questioned th e applicability of the twolane highway methodology to two-lane highways in rural developed areas. This issue came very much into focus when officials in Monroe County, Florida had difficulty accepting the results of HCM LO S analyses for US-1 (Overseas Highway) from the Florida mainland to the Florida Keys. After applying the 1985 HCM methodology, state transportation officials fe lt that the resulting LOS determinations along this highway were unrealistically low and did not reflect act ual user perceived quality of service. US-1, like many othe r two-lane highways in the United States, features uninterrupted flow with alternating sections of undeveloped and developed surrounding land use. However, as some tran sportation officials would later come to believe, the 1985 HCM two-lane highway me thodology was not designed to account for developed sections of two-lane highway with uninterrupted flow. These concerns did not apply only to US-1 however. In addition to FDOT officials, other HCM users were expressi ng dissatisfaction with the 1985 HCM two-lane highway methodology with respect to these types of facilities. Prior to the release of the

PAGE 14

3 HCM 2000, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored Project 3-55 Task 3 [2] to identify the strengths and weakness es of the 1985 HCM twolane highway chapter. As part of this project, a survey was conducted that asked HCM users to identify ways in which they w ould like to see the two-lane highway LOS methodologies improved. Among the responses, several comments were made regarding the lack of an explicit methodology for uninte rrupted flow two-lane highways in rural developed areas as well as two-lane highway s with reduced design speeds. One user stated, There is a need to develop a cons istent level of service measure to address situations where a rural twolane road passes through villa ge areas where posted speeds are less than those consider ed in the current methodology. In many cases, these areas cannot be considered urban or suburban and, t hus, there is not an appropriate method to assess level of service [2]. Another comment was, The procedure should address levels of service for roads with de sign speeds down to 25 mi/h [2 ]. The project report also noted that several agencies felt inclined to i nvent their own procedures to deal with these types of facilities. While the two-lane highway analysis methodology in the HCM 2000 was more robust than the previous methodology, transporta tion officials at the FDOT still felt that this revised methodology fell short of adequate ly addressing LOS analysis issues for twolane highways in rural developed areas. De spite the introduction of two different classes and corresponding service measures, which allo wed more flexibility in two-lane highway analyses, the FDOT still felt that traveler expectations on two-lane highways in rural developed areas were not consistent with the service measures, LOS thresholds, or

PAGE 15

4 roadway travel functions defined for either of these two classes. This is essentially the core of the problem for the FDOT. Although the HCM intends for LOS designations to correlate with user perceived quality of service, little res earch has been done to ascertain what those user perceptions are and rarely have user perceptions been compared to the current LOS designations assigned to a facility. Research Objectives and Tasks The objective of this study wa s to determine what performance measures appear to be most appropriate (i.e., c onsistent with traveler per ceptions and expectations) for assessing LOS on different types of two-lane highways. This objective was facilitated primarily through direct input from non-trans portation specialist travelers in a series of three focus group sessions. Th e following tasks were carried out in support of this research objective: Determine suitable two-lane highway segments from which to collect field data, Collect video footage of roadway and traffi c conditions from these chosen two-lane highway segments, Produce short video clips to be s hown to focus group participants, Recruit focus group participants, Conduct focus group sessions to solicit trav eler opinions and perceptions about the factors most important to them for asse ssing trip quality on two-lane highways Perform an analysis of focus group participant responses, and Recommend performance measures for us e in two-lane highway LOS analyses based upon the analysis of the fo cus group participant responses.

PAGE 16

5 Chapter Organization Chapter 2 includes an overview of existing literature rele vant to this topic as well as a timeline describing the sequence of events that led up to the current research detailed in this paper. Chapter 3 is an extensi on of chapter 2 in that it provides a more comprehensive look at the methodology in term s of service measures, LOS thresholds and service volumes. This is achieved th rough a series of exam ple LOS calculations. Chapter 4 describes the resear ch approach used in this study, including the selection of two-lane highways, equipment setup, collecti on of video footage, video clip production, focus group participant recruitment and se lection, and focus group implementation. Chapter 5 describes the analysis method as well as the results. Chapter 6 is comprised of conclusions and recommendations. Several ap pendices are also incl uded with supporting data and information.

PAGE 17

6 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY REVIEW This chapter provides an overview of the historical development of the two-lane highway analysis methodology in the HCM, de liberations by the Highway Capacity and Quality of Service (HCQS) committee on the topic, as well as other relevant literature. The material in this chapter is organized ch ronologically and traces the development of the methodology over approximately the last 20 years, as well as the related issues that ultimately motivated this research study. Highway Capacity Manual (1985) The 1985 publication of the HCM introduced the concept of percent time delay as the primary service measure to be used in th e assessment of LOS for two-lane highways. Percent time delay is essentially a measure of decreased mobility as a result of traffic platooning, or more precisely, t he average percent of time th at all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to the inability to pass [3]. Average travel speed (ATS) and capacity utilizati on were named as secondary measures. Also introduced in this edition was the c oncept of capacity as a function of the directional split of traffic. However, the cap acity analysis procedure still only estimated capacity for both directions combined (two -way), such as in the 1965 HCM. Also discussed in this edition are several meas ures that can be implemented to improve operations by reducing platooni ng. One of the measures discussed is the usage of passing lanes; however, no corresponding procedure acc ounting for their effect on operations is incorporated into the methodology.

PAGE 18

7 Another aspect of the methodology was th at it appeared to focus mainly on uninterrupted flow two-lane highways with high design speeds and undeveloped surrounding land use. Under the methodology, tw o-lane highways with design speeds greater than or equal to 60 mi/h were considered ideal, and quality of service representative of LOS A would consist of motorists being able to drive their desired speed with average travel sp eeds approaching 60 mi/h [3]. However, many two-lane highways are not designed for high speed trav el, either because of terrain, surrounding development, or other conditions. As discu ssed in the following sections, many users of this methodology came to believe that it di d not adequately addr ess these types of facilities. Methodology to Assess Level of Service on US-1 in the Florida Keys (1993) One such example, as described in a 1993 paper by De Arazoza and McLeod [4], was US-1 in the Florida Keys (Monroe C ounty). US-1, the sole roadway connecting mainland Florida to the Florida Keys, is primar ily an uninterrupted flow, two-lane facility with rural developed and suburban land us e. US-1 passes through several small communities and developed areas, with alternating stretches of rural, open highway. When trying to assess the LOS on US-1 using the 1985 HCM, state of Florida and Monroe County transportation officials felt that the methodology presented in the HCM did not adequately address the unique aspects of US-1, nor did it produce LOS designations that realisti cally reflected user perc eived quality of service. Largely in response to this finding, the St ate of Florida and Monroe County formed the US-1 LOS Task Force in 1990, of which the authors, De Arazoza and McLeod, were members. Around the same time, the FDOT formed a subcommittee, comprised of

PAGE 19

8 members from the previously established Florida LOS Task Team (1988), to deal specifically with issues regarding tw o-lane highways in developed areas. As explained in the De Arazoza and Mc Leod paper, the Monroe County Task Force, as well as the Florida LOS Task Team held the belief that on two-lane highways in developed areas most drivers were more concerned with maintaining a decent travel speed under uninterrupted flow conditions than trying to pass. In other words, both task teams did not believe that the 1985 HCM LOS service measure of percent time delay was appropriate for this situation. As a resu lt, the Monroe County US-1 LOS Task Force developed an alternative LOS methodology in which average travel speed (ATS) was used as the service measure, which they beli eved would reflect user expectations more effectively. The task force then developed LOS thresholds relative to the roadways posted speed limit (weighted by segment length). In 1991, and then again in 1992, the M onroe County Planning Department conducted a travel speed and delay study of US-1. The alternative methodology, using ATS as the service measure, was applied to the study data to assess the LOS on different segments of US-1, as well as the overall f acility. Based on knowledge of the local area and the supporting travel speed and delay data, De Arazoza and McLeod found that using ATS as a means to determine the LOS on US-1 produced results that accurately reflected traffic operations and perceived leve ls of congestion. Therefore, the authors recommended that ATS be used as the primar y service measure in the assessment of LOS for uninterrupted flow two-lane highways in developed areas. Level of Service of Two-Lane Rural Highways with Low Design Speeds (1994) A 1994 paper by Botha et al. [5] also expre ssed concern with th e two-lane highway chapter of the 1985 HCM. The authors noted the lack of an explicit methodology to

PAGE 20

9 assess two-lane highways with lower design speeds (less than 60 mi/h) and questioned the appropriateness of percent time delay as a service measure. These concerns were brought about when the authors observed discre pancies in the LOS results after applying both the 1965 and the 1985 HCM methodologies to two-lane highways with design speeds less than 60 mi/h. While this paper recognized the need to address two-lane highways with low design speeds, the authors do not refer sp ecifically to two-lane highways through developed areas (small towns, coastal areas, etc.). Instead, the focus of the research described in this paper was on the evaluati on of methodological alternatives for defining the LOS for two-lane highways with 50 m i/h design speeds [5]. The methodological alternatives, other than percent time delay as used in the 1985 HCM, included other service measures and concepts such as densit y (two-way), functional classification of the roadway, limitation on achievable LOS range fo r low design speeds, and a combination of percent time delay and density. Ultimately, the authors did not recommend any specific service measure or methodology. However, one of the main points that can be deduced from this paper is that the 1985 two-lane highway analysis methodology was insufficient in terms of evaluating two-lane highways with low design speeds and that further research needed to be conducted in an effort to remedy this issue. Highway Capacity Manual (2000) In 1994 and 1997, the Transportation Resear ch Board (TRB) released updated editions of the HCM. However, there were no changes to the two-lane highway methodology introduced in either of these updates. In 1999, re search conducted as part of NCHRP 3-55 Task 3 [2] resulted in the development of a ne w two-lane highway

PAGE 21

10 analysis methodology for the HCM. This methodology was incorporated into the 2000 edition of the HCM and with it came many signi ficant changes. The two most significant changes involved the introduction of a directio nal procedure for capacity analysis and the introduction of a classification scheme defined in terms of user expectations of travel speed and roadway function. The classifica tion scheme and the corresponding service measures outlined in the HCM 2000 are the focus of this section. When following the current HCM methodology, the first step in determining the LOS of a two-lane highway is to classi fy the roadway. There are presently two classifications, which are defined below (directly from the HCM 2000): Class I highways are defined as two-lane highways in which drivers expect to travel at relatively high speeds. Two-lane highways that are major intercity routes, primary arterials connecting major traffi c generators, daily commuter routes, or primary links in state or national highway networks generally are assigned to Class I. These highways are often used in long-distance trips or as links between highways that serve long -distance trips. Class II highways are defined as two-lane highways in which drivers do not expect to travel at high speeds. Two-lane highway s that function as access routes to Class I facilities, serve as scenic or recreational routes that ar e not primary arterials, or pass through rugged terrain generally are as signed to Class II. These roadways are often used for relatively short trips, th e beginning and ending portions of longer trips, or for trips that include sightseei ng, such as trips along scenic routes. Once the classification is selected, the LOS can be determined by calculating the appropriate service measure(s) and applying the correspondi ng thresholds. Two service measures are used to determine the LOS of a Class I highway: percent time spent following (PTSF) and ATS. The definition of PTSF is essentially the same as that for percent time delay. The term was changed to percent time spent following to more clearly communicate the meaning of the serv ice measure [2]. However, only PTSF is used to determine the LOS of a Class II highway.

PAGE 22

11 While the two-lane highway analysis methodology in the HCM 2000 was more robust than the previous methodology, transporta tion officials at the FDOT still felt that this revised methodology fell short of adequate ly addressing LOS analysis issues for twolane highways in rural developed areas. De spite the introduction of two different classes and corresponding service measures, which allo wed more flexibility in two-lane highway analyses, the FDOT still felt that traveler expectations on two-lane highways in rural developed areas were not consistent with th e service measures or LOS thresholds for either of these two classes. More specifically, the FDOT felt that these types of facilities did not seem to easily fit into the new classification scheme. In accordance with the HCMs intent that LOS methodologies, and corresponding service measur es, reflect user perceived quality of service, the two classifications (Class I and Class II) are defined in terms of user expectations of travel speed. Class I facilities are those in which motorists expect to travel at high speeds, while on Class II facili ties motorists do not necessarily have this expectation. User expectations are in large part tied to roadway function. Roadways that function as major intercity routes or prim ary arterials are ofte n synonymous with high speed travel, and are therefore usually designa ted Class I facilities. Local collectors, scenic or recreational routes, and mountai nous roadways often do not carry the same expectations for high speed travel and ar e therefore usually designated as Class II facilities. However, the primary travel function of th e roadway is not always consistent with user expectations of travel speed. In fact, Chapter 12 of the HCM 2000 states, The

PAGE 23

12 classes of two-lane roads closely relate to th eir functions most arterials are considered Class I, and most collectors and local road s are considered Class II. However, the primary determinant of a facilitys classi fication in an operational analysis is the motorists expectations, which might not agre e with the functional classification [1]. This discrepancy between traveler expecta tion and roadway travel function formed the basis of the FDOTs concern with th e two-lane highway analysis methodology. Adaptation of the HCM2000 for Pl anning Level Analysis of Two-Lane and Multilane Highways in Florida (2002) A 2002 paper by Washburn et al. [6] further explained this sentiment and outlined the FDOTs attempt to remedy it by revising the LOS determination aspect of the HCM 2000 two-lane highway methodology. The author s note, Many of th e states two-lane highways are in areas that woul d be considered scenic in nature (e.g., along the coasts, the Florida Keys route), implying a Class II classification, yet many of these highways also serve well-developed areas, which would imply a Class I classification [6]. As a result, FDOT LOS Task Team members had to decide if either one of these classifications would be appropr iate for these types of highway s, or if a new classification needed to be developed [6]. As mentioned previously, FDOTs LOS Task Team members believed that the primary concern of drivers on rural develope d two-lane highways was the ability to maintain a decent travel speed rather than the ability to pa ss. Consequently, the FDOT decided to revise the two-lane high way LOS methodology of the HCM 2000, based on recommendations from researchers at the Univ ersity of Florida Transportation Research Center, to more adequately address their needs. These revisions were ultimately

PAGE 24

13 incorporated into the FDOTs two-lane and multilane highway level of service analysis software package (HIGHPLAN). One of the principal changes dealt with th e addition of a third class of two-lane highway that used percent of free flow speed (PFFS) as its primary service measure. The third class of two-lane highw ay was intended to represent those roadways in rural developed areas (e.g., along the coasts, through small communities/towns). The proposed service measure, PFFS, gives the average travel speed relative to the free flow speed. The authors note that the use of relative sp eed, as opposed to an absolute speed, provides a more accurate gauge of LOS than the ATS measure recommended in the US-1 methodology. Additionally, the authors proposed that the LOS thresholds also be based on PFFS. Ultimately, the authors concluded that there is great need for the HCM to recognize that a third class of two-lane highway exis ts and they recommended the use of PFFS as the corresponding service measure to be used in LOS analyses. NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160 (2003) In April of 2002, the American Associat ion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Tra ffic Engineering issued an emergency contract1 to the Midwest Research Institute (MRI ) to address issues regarding the twolane highway LOS methodology in the HCM 2000. The prime contractor, MRI, was to deal with two main concerns, initially raised by the FDOT, but also echoed by some other HCM users. The first concern involved th e overestimation of PT SF in the directional segment methodology. The second concern (w hich is relevant to this methodology 1 NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160: Two-Lane Highway Analysis Methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual: Final Report. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City, Missouri, 2003.

PAGE 25

14 review) dealt with th e fact that the HCM 2000 methodol ogy did not appear to address two-lane highways in developed areas. A ppendix A contains copi es of letters from representatives of FDOT and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) regarding this concern. The project report identified three scenarios not direc tly addressed by the HCMs two-lane highway methodology: 1. a two-lane highway with continuous ur ban/suburban development but with no traffic signals or traffic signals spaced at intervals greater than 2 miles, 2. a two-lane highway through a small town with a reduced speed limit, located on a major road with speeds of 55 mi/h or more, and 3. a two-lane highway in a transition area between rural and urban/suburban development, with reduced speeds and low-to-medium density development. Alternative conceptual methodologies were outlined in an attempt to address these three scenarios. The contractor also ma de recommendations as to where the new procedures should appear in th e HCM. While reviewers of th e report felt that the first issue regarding directional segment PTSF wa s addressed adequately by the contractor, there were still concerns with the second issue regarding tw o-lane highways in developed areas and questions still remained on how to proceed. Therefore, the final report was never officially published by the TRB. Th e correction to the PTSF estimation for the directional analysis methodology was incorporated into the official errata of the HCM, but the potential methodologies for analyzing two-lane highwa ys in the situations listed above were not published. Highway Capacity and Qualit y of Service Committee Workshop on Developed Tw o-Lane Highways (2004) In January 2004, at the annual TRB Conf erence in Washington D.C., the HCQS committee held a workshop to discuss the re sults of NCHRP Projec t 20-7 Task 160. At

PAGE 26

15 the workshop, both Mr. Douglas Harwood of MRI and Mr. Doug McLeod of the FDOT presented their respective opini ons and recommendations of how to handle LOS analysis for two-lane highways in rural developed areas. Dr. Scott Wa shburn of the University of Florida was the workshop moderator. The following sections summarize the presentations by Mr. Harwood and Mr. McLeod and the outcome of this workshop. Mr. Douglas Harwoods Presentation Mr. Harwoods presentation (refer to a ppendix B) summarize d the results of NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160 and addressed a ll three of the two-lane highway scenarios described above in which the current HCM methodology does not apply. For scenario 1 (two-lane highway with continuous suburba n/urban development), Mr. Harwood argued that this type of facility was essentially th e same as an urban street, except for the absence or wide spacing of si gnals. Therefore, he recomme nded that an approach similar to the urban street analysis methodology be us ed, with ATS as the service measure. An estimated (or measured) ATS was then to be compared to speed values representing percentages of the facilitys FFS, such as in Chapter 15 (Urban Streets) of the HCM. He recommended that ATS be calculated using procedures from either Chapter 15 or Chapter 20 (Two-Lane Highways), dependi ng on the presence or spacing of signals. The proposed LOS threshold values were the sa me as those used in Chapter 15 to assess LOS for urban streets. Because the recomm ended service measure and threshold values were the same as those found in Chapter 15, Mr. Harwood also recommended that the procedure be incorporated into that chapter. Because scenarios 2 (two-lane highway through a small town) and 3 (two-lane highway in a transition area) share similar ch aracteristics, Mr. Harwood issued the same recommendations for each. The recommendations for these types of facilities were based

PAGE 27

16 on two factors: 1) the length of the developed area with reduced speeds and 2) the amount of through traffic versus locally circulating traffic. The extent of development and the amount of through and/or local traffic is reas oned to be important because of the differing user expectations involved. If the developed area with reduced speed s extends for 2 miles or less and most traffic is through traffic, then Mr. Harwood argued that the roadway should be evaluated as a Class II two-lane highway. Through mo torists on a Class I facility, who travel through a small town or transition area most lik ely expect to return to Class I conditions shortly. Therefore, Mr. Harwood contended th at the reduced speed does not affect their perception of quality of service as much as the platooning that occurs as a result of it, which in turn hinders passing abilit y once Class I conditions are resumed. If the developed area with reduced speeds extends for more than 2 miles, with mostly local circulating traffic, Mr. Harwood argued that the procedure described above for two-lane highways with co ntinuous development (scenari o 1) should be used. He contended that if the majority of users are lo cal, traveler expectations may more closely relate to expectations of urban streets, thereby sugges ting ATS be used as the service measure. Mr. Doug McLeods Presentation Mr. Doug McLeods presentation [refer to appendix B] consisted of recommendations in contrast to those outlined by Mr. Harwood. The recommendations presented were essentially those expressed by Washburn et al. in the paper described in a previous section. These recommendations included the intr oduction of a third classification of two-lane highway that a pplied to all uninterrupted flow two-lane highways in developed areas and the use of PFFS as both the service measure and basis

PAGE 28

17 of LOS threshold values. Mr. McLeod also argu ed that these types of facilities should be addressed in an uninterru pted flow chapter as opposed to Mr. Harwoods recommendation of addressing them in Chapte r 15, an interrupted flow chapter. Mr. McLeod suggested that the use of PFFS is more consistent with user expectations while traveling on a two-lane highway through a developed area. He explained that PFFS reflects the desire to maintain a speed reflective of specific roadway/area circumstances, while PTSF large ly reflects the desire to pass, and ATS largely reflects the desire to maintain a set speed. Mr. McLeod argued that motorists traveling through small towns or other devel oped areas do not have an expectation to pass, and in many cases are restricted from passing, thereby rendering PTSF inappropriate. By that same token he suggest ed that motorists do not expect to go the same speed regardless of roadway/surrounding c onditions, which is what the use of ATS implies. Additionally, Mr. McLeod called attention to the differences between the current Class II two-lane highway methodology (a s revised by the NCHRP 20-7 Task 160 results) and the FDOTs proposed methodology, in terms of service volumes on a rural developed two-lane highway. He argued that the resulting service volumes using the PTSF service measure were largely underestimated for this type of facility and are inconsistent with user expectations. Workshop Outcome In conclusion, workshop participants were unable to reach consensus on the best way to proceed. Some participants felt that the mixed use of Chapters 15 and 20 of the HCM, as recommended by Mr. Harwood, would potentially cause added confusion for users. Many workshop participants felt that more specific research should be conducted

PAGE 29

18 to address the issue, and that a long term solution should be sought and released in a future edition, rather than a temporary fix re leased as errata. R ecognizing that a great deal of time would be required to perform additional research, the participants decided that some language be included in Chap ter 20 cautioning users that the existing methodology does not address two-lane highways in developed areas. In reaction to this workshop, the FDOT s ponsored quality of se rvice research to explore preliminarily what roadway performa nce measures are appropriate for assessing the level of service for two-lane highways. This research was performed by soliciting information from the travelers themselves. The details of this resear ch are the subject of chapter 4. The next chapter provides a more compre hensive look at the differences between the HCM 2000 Class II methodology and the FDOTs proposed methodology with respect to levels of service and service volumes. Numerical examples illustrating these differences are presented through a series of LOS calculations using both PTSF and PFFS service measures.

PAGE 30

19 CHAPTER 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXAMPLES: PERCENT TIME SPENT FOLLOWING VERSUS PERCENT FREE FLOW SPEED This chapter provides a detailed review of the computati onal procedures and resulting level of service (LOS) determinati ons for the PTSF and PFFS service measures. Two-lane highways that travel through small towns or alon g the coast clearly do not fit the HCM Class I definition, as discussed prev iously. Thus, by default, they must be considered as Class II under the curren t HCM methodology. The service measure for Class II two-lane highways is PTSF. Howeve r, the FDOT does not believe that this service measure or the corres ponding LOS thresholds are appropriate fo r these types of highways. In response, the FDOT has create d a third classification (Class III) in which PFFS is used as the primary service measure. The practical differences between the a pplication of the PTSF service measure1 and the PFFS service measure2 to these types of highways can best be illustrated by an example LOS calculation and corresponding serv ice volumes for a given set of input conditions. Example LOS Calculations The following example calculations utilize th e input conditions outlined in Table 1. The LOS thresholds for Class II and Class III two-lane highways are included in Table 2. 1Based on the revised methodology from NCHRP 20-7 Task 160 2As outlined in Washburn et al. [6]

PAGE 31

20 Table 1. Input Roadway and Traffic Data Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Area Type = Rural developed AADT = 5,000 veh/day Number of Lanes = 2 K factor = 0.097 Analysis Type = Segment D factor = 0.55 Terrain = Level PHF = 0.895 Posted Speed = 50 mph % Heavy Vehicles = 4% Presence of Median = No Base Capacity = 1700 Presence of Left Turn Lanes = Ye s Local Adjustment Factor = 0.92 % No Passing Zone = 40% Adjusted Capacity (calculated) = 1475 Presence of Passing Lanes = No Table 2. LOS Thresholds for Class II and Class III Two-Lane Highways Class IIa Class III LOS PTSF PFFSb,c A 40 > 91.7 B > 40-55 > 83.3 C > 55-70 > 75.0 D > 70-85 > 66.7 E > 85 > 58.3 a. Values are directly from the HCM [1] b. Values are directly from Washburn et al. [6]. c. PFFS Values derived by assuming a FFS of 60 mi/h and dividing into the Average Travel Speed thresholds in E xhibit 20-2 of the HCM 2000 [6] Initial Computations 1. Calculate DDHV DDHV = AADT K D DDHV = 5000 0.097 0.55 = 266.75 veh/h 2. Determine adjustment for the presence of a median and/or left turn lanes Left Turn Lane Adjustment (LTadj) = 0.0 Median Adjustment (MedAdj) = 0.0 AdjMedLTL = 1 + LTadj + MedAdj AdjMedLTL = 1 + 0.0 + 0.0 = 1.0

PAGE 32

21 3. Determine Facility Adjustment Factor (FacAdj) FacAdj = 1.0 for Analysis Type = Segment 4. Calculate Adjusted Volume (AdjVol) AdjVol = DDHV / (PHF LAF AdjMedLTL FacAdj) AdjVol = 266.75 / (0.895 0.92 1.0 1.0) = 323.96veh/h Calculations For PTSF 5. Determine ET (Truck passenger car equivalency factor) Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-10 (no interpolation necessary) Directional flow rate (32 3.96) > 300 600, terrain = level, ET = 1.1 6. Calculate fHV (heavy vehicle factor) 1 1 1 T T HVE P f HCM Equation 20-4 9960159 0 1 1 1 04 0 1 1 HVf 7. Determine fG (grade adjustment factor) Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20 -8 (no interpolation necessary) Directional flow rate (323. 96) > 300 600, terrain = level, fG = 1.00 8. Calculate forward direction volume (vd) HV G df f PHF V v * HCM Equation 20-12 Since the PHF was already accounted for in Step 4, the following equation is used: HV G df f AdjVol v 26 325 9960159 0 0 1 96 323 dv veh/h Check this value against flow range used for Exhibits 20-10 and 20-8, and repeat steps 6 through 9 as necessary. No further iterations are necessary

PAGE 33

22 9. Calculate opposing direction volume (vo) D D v vp o 1 12 266 55 0 55 0 1 26 325 ov veh/h 10. Determine values of coefficien ts a and b for HCM equation 20-17 Look up values from HCM Exhibit 20-21 (linear interpolation if necessary). vo is rounded to nearest 10 veh/h, 266.12 270.0 veh/h From exhibit, for vo = 200; a = -0.0014, b = 0.973 From exhibit, for vo = 400; a = -0.0022, b = 0.923 For vo = 270 veh/h, 00168 0 400 200 ) 0022 0 ( 0014 0 200 270 0014 0 a 9555 0 400 200 ) 923 0 ( 973 0 200 270 973 0 b 11. Calculate base percent time spent following (BPTSF) b dav de BPTSF 1 100 HCM Equation 20-17 454 34 1 1009555 026 325 00168 0 e BPTSFd 12. Determine value of fadj for HCM equation 20-16 Determine fadj value from HCM Exhibit 20-20 ( linear interpolation if necessary, by % no passing zone, directional split and two-way flow rate). For FFS = 55 (posted speed + 5), %NPZ = 40, vo = 266.12 veh/h This example only calls for interpolation by volume, 05521 46 adjf 13. Calculate percent time spent following (PTSF)

PAGE 34

23 o d d adj d dv v v f BPTSF PTSF HCM Equation 20-16 vd = 325.26 from Step 9 vo = 266.12 from Step 10 BPTSFd = 34.454 from Step 12 fnp = 46.05521 from Step 13 12 266 26 325 26 325 05521 46 454 34dPTSF PTSFd = 34.454 + 25.330 = 59.78 14.Determine Level of Service (LOS) LOS from Table 2 is C Calculations For PFFS 5. Determine ET (Truck passenger car equivalency factor) Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20 -9 (no interpolation necessary) Directional flow rate (323. 96) > 300 600, terrain = level, ET = 1.2 6. Calculate fHV (heavy vehicle factor) 1 1 1 T T HVE P f HCM Equation 20-4 9920635 0 1 2 1 04 0 1 1 HVf 7. Determine fG (grade adjustment factor) Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20 -7 (no interpolation necessary) Directional flow rate (323. 96) > 300 600, terrain = level, fG = 1.0 8. Calculate forward direction volume (vd)

PAGE 35

24 HV G df f PHF V v * HCM Equation 20-12 Since the PHF was already accounted for in Step 4, the following equation is used: HV G df f AdjVol v 55 326 9920635 0 0 1 96 323 dv veh/h Check this value against flow range used for Exhibits 20-10 and 20-8, and repeat steps 6 through 9 as necessary. No further iterations necessary. 9. Calculate opposi ng direction volume (vo) D D v vp o 1 18 267 55 0 55 0 1 55 326 ov veh/h 10. Determine adjustment for % no-pa ssing zones in anal ysis direction (fnp) for HCM equation 20-15 Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-19 (linear interpolatio n if necessary, by both volume and % no passing zone). For FFS = 55 (posted speed + 5), %NPZ = 40, vo = 267.18 veh/h This example only calls for interpolation by volume, 23 2 400 200 9 1 4 2 200 18 267 4 2 npf 11. Calculate average travel speed (ATS) np o d d df v v FFS ATS ) ( 00776 0 HCM Equation 20-15 FFSd = 55 from inputs vd = 326.55 from Step 9 vo = 267.18 from Step 10 fnp = 2.23 from Step 11

PAGE 36

25 ATSd = 55 0.00776(326.55 + 267.18) 2.23 = 48.16 mi/h 12. Calculate the Percent Free Flow Speed (PFFS) 100 d dFFS ATS PFFS 56 87 100 55 16 48 PFFS 13. Determine Level of Service (LOS) LOS from Table 2 is B Comparison of PTSF and PFFS Service Measures The above example calculations (the re sults are also shown in the HIGHPLAN output in Figures 1 and 2) demonstrate the difference in LOS when evaluating the given input conditions as a Class II roadway with PTSF versus a Cl ass III with PFFS. In the former case, the resulting LOS is C (PTSF = 59. 8). However, the average travel speed is only 1.8 mi/h below the posted speed limit, which indicates that roadway users are maintaining a reasonable speed even though they are following nearly 60 percent of the time. When evaluated with PFFS as the service measure, the resulting LOS is B (PFFS = 87.6), which seems to be a more accurate representation of operating conditions given that the ATS is so close to the posted speed limit. This example illustrates the FDOT belief that drivers on rural developed two-la ne highways are primarily concerned with maintaining a reasonable travel speed and ar e not as concerned with following or passing other vehicles.. Thus, the LOS C designa tion that results from applying PTSF is considered to be overly penalizing, whereas the LOS B designation that results from PFFS is thought to be more consistent with traveler perceptions. The LOS B result

PAGE 37

26 reflects that travelers are maintaining a sp eed close to the posted speed limit, but operational conditions are not re presentative of LOS A since they are traveling somewhat slower than the posted speed limit. Figure 1. Class II LOS Ca lculation in HIGHPLAN Figure 2. Class III LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN

PAGE 38

27 Comparison of Service Volumes Service volumes indicate the maximum volume that can be accommodated for a given set of roadway, traffic, and control condi tions, for a specified level of service. As can be seen in Table 3, the Class II servic e volumes are much lower than the Class III service volumes for the given input conditions used in the above example calculations. The volumes in this table represent th e annual average daily traffic (AADT). Many transportation agencies, such as the FDOT, use service volumes at LOS C to design and plan future facilities and to a ssess the operations of existing facilities. Facilities with flow rates in excess of th e LOS C volume threshold would be considered operationally deficient and in need of improvement. In many cases, the design improvements required to bring a facility up to operational standards are of great expense. This reinforces the importance of accurately estimating roadway performance measures that translate into LOS threshold va lues which correlate well with the quality of service as perceived by the traveling public. Table 3. Class II and Class III Service Volumes (AADT) Class II Class III LOS PTSF PFFS A 2100 2800 B 4200 8000 C 8000 14100 D 14800 19300 E 26100 24300

PAGE 39

28 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH APPROACH This chapter describes the research approach used in this study. The sections that follow will describe the method used for co llecting example two-lane highway driving data as well as the process used to gather roadway user opinions and perceptions with regard to trip quality on two-lane highways. Survey Method This study used an approach that combin ed aspects of both a video survey and a focus group. Video surveys allow survey pa rticipants to watch pre-recorded video footage of actual two-lane highw ays. When video is taken from the drivers perspective, participants are presented with a reasonably realistic repres entation of two-lane highway travel. Because all participan ts view the same video footage, survey responses are based upon the same conditions, thereby establishing a baseline. Video data collection is less costly and involves no liability on the part of the researchers (with respect to survey participants). Focus groups allow survey participants to engage in roundtable-like discussion. Discussion is usually led by a moderator, who attempts to solicit participant opinions in an unbiased way, while simultaneously attemp ting to keep the discussion focused on the topic. Focus groups offer a more flexible approach to data co llection by allowing the participants to present issues of importance to them and to discuss their opinions in an open environment. They also give the re searcher the opportunity to prompt further discussion about certain topics or as k for clarification if necessary.

PAGE 40

29 In this study, survey participants watched a series of video clip s depicting travel on two-lane highways (from a drivers perspe ctive) and then participated in a group discussion facilitated by a moderator. This approach combined the control of a video survey with the flexibility of a focus group. The following sections describe the video data collection process and focus group implementation in more detail. Video Data Collection In this study, sample driving scenes fr om two-lane highways were viewed in a focus group setting to facilitate discu ssion on potentially impo rtant performance measures used in the assessment of trip quality. Video data collection included four specific tasks: selection of two-lane highways, equipmen t setup, collection of video footage, and video clip production. Selection of Two-Lane Highways The first step of the video data collecti on process involved the selection of several two-lane highways from which video footage were to be collected. The intent was to choose a representative sample of two-lane highways within reasonable proximity to the University of Florida. The 2003 Florida Highway Data (FHD) CD-ROM [7] as well as the 2003 Florida Traffic Information (FTI) CD -ROM [8], provided by the FDOT, were used in the preliminary stages of the twolane highway selection process. Both CDs employ a Geographic Information Systems (GIS ) based user interface in which users can access information on roadway characteristics an d traffic data for nearly every roadway in the state of Florida. The FHD CD-ROM provides roadway characte ristic information including, but not limited to: functional classification, number of roadway lanes, median widths and types, shoulder widths and types, speed limits, and locations of intersecting roadways.

PAGE 41

30 The FTI CD-ROM provides roadway traffic information collected through the use of traffic monitoring stations located throughout the state. Each traffic monitoring station uses Inductance Loop Detectors (ILD) to gath er traffic data such as Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), truck percentage, K30 and D30. K30 is defined as the proportion of AADT occurring during the 30th highest hour of the design year. D30 is defined as the proportion of traffic in the 30th highest hour of the year traveling in the peak direction. Through the use of these two CD-ROMs, as well as the FDOT Roadway Characteristic Inventory (RC I) Field handbook [9], numerous two-lane highways within proximity to the University of Florida (approximately a 60 mile radius) were identified and selected for use in the co llection of video footage. Th e selected two-lane highways consisted of a diverse range of roadway and traffic characteristics as well as functional characteristics. Equipment Setup The next step of the video collection pro cess was the instrumentation of the data collection vehicle. A 4-door Chevrolet Cava lier was rented and out fitted with two video cameras, two portable VCRs, a microphone, a m onitor, an A/V selector switch and two batteries used to power all of the equipmen t. The video camera setup was intended to portray two-lane highway travel from the dr ivers perspective. Therefore, one camera was set up to capture the windshield view, which also in cluded a view of the interior rearview mirror, while the second camera recorded the view of the speedometer. During a later step, images recorded from the two cam eras would be combined into one image for the creation of the video clips. The camera capturing the windshield view was attached to a pole which was secured between the floor and ceiling behind the drivers seat. The camera capturing the

PAGE 42

31 speedometer view was mounted to the steering colu mn. See Figure 3 for photos of the in-vehicle camera setup. The two VCRs r ecorded the images captured by the two video cameras. A microphone was also connected to one of the VCRs, allo wing the researcher to verbally identify which two-lane highway was being driven as we ll as changes in the posted speed limit. The monitor and A/V selector allowed the researcher to switch between VCRs to see if the cameras and othe r equipment were func tioning properly. A schematic depicting the in-vehicle data colle ction equipment setup is shown in appendix C. Figure 3. In-vehicle Video Camera Setup Collection of Video Footage Video footage was collected over thr ee separate days between January 20th and January 23rd, 2005. Approximately 450 miles of two-lane highway were driven and about 9 to 10 hours of video footage were recorded over the three-day period. The weather on all three days was sunny and dry. Table 4 lists the route number, the county

PAGE 43

32 in which the two-lane highway is located, the direction of travel and the approximate distance driven on each of the two-lane highw ays during the three day period. Appendix D contains maps of the driving routes. The video footage was collected from a representative sample of two-lane highways throughout the north-central Florida area. These two-lane highway facilities can generally be divided into four categories which are described below: High Speed Roadways generally used for inter-city travel. Medium to Lower Speed Roadways genera lly connect to higher speed facilities or are used for intra-city travel. Lower Speed Roadways that are scenic could be coastal, or with a tree canopy, etc. Lower Speed Roadways that go through a sma ll town either with or without the presence of a signal. Video Clip Production As mentioned previously, surv ey participants were to be shown a series of video clips depicting travel on two-la ne highways from a drivers perspective. After all video footage was collected, the rese archer reviewed all of th e footageentering specific roadway and traffic characteristic information for each roadway into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet was then used to determine which footage would be edited into video clips. In an attempt to more accurately portray th e drivers perspective, video footage of the front windshield view and interior rear-v iew mirror, as well as the speedometer, was compiled into a single video display to be show n to survey participants. Also, a graphic display of the roadways speed limit was incl uded in the composite video image. This graphic changed as the roadways speed limit changed during th e progression of the video clip. A screenshot from one of the video clips is shown in Figure 4.

PAGE 44

33Table 4. Two-Lane Highway Driving Routes Date of Travel Route Number County Direction of Travel Approximate Distance (mi) SR 326 Marion East 10 SR 40 Marion, Lake, Volusia East 65 SR 19 Marion North and South 16 SR A1A Volusia, Flagler North 14 SR 100 Flagler, Putnam West 80 January 20, 2005 SR 26 Putnam, Alachua West 22 CR 219 Putnam North 4 SR 100 Bradford East 16 SR 16 Bradford, Clay, St. Johns East 40 Intl Golf Pkwy St. Johns East 7 SR 207 St. Johns, Putnam South 24 January 22, 2005 SR 20 Putnam, Alachua West 43 SR 121 Alachua, Union North 12 SR 18 Union, Bradford East 7 SR 231 Bradford, Union North 10 SR 238 Union, Columbia West 15 US 41 Columbia South 5 CR 18 Columbia West 6 SR 47 Columbia, Gilchrist South 22 CR 339 Gilchrist, Levy South 15 SR 24 Levy, Alachua East 10 January 23, 2005 US 27 Alachua North 10

PAGE 45

34 The video footage was then edited into 16 clips, with each clip being between 1.5 and 2 minutes in length. As a whole, th e video clips were in tended to showcase two things: 1) the four different categories of two-lane highway facilities described above, and 2) the various roadway a nd traffic conditions that one may typically experience while driving on a two-lane highway. However, a significant number of the video clips featured roadways in small towns and in coas tal areas. This was done because it was felt that there were a larger number of questions about user perceptions with regard to these types of facilities. Figure 4. Screenshot of Composite Video Image Three separate focus group sessions were held in which the video clips were viewed. However, as a result of time limita tions, each focus group was not able to view all 16 video clips. Therefore, the 16 video cl ips were divided into three separate groups, or blocks. Clip blocks 1 and 2 were each comp rised of five video clips. Clip block 3 was comprised of six video clips. Focus group se ssion 1 was shown a total of 10 clips (clip blocks 1 and 2). Focus group session 2 was s hown a total of 11 clips (clip blocks 2 and 3). Focus group session 3 was shown a total of 11 clips (clip blocks 1 and 3). This

PAGE 46

35 system of viewing clips ensure d that each clip block would be viewed by 2 separate focus groups. Table 5 describes the 16 video clips ( by clip block) shown during the three focus group sessions. Focus Group Implementation As mentioned earlier, three focus group se ssions were held in which participants watched a series of video clips depicting travel on two-lane highways. The following sections will discuss the partic ipant recruitment process, the participant selection process, and the implementation of the focus group sessions. Participant Recruitment Participants were selected from those w ho responded to an advertisement placed in the Local section of the Gainesville Sun newspaper. The Gainesville Sun serves the local Gainesville area as well as the University of Florida and many of the surrounding counties. The advertisement ran for three consecutive days, between Friday, March 18th and Sunday, March 20th. This allowed those who receiv e only the Sunday paper, as well as those who receive the paper throughout the rest of the week to have the opportunity to view the advertisement. The newspaper is also available for purchase through coinoperated machines found at popular locations throughout the local area. In addition to appearing in print, the advertis ement was also placed in the Online Marketplace section of the Gainesville Suns website. The advertisement solicited in dividuals interested in pa rticipating in a focus group as part of a University of Florida transpor tation study. The advertisement requested that individuals be over the age of 25 and have previous expe rience driving on two-lane highways. See appendix E for a copy of the a dvertisement. Interested individuals were to respond by contacting the Transportation Re search Center of the Civil and Coastal

PAGE 47

36Table 5. Video Clip Descriptions

PAGE 48

37 Engineering Department at the University of Florida. Approximately 60 responses were received within one week of the ads placement. A researcher then contacted all individuals who responded to the advertisement. Each person was given information about th e study and the purpose of the focus group sessions. Also at that time, the researcher collected demographic information from each respondent, as well as information regarding th eir two-lane highway driving experience. Demographic information was requested in an attempt to secure a reasonably representative sample. Respondents were also asked about their availability and scheduling preferences. All information was recorded on a preliminar y survey form. See appendix F for a copy of the preliminary survey form. Participant Selection Participant selection was based on the desire to obtain a representative sample for use in the three focus group sessions. A total of 36 individuals were in vited to participate in the study, 12 for each session. Those chosen to participate were divided into the three sessions based upon their two-lane highway driving experience and demographic information collected in their preliminary survey form. This was done in an attempt to create a balance of personal backgro unds and driving experience between the 12 participants in each session. A special e ffort was made to accommodate scheduling preferences. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the demographic information and the two-lane highway driving characteristics respectively, fo r participants in each of the three focus group sessions, as well as the overall study. The abundance of responses to the news paper advertisement allowed for the selection of a demographically diverse group of participants. The majority of participants (17) were between the ages of 46 and 65, with an equal number of pa rticipants (8) over

PAGE 49

38 the age of 65 and between the ages of 26 and 45. Additionally, participants were asked to rate their typical driving style on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very conservative, 5-very aggressive). As can be seen in Table 7, the results of this survey question indicate that most participants rated their dr iving style as more conservative Therefore, it is possible that the higher number of o lder participants contribute d to the high percentage of conservative driving styles. Thus, it is also possible that the opini ons expressed in the focus group discussions and on the survey form s, may have a more conservative overtone than if there were a larger number of younger participants. Table 6. Summary of Participan t Demographic Characteristics Other No Income Under $25,000 $25,000 $49,999 $50,000 $74,999 Ethnicity Total # of Participants White Black Tech. College (A.A.) College Degree # Yrs. with Driver's Lic. $75,000 $99,999 $100,000 $149,999 Over $150,000 Post-graduate Degree Household Income Widowed Highest Education Level Some or no HS HS diploma or equivalent Marital Status Single Married Separated/Divorced 16 to 25 26 to 45 46 to 65 Over 65 Gender Male Female Age Range 1001 2125 911828 12121034 35.436.532.636 1001 0000 1001 5218 38617 2125 0112 53210 5319 12710 5 0 4 1 0000 8 6 2 2 03 6 17 1 7 3 1 1 8 1 2 8 1 7 2428 17 6 4 52 8 14 20 Participant InformationFocus Group 1Focus Group 2 0 34 01 1 All Focus Group 3 7 57

PAGE 50

39 Table 7. Summary of Participant Two-La ne Highway Driving Characteristics 00 0 5 All Total # of Participants 12121034 Participant InformationFocus Group 1Focus Group 2Focus Group 3 0 0 55414 Typical # of Passengers for Two-Lane Highway Trips 5 0 3 010 11 1 1 to 2 0011 Typical # of Two-Lane Highway Round Trips Per Month 10 2 5 to 6 1102 3 to 4 0 3 less than 5 1113 9 to 10 Over 12 7 to 8 2 6 to 10 423 27312 Vehicle Most Often Used naBusiness & Personal 3 Over 60 210 9 11 to 20 Sedan na na na Driving Style (1-very conservative, 5-very aggressive) 1 2 3126 35 1 65314 3 4 01 13 2 1 55313 2136 11 to 12 3115 1001 58720 Typical One-Way Length of Trip (miles) 21-40 41-60 3126 0011 Average Percentage of Trips as Driver 93.777.384.185 Most Common Trip nana All respondents were contacted within one week of initial contact and told whether or not they had been selected to participate in the study. Those who had been selected to participate were told when and where thei r focus group session was to be held. The selected participants were also sent a letter of confirmation with more detailed

PAGE 51

40 information. Those who had not been selected were thanked for thei r interest and were told that their contact information would be ke pt on file if there were any cancellations. Focus Group Implementation The two main objectives for conducting th e focus group sessions were: 1) to identify the factors (e.g., roadway and/or tr affic conditions) that are important in the assessment of trip quality provided on a two-la ne highway, and 2) to identify the relative differences, if any, between the importance of these factors in the assessment of trip quality for different types of two-lane hi ghways (i.e., the four categories discussed previously). All three focus group sessions were held on Saturday April 23, 2005 on the University of Florida campus in the Civil and Coastal Engineeri ng Departments main conference room. The room was equipped with a video projector and large screen for viewing the video clips. All focus groups sessions were audio recorded with the permission of the participants. Focus groups sessions 1 and 2 had tw elve participants. Focus group session 3 had ten participants (t wo persons failed to show and did not previously cancel). Each session was appr oximately 1.5 to 2 hours in length and was audio recorded. The duration of each fo cus group session provided ample time for the moderator to engage the members in meani ngful discussion and obtain the information sought for this research study. Dr. Scott Wa shburn, the principal investigator, was the moderator of each focus group to ensure consis tency across each of the three sessions. A one page written instruction sheet was developed and given to participants upon arrival. The instruction sheet described th e purpose, objectives, and format of the focus group session. See appendix G for a copy of the instruction sheet. Participants were also given a survey form (Form 1) that was compri sed of two sections. The first section was

PAGE 52

41 similar to that of the prel iminary survey conducted over th e phone during the participant selection process. In this section, particip ants were to provide information about their personal background and two-lane highway travel habits. Examples of this information include income level, education level, marita l status, typical number of two-lane highway trips taken per month, typical number of passenger s for two-lane highway trips, etc. This information was summarized previously in Tables 6 and 7. The second section of the survey form was used by partic ipants to write down their re sponses to each of the video clips. See appendix G for a copy of the survey form. Each focus group session began with some brief introductory statements by the moderator pertaining to the purpose and objectiv es of the focus group. Prior to viewing the video clips, the moderator verbally review ed the instruction sheet and survey form for each session of focus group participants. Afte r reviewing all instru ctions and answering questions, the participants bega n watching the video clips. Each video clip was between 1.5 and 2 mi nutes in length. Immediately following the conclusion of the video clip, the moderator facilita ted group discussion about the conditions observed in the clip and what th e important factors are for the assessment of trip quality. Approximately 5 minutes of discussion time was allotted for each clip. After the group discussion, participants wrote down their opinions on the survey form. The above steps were repeated for all of the video clips. After watching all of the vi deo clips, there was an a dditional 10 to 15 minute discussion about the overall performance meas ures, or factors, that group members felt were important in their assessment of trip qu ality on a two-lane highw ay. This discussion served more as a summary, and was not in reference to any particular video clip.

PAGE 53

42 Finally, the session moderator facilita ted a short group discussion about the different types of two-lane highway classificat ions, or categories. Pa rticipants were given a second survey form (Form 2), asking them to rank the importance of certain factors to the assessment of their trip quality on different types of two-lane highways. Examples of these factors include: the ability to consisten tly maintain desired travel speed, ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit, frequent passing zones, wide travel lanes, wide shoulders, etc. Refer to appe ndix G for a copy of the second survey form.

PAGE 54

43 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS As discussed in the previous chapter, the two main objectives for conducting the focus group sessions were: 1) to identify the factors (e.g., roadway and/or traffic conditions) that are important in the assessment of trip qu ality provided on a two-lane highway, and 2) to identify the relative di fferences, if any between the importance of these factors in the assessment of trip quality for different types of two-lane highways. This information was obtained from focu s groups, where participants engaged in a roundtable-like discussion led by a moderator and recorded written responses on survey forms. The following sections describe th e methodology used to analyze the focus group discussion and survey form data, as we ll as the results of these analyses. Analysis Method Focus Group Discussions Audio recordings from each focus group session were reviewed thoroughly and all relevant discussion material wa s transcribed to a word proces sor. As is the case with most group discussions, there is a natural te ndency for discussion to get side-tracked. Discussion that was not rele vant to the topic was not transcribed or analyzed. The discussions were transcribed in sec tions, with each section corresponding to a different video clip. Resulting discussion could then be more easily interpreted by referring back to the video clips. Important themes from each video clip discussion were identified and direct quotations suppor ting those themes were extracted.

PAGE 55

44 Some common focus group analyses include the usage of computer software programs that determine the frequency in which certain words, phrases or themes appear in discussion. While counting the frequency in which certain topics are discussed is sometimes an important component of qualitativ e analyses, it does not always accurately reflect the level of importance in which part icipants view these topics. For example, more discussions pertaining to lane width than the presence of SUVs, does not necessarily mean that participants consider la ne width to be a more important factor in their assessment of trip quality. In fact, in this study, certain topics were sometimes raised by the moderator either because they didnt arise naturally or because further discussion or elaboration was deemed necessa ry. Therefore, the frequency in which certain topics were raised was noted but not strictly counted. Instead, the responses of the participants to the video clips and related questions posed by the moderator were judged solely on their own merit. Themes or points that were raised and received agreement (or disa greement) among participants were noted, as well as the emphasis participants placed on t hose themes. The results section of this chapter describes, on a clipby-clip basis, the discussions and corresponding themes or points that emerged during each of the focus group sessions. Survey Forms As discussed previously, there were two different survey forms filled out by participants during the focus group sessions. The first form consisted of merely blank spaces, one for each video clip. On this fo rm (Form 1), participants could write down what they felt were important factors in the assessment of trip quality for the roadway segments depicted in each clip. These wr itten comments served as summaries and as further support of the verbal discussions. Comparisons between the written responses

PAGE 56

45 and corresponding dialogue cont ained in the transcripts help ed to analyze and interpret the results. Refer to appendix F for a copy of this survey form. The second form (Form 2) asked particip ants to rank the importance of certain factors to the assessment of their trip quality for different types of two-lane highways. As discussed previously, four different types, or categories, of two-lane highways were included on the form, ranging from high-speed, in tercity facilities to low-speed facilities through small towns or scenic areas. For each type of two-lane highway, participants assigned numbers, from 1 to 7 (1 -not at all important, 7-extr emely important), to different items listed on the form, indicating how those items affect the quality of their trip. Examples of these items, or factors, include: the ability to consistently maintain desired travel speed, ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit, frequent passing zones, wide travel lanes, wide shoulde rs, etc. Refer to appendix F for a copy of this survey form. The data collected on this form served as quantitative reinforcement of the verbal discussions and was entered into a spreadsheet for further analysis. Results from these survey forms are discussed in the latter part of this chapter. Results Focus Group Discussions Below are descriptions of the roadway and traffic conditions depi cted in each video clip as well as the results of the focus group discussions. Each video clip was watched by two of the three focus groups. Video clip 1 Description: A high-speed facility with a 60-mi/h speed limit and very little traffic in either direction. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings, standardwidth lanes (12 feet), paved shoulder (4-5 fe et), large clearance zone between pavement

PAGE 57

46 and other obstacles, and many marked passi ng zones (as indicated by a dashed-yellow center line). Figure 5. Screenshot of Video Clip 1. Discussion results: One of the major themes that emerged in the discussion about this clip was the importance of pavement quality and positive guidance through lane markings. Members of both focus groups made comments about the high quality of the pavement saying pavement quality good and t he road itself looked good, no pot holes or anything. Other comments focused on the lane markings, such as the outside white lines are painted, which I think is real good so you know where youre at on the road and the markings on the outside of the lanes were great. Another major theme, which was raised by the moderator, concerned the speed of the facility. The moderator asked both focus groups if they felt the posted speed limit was reasonable. Several participants from both groups seemed to agree that the speed

PAGE 58

47 was reasonable for this section of roadway, saying mi/h was a good speed limit and its rural out there, so yes. Another issue that was raised by one person from each group concerned passing opportunities. One person said th at one of the most important things in terms of trip quality was that there be lots of places to pass. The other person only noted that the roadway depicted in the clip o ffered good proviso for passing. In summary, pavement quality and positive guidance were two issues initiated by members of both groups. Participants also se emed to agree that the posted speed was appropriate and was consistent with the rural context of the facility. The importance of passing opportunities was also ra ised by a couple of particip ants. Given the lack of traffic present in the video scene, there was li ttle discussion about spec ific traffic factors. Video clip 2 Description: The speed limit transitions from 60 to 35 mi/h (60-55-45-35) as the roadway approaches a small town. No traffic in either direction wa s present in the video scene. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings, and standard-width lanes. Pavement markings in town area indicate no-passing (solid-yellow center line). No traffic control is present on the mainline in town. Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this video clip. One dealt with expectations of travel speed in a small town and the other dealt with expecta tions for passing. In one session, members were asked if th ey felt the posted speed of 35 mi/h within the small town was acceptable and what speed w ould they go if they were traveling on that section of roadway. Several people agr eed that they would travel at a speed around

PAGE 59

48 35 mi/h. One person said, The 35-mi/h [speed limit] seems consistent with the fact that its a smaller town, its a shorter sp an, and its only a two-lane road. Figure 6. Screenshot of Video Clip 2. When asked how they felt about the sp eed reduction upon entering a small town area, two participants commented negatively ab out this type of situation. One person said, Often times the speed reductions come too rapidl y and you dont have enough time to reduce to the posted speed. Another pe rson expressed frustration about having to constantly change speeds when traveling on these types of highways, saying As soon as you get up to speed youre having to slow down again. Members of this group were also prompted to discuss their expectations for passing in this situation. Several participants stated that they felt no expectation to pass in a small town area. One person said, I t just wouldnt be safe, you mi ght have people crossing the

PAGE 60

49 roadway, you may have cars coming in from th e side. Another said frankly, I dont feel compelled to pass a nybody in those small towns. In summary, many participants felt that the reduced speed in a small town was both acceptable and expected. For this particular video clip, only members from one group discussed their expectations for passing and most agreed that they would not feel compelled to pass in that type of situation. Video clip 3 Description: A designated scenic roadway with extensive tree canopy and a 50mi/h speed limit. The roadway has narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder and very little clearance zone between pavement and trees. Light traffic was present in the video scene. Figure 7. Screenshot of Video Clip 3.

PAGE 61

50 Discussion results: Members of both focus groups spoke positively about the scenic nature of this tree canopy roadway, referring to the beauty of the surrounding trees. However, in one session, several partic ipants mentioned that the lack of a shoulder or clearance zone was of concern to them. One person stated that there were no paved shoulders, not much right-of-way, and tree a nd brush growth was close to the road. Others said that there was no escape route or breakdown area, illu strating a desire for increased shoulder space or clearan ce between the roadway and the trees. For members of the other focus group, the main topic of discussion centered on their expectations for passing other vehicles on a roadway such as this. When asked if passing restrictions on the roadway, as indi cated by lane markings, decrease their perception of the trip quality, a few group members said no with one person saying, No, not if it is for a short length. Another person stated that, There should be no passing on a road like this because people do not have a good enough sense of speed and distance. Most members of this group expressed that they would not feel compelled to pass, as long as the surrounding cars were going the speed limit or above. One person said that someone would have to be going or 20 be low for them to want to pass in that situation. For this reason, one member expr essed that passing should not be restricted by saying, Sometimes youll be be hind someone whos going very slow and if it is safe to pass [then you should be able to]. Another interesting comment that was made dealt with the different perspectives of local travelers versus through tr avelers. One person stated, I think all of us enjoyed the

PAGE 62

51 scenic part, but if you drove it everyday going b ack and forth to work or whatever, youre not thinking oh this is a beautiful road b ecause youre late to work or whatever. In summary, many participants enjoyed th e scenic nature of the roadway in the video clip however they did not feel comforta ble with the lack of shoulder or clearance area. Additionally, most participants (with the exception of a few) felt that passing restrictions on a roadway such as the one depicted in the video clip did not lower the trip quality because they had no expectation for passing in that situation. Video clip 4 Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 25 mi/h (45-35-25) as the roadway approaches a medium-sized to wn. A significant amount of roadside development and many driveways are present in the town area. The pavement markings in this area also indicate no-passing (solid -yellow center line). Moderate opposing traffic is present in the video scene. Th e video vehicle is following a large vehicle traveling approximately 5 mi/h under the speed limit and is also being followed. There are two traffic signals present in town. Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this video clip. One dealt with expectations of travel speed in a small town, such as with video clip 2, and the other de alt with the relative importance between travel speed and following or being followed by other cars. While most people agreed that a slower speed was appropriate while traveling through the developed town area, there was so me disagreement as to what that travel speed should be. Many participants, from both groups, remarked that the posted speed limit, including transitions, was appropriate. However, one person from each group said

PAGE 63

52 that the 25-mi/h speed limit through the busie st part of the town was too slow. One person commented that in that situation, a constant speed was the most important thing to them. When asked What speed?, they repl ied, mi/h in a small town like that. When asked If it were posted 40 mi/h what speed would you go?, the same individual said, Still slower, 30 mi/h. Figure 8. Screenshot of Video Clip 4. In one session, the moderator posed a hypothetical question i nvolving the relative importance between speed and following. He as ked, For example, with the speed limit at 35 mi/h, would you prefer to be doing maybe 25 mi/h and not be following anybody or having anybody follow you, than to be doing 35 mi/h and be following other people? A few participants said that they preferred the former situation, with a few mentioning tailgating and the high number of vehicles as reasons.

PAGE 64

53 Also, many members of both gr oups stated that they ha d no expectation for passing in this situation, saying the re was too much traffic and t heres no way youre going to be able to pass in town like that, youll ha ve to wait until you get back onto the rural part. When asked if the presence of the occasional traffic signal influenced their perception of the trip quality, several members of one group said that it did not and that it was no big deal. However, one person sa id, I think it depends on how long you know your overall trip is going to be. For ex ample, traveling on [US] 301 up toward Jacksonville, you feel like youre stopping and go ing. The presence of more of those I think decreases the value of your trip. In summary, members from both groups felt that a slower travel speed was appropriate and that there was no expecta tion for passing due to the high level of development and surrounding vehicular activity depicted in the video clip. This sentiment is consistent with the discussions fr om video clip 2. It also seemed that the occasional or rare presence of a traffic signal wa s not a large factor in their perceived trip quality, but for a couple of pe ople, the stop and go on l ong trips is frustrating and lowers the trip quality. In reference to the discussion about speed and following, it appears that a few participants in one of the focus groups do not feel comfortable having to follow or be followed by other vehicles a nd that in this case speed is a secondary consideration. However, this may be attri butable to tailgating fears and the generally conservative driving style of many of the participants.

PAGE 65

54 Video clip 5 Description: A high-speed facility with a 60-mi/h speed limit. The roadway has standard-width lanes with a 5-6 foot gra ss shoulder bordered by a guardrail, and many marked passing zones (indicated by a dashed-yellow center line). The pavement quality is poor with visible rutting and degradation. Minimal opposing traffic was present in the video scene. The video ve hicle is traveling 5 mi/h over speed limit with two cars following closely. The second car back passe s both the video vehicle and the vehicle behind it. Figure 9. Screenshot of Video Clip 5. Discussion results: One major theme that arose again was the importance of pavement quality. Members of both groups re marked about the poor pavement quality of the roadway depicted in this video clip. Wh en asked about the significance of pavement quality, the majority of participants stated that it was very important.

PAGE 66

55 Another major theme dealt with the passi ng situation shown in the video clip. Members of one group were asked to expre ss their feelings about passing. Several people said that it does not bother them to get passed by other vehicles and that they have no problem passing other vehicles themselves. However, in reference to the scenario in the clip, one person said I am fearful of passing, especially two cars and if they are at least going in that 5-mi/h range of the speed limit, then Im not going to pass. When asked how much slower than the speed limit w ould someone have to be going for them to consider passing, several people say mi/h. Another comment that was made dealt with the use of cruise control, a common feature on cars that allows the driver to set a nearly-constant vehicle travel speed. This issue arose when one person remarked that they liked the conditions depicted in the video clip because you could set your cruise c ontrol. The moderator prompted further discussion by asking about the use of th is feature on a two-lane highway. Many participants said that they do not expect to be able to use it on a two-lane road. However a couple of people said that they use it sometimes, if there is no traffic. A minor theme that was discussed involve d the presence of the guardrail. The majority of participants liked the guardrail, saying that they would ra ther the guardrail be there to prevent them from running into the trees along the roadway. A couple of people did not like it, however. In summary, the importance of high quality pavement was reiterated. This was one of the first things that the participants notic ed when viewing the clip, and these feelings are consistent with the discus sion about pavement quality fo r video clip 1. Many people do not seem to be bothered by passing maneuve rs; however they do not feel compelled to

PAGE 67

56 pass unless they are following a vehicle goi ng approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed limit. Video clip 6 Description: The speed limit is 45 mi/h with ro lling terrain. The roadway has narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder, and alternating passi ng and no-passing zones. In the video scene, there is modera te residential development present, driveways on both sides of the roadway, and mini mal traffic in either direction. Figure 10. Screenshot of Video Clip 6. Discussion results: One major topic that was discussed in both of the focus groups was the relationship between lane width, s houlder area, terrain and speed. Several members of one group expressed concern with the narrow lanes and lack of shoulder area. A few people agreed that they wouldnt go faster than the speed limit due to the rolling terrain. Another group member stated that they wouldnt f eel comfortable going

PAGE 68

57 faster [than the speed limit] because there are a lot of houses. However a couple of people felt that the speed limit was too low because there was no traffic and good visibility. Further discussion was prompt ed when the moderator asked one group of participants, If there were no posted speed lim it, or even if there was one posted, would you be wanting to drive faster if there wa s a wider lane and more shoulder area? Several people said, Yes, of course. On e person added however, that if they were unfamiliar with the road, they w ould drive more conservatively, but if they were used to it then their speed would pick up. Another issue that was discussed in refe rence to this clip was the effect of overhanging tree limbs on the drivers. A lthough this roadway was not a tree canopy roadway such as the one depicted in video clip 3, there were several overhanging tree limbs present. One person said that they are very distracting and that they affect visibility. Someone else continued by sayi ng, I think the psychol ogical aspect of the tree canopy is key. I believe th at when you travel through an area that has a tree canopy, traffic slows down much more. In summary, lane width, shoulder area, te rrain, and level of roadside development are factors that appear to influence the choice in travel speed for many of the participants. Also, some members of one group felt that pr esence of overhanging tree limbs or a tree canopy affected visibility and travel speed. Video clip 7 Description: The speed limit decreases from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway approaches a small town with moderate ro adside development, many driveways and a traffic signal. After the traffic signal, the speed limit returns to 45 mi/h. The roadway

PAGE 69

58 has well maintained pavement and markings. In the video scene, there is moderate traffic in both directions and the video vehicle is fo llowing other vehicles and is being followed. Figure 11. Screenshot of Video Clip 7. Discussion results: As in the discussions about sim ilar video clips, such as clip 2 and clip 4, where there were small or medi um-sized towns with reduced speed limits, the two major themes that were discussed dealt with expectations of trav el speed and passing. Again, members of both groups seemed to agree that the speed limit reduction approaching the small town and signal was appropriate for the situation. Several people in one of the groups said that it was fi ne because of the surrounding commercial development. In the other group, most pe ople felt that the posted speed limit, including transitions, was appropriate, with one pers on saying, When youre going through a town its fine to slow down, unless youve got a tornado behind you. When asked if going

PAGE 70

59 below the posted speed limit was bad, there were some audible groans of discontent, indicating agreement with the statement, but no one elaborated. Additionally, members of both groups reiterated that they had no expectation to be able to pass in a town area such as the one in the video clip, citi ng too much traffic and the urban context with the strip developmen tand the exits and entrances (driveways) as reasons. To clarify re sponses, the moderator asked one group of participants, If youre going about the speed limit, are you goi ng to be happy, whether youre following cars or not? A few people confirmed the moderators assessment and one person said, Yes, theres nothing you can do, you just accept it. In summary, the discussions resulting from this video clip seem to be consistent with those from other similar clips, in that mo st people accept the fact that they will have to reduce their speed and do not expect to be able to pass in a town or developed area. Video clip 8 Description: Coastal roadway with a speed limit that increases from 40 to 45 mi/h and a view of the ocean. There are dunes a nd pull-over parking areas on the edge of the roadway, however there is no paved shoulder. Moderate traffic in bo th directions, some pedestrian activity, and conti nuous roadside development was present in the video scene. Discussion results: The main topic of discussion for both groups about this clip was speed. A majority felt that the speed limit of 40-45 mi/h was appropriate. Members of both groups also commented on the recreat ional character of the roadway, and took this into consideration when assessing the speed. For instance, one person said I dont mind going a slower speed here because half the time people are looking at the ocean. A person from the other group commented on sp eed, following, and passing implications

PAGE 71

60 by saying, If I were following and being fo llowed and [the person in front of me] was going below the speed limit, I could appreciate that [that person] wa s trying to enjoy the scenery and I wouldnt be trying to pass them. Figure 12. Screenshot of Video Clip 8. However, a couple people did not agree with the prospect of ha ving to travel at a slower speed just because of the recreationa l context of the facility. Their comments included, I dont mind going 40 mi/h (the poste d speed limit), but I dont want to have to follow someone [going] 20 mi/h and In term s of speed limit, Im trying to get from point A to point B. So ultimately, Im either going to exceed the speed limit or at least definitely go the speed limit. That would be my desired goal. In re lation to this topic, someone else stated, If I were going on a re creational trip, I wouldnt be as concerned with speed. But if it was a business t ype trip I would be more concerned.

PAGE 72

61 The lack of shoulder area was another key concern for members of one group, stating that having someplace to go is impor tant and that when you add the fact that there is no shoulder, coupled w ith the dunes, that makes me f eel like I have to be more cautious cause I really dont have anywhere to go. Additionally, when asked if passing was a concern and if they had and expectati on to pass on this type of roadway, members of this group said no. In summary, a majority of participants felt that the posted speed of the facility was appropriate. The recreational na ture of the roadway also seem ed to be a factor in their assessment of speed in relation to trip quality with some members being more tolerant of slower vehicles, and others not. The importance of a shoul der area was also reiterated. Video clip 9 Description: The roadway has a speed limit of 35 mi/h, standard-width lanes, well maintained pavement and markings, and a wide grass shoulder (15-20 feet). In the video scene, there is minimal residential devel opment on both sides of roadway and minimal traffic in either direction present. Discussion results: The main topic of discussion which was initiated by both groups after viewing this video clip, was speed. A majority of the participants seemed to feel that the posted speed of 35 mi/h was too low or too slow. However a few people felt that the presence of residences along th e roadway (although set back at a significant distance) warranted the lower speed limit. When asked how much higher the speed limit should be if the roadway could accommodate a higher speed, many people in one group said mi/h. Additionally, a few group member s said that they woul d not restrict their speed based on the posted speed. Howeve r an equal number said they would.

PAGE 73

62 Figure 13. Screenshot of Video Clip 9. With regard to these feelings, the mode rator asked one group of participants to describe how much of a factor law enforcem ent (getting a ticket) would play in their speed choice and perceived trip quality. One person said, I follow the posted speeds, but in that situation I would be frustrated becau se I thought the speed was too low. Several other people agreed with this sentiment by sa ying that they would have gone faster if they didnt have to worry about getting a ticket. In summary, the majority of partic ipants felt the posted speed limit was unreasonably low for the segment of roadway de picted in the video clip. While some said that the posted spee d would not cause them to restrict their speed, others said that it would, however many of these same indivi duals expressed that they would feel uncomfortable and frustrated traveling at such a slow speed.

PAGE 74

63 Video clip 10 Description: A high-speed facility with a speed limit of 60 mi/h. The roadway has standard-width lanes, a 15-20 foot grass shoulder, well maintained pavement and markings, and many marked passing zones (i ndicated by a dashed-yellow center line). The video vehicle is following a vehicle tr aveling approximately 5 mi/h under the speed limit and there is minimal opposing traffic present in the video scene. Figure 14. Screenshot of Video Clip 10. Discussion results: After viewing this video clip, th e vast majority of participants from both focus groups expressed frustrati on and irritation with the situation depicted in the video clip, where the video vehicle was following a pickup truck traveling under the speed limit. The moderator asked one group of participants, Given that the speed limit was 60 mi/h and he was going about 5 mi/h under, how many of you would have wanted to pass that truc k? The moderator stated for the record that just about everyone raised their hand.

PAGE 75

64 Both groups were asked if they would feel compelled to pass if the pickup truck was traveling at 65 mi/h (5 mi/h over the speed limit. Members of both groups said no with one person saying, No, theres no reas on to, because hed be going at least the speed limit. One of the focus groups was aske d if they would feel compelled to pass if the truck was going 60 mi/h (the speed limit) and several people stat ed that they would not. To follow up, the moderator said, So the threshold seems to be the speed limit. As long as theyre doing the speed limit then youre OK. Several people said yes. As an aside, the moderator asked if th e presence of large semi-trucks was a big issue for members of one of the groups. The majority of the group acknowledged that they were uncomfortable around large semi-trucks and one person said, They slow up your speed and limit your visibility. In summary, most participants felt frustrated and dissatisfied with the prospect of having to follow the slow-moving pickup truck. In this situation the threshold between feeling compelled and not compelled to pass seems to be the posted speed limit. This appears to be consistent with the discussions resulting from video clip 5, where several people said they would feel no desire to pa ss unless the vehicle in front of them was going approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed li mit. Also, large trucks seem to play a negative role in their perceived trip quality. Video clip 11 Description: Coastal roadway with a speed limit that transitions from 45 to 30 mi/h (45-35-30) as the roadway approaches a mode rate pedestrian/development activity area with a traffic signal and parking lot off to one side. The roadway also transitions from a passing to a no-passing zone near the mo re densely developed and active area. In the

PAGE 76

65 video scene, the ocean can be seen from the roadway and there is moderate traffic in both directions. Figure 15. Screenshot of Video Clip 11. Discussion results: In this discussion a couple of people from both focus groups mentioned that they thought the speed limit wa s appropriate but that it should have been lower in the area where there was higher dens ity development, more pedestrian activity, and vehicle activity, such as near the parking lot. Many members of one group remarked that even though the pavement markings indicated that passing was permitted, they would not do so because of the increased level of traffic and pedestrian activity. One person said, I would be less likely [to pass] due to the fact that we were in a resort ar ea and the activity is going to dictate. When asked how the number of vehicles would influence their trip quality, a couple of people from one group said that the qu ality would go down with lots of cars.

PAGE 77

66 One person took a different stance by saying, The number of cars would not be a problem if traffic was moving. In summary, although there was no lengthy di scussion about any one of the topics mentioned above, it appears that most people exp ect to travel at slower speed because of the higher level of roadside development and activity. There also seems to be no expectation for passing for the same reasons. These discussions are generally consistent with those of other similar video clips, such as clip 2, clip 4, and clip 7, which all depicted travel through small or medium-sized towns. Video clip 12 Description: Two-lane bridge with a speed lim it of 55 mi/h and no shoulder, only a guardrail. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings and standard-width lanes. The pavement markings on the bridge indicate no-passing (solid-yellow center line). The video vehicle is following other ve hicles (but not closel y) traveling at the speed limit or above. Discussion results: A few issues emerged in the di scussion about this video clip. Members of both groups expresse d concern with the lack of a shoulder or pull-off area for disabled vehicles or other incident s. Additionally, when asked about passing expectations in this situation, members of both groups re soundingly said that they would not feel compelled to do so. Members of one group were asked if the fo llowing situation depicted in the video clip, where the video vehicle was traveling in a well-dispersed platoon at speeds at or above the speed limit, was an undesirable situ ation. The only audible responses were from a few who said no.

PAGE 78

67 Figure 16. Screenshot of Video Clip 12. Another issue involved the posted speed limit of the facility as well as the expected travel speed. In one group, several participan ts felt that the posted speed was too high for the type of bridge, citing sa fety concerns. However, ma ny others felt that the posted speed limit was appropriate. When asked if the primary thing in terms of delineating between poor and good trip quality would be maintaining a speed close to the posted speed limit, most members of one group sa id yes with one person saying because you dont have to worry about people coming in and out. In summary, the importance of a shoulder is once again reiterated. There also seems to be no expectation for passing on a faci lity such as this. Participants did not seem to be bothered that the video vehicle was following othe r vehicles because the other vehicles in the platoon were not closely spaced and were trav eling at a reasonable speed. Participants also noted that a travel sp eed close to the speed limit was desired.

PAGE 79

68 Video clip 13 Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway approaches a small town with moderate ro adside development, many driveways and a traffic signal. After the traffic signal, the speed limit returns to 45 mi/h. In the video scene, the video vehicle is following a vehi cle traveling between the speed limit and 5 mi/h under and there is moderate tr affic present in both directions. Figure 17. Screenshot of Video Clip 13. Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this clip. One dealt with perceptions of trip quality with respect to traffic signals on two-lane highways and the other dealt with the relationship between speed and following. Members of both groups were prompted to discuss how the occasional presence of traffic signals (once every 5-10 miles) on tw o-lane highways impact s their perception of trip quality. The majority of member said th at traffic signals didnt bother them or that

PAGE 80

69 they were not a big deal. However, one pers on said that the presence of a traffic signal was a big impact, negatively. Another i ndividual said that it was a medium impact and followed by saying, If it was every 5 mile s and the light was red it would start to become an issue. If it were a longer interval and half of them were green, that would be better. When asked if anyone would feel compelled to pass in the situation depicted in the video clip, several members of one group said no. One person said, That person in front was going 35 in a 45-mi/h zone and that was getting me a little bit antsy, but I wouldnt have passed either way. A couple more people indicated that they too were frustrated with having to follow at a lower sp eed than the speed limit, as depicted in the video. When asked the same question, a memb er from the other group said, It frustrates me. I would rather do what the speed limit sa ys, and if [the speed limit] is slow, then fine, but I dont want somebody in front of me going 15 miles below the speed limit. In summary, the occasional or rare presen ce of a traffic signal on two-lane highway trips does not seem to bother the majority of the particip ants. However, a couple of participants expressed that the presence of signals does downgrade the quality of their trip. Most group members agreed that they w ould not feel an expect ation to pass in the small town area, however, several members were frustrated by having to follow a vehicle traveling well below the speed limit. These comments are consistent with those discussions for similar video clips. Video clip 14 Description: A high-speed facility with a 50-mi/h speed limit. The roadway has narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder, well maintained pavement and markings,

PAGE 81

70 and many marked passing zones (indicated by a dashed-yellow center line). In the video scene, there is minimal tra ffic present in either direction. Figure 18. Screenshot of Video Clip 14. Discussion results: The main topic of discussion for this video clip involved the impact of narrow lanes and lack of shoulders on the participants perceived trip quality and choice of travel speed. As was the case with many of the other video clips, many people commented about the lack of shoulders, indicating that it may have some impact on perceived trip quality. However, as the moderator prompted furthe r discussion, many of those participants began to acknowledge that their concerns were related more to safety than operations. When asked to consider a hypothetical situ ation in which the same road was being judged, but there was no chance of a crisis situation occu rring, thereby requiring the

PAGE 82

71 driver to pull over, many people said that the lack of shoulder would not lower their trip quality, calling it a fine road and a good road. Furthering the conversation, the moderator attempted to get information about how roadway characteristics such as narrow la nes and lack of shoulder area impacts the participants choice of travel speed. To do so, the moderator, once again, described a hypothetical situation in which he asked part icipants to compare between a straight roadway with 12 foot lanes and a paved shoul der, and a straight roadway with 10 foot lanes and no paved shoulder. The moderator then asked, Who woul d drive slower than that posted speed limit because of the narrowe r lane and lack of shoulder? Several people said that they would, with two people saying especially at night. The moderator stated for the record that four people raised their hand to indicate that narrow lanes and lack of shoulders would not affect their speed. In summary, it appears that narrow lanes and lack of shoulder do impact the choice of travel speed for some partic ipants, but others claimed that it has no effect. However, previous discussion indicated that these char acteristics did not necessarily lower their perceived trip quality. Video clip 15 Description: A high-speed facility with a speed limit that increases from 45 to 55 mi/h, standard-width lanes, well maintain ed pavement and markings, and moderate roadside development. In the video scene there is moderate traffic present in both directions and the video vehi cle is being followed by anothe r vehicle (but not closely).

PAGE 83

72 Figure 19. Screenshot of Video Clip 15. Discussion results: While there was no lengthy disc ussion about any particular topic, a couple of issues were discussed brie fly. Most people seemed to feel that the speed limit on the facility was appropriate a nd that the adjacent driveways were easy to see. Only one person seemed to be bothere d that the video vehicle was being followed by another vehicle, and said that maybe this indicated that the speed limit was not high enough. One person mentioned that the addition of deceleration lanes would be an improvement because there were so many dr iveways turning off, and having a lot of people slowing down in front of me to turn into driveways, they would have to slow down really slow and that would bother me. In summary, most participants felt that the speed limit was appropriate given that there was some roadside development. The suggestion made by one participant

PAGE 84

73 regarding the addition of deceleration lane s indicates that having to slow down for vehicles exiting the roadway would lower the quality of the trip. Video clip 16 Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway approaches a medium-sized town. The roadway has standard-width lanes, wellmaintained pavement and markings, mode rate roadside development, and many driveways. In the video scene, there is mode rate traffic present in both directions. Also, the video vehicle being followed closely and is following other vehicl es traveling 5 to 10 mi/h under the speed limit. Figure 20. Screenshot of Video Clip 16. Discussion results: Both focus groups did not have much to say in reference to this clip. A couple of people mentioned that they did not like that the video vehicle had to travel so far under the speed lim it due to the vehicles ahead of it. One person said, If

PAGE 85

74 people were going the speed limit there would have been no problem, but the people were just going 10 mi/h under. Another group memb er said that they wouldnt dare go over the speed limit because there wa s a lot of activity going on off to the sides. As a result of the activity and traffic volume, most people said that they would not feel the need to pass. In summary, although there was little disc ussion about this clip, what was said, however, was consistent with previous stat ements about passing expectations within small to medium-sized towns. Also, the statem ents about expectations of travel speed are consistent in that most participants do not like having to travel at a reduced speed (relative to the posted speed limit) as a result of following other vehicles. Survey Forms Form 1 For Form 1, participants were asked to use the spaces provided on the form to: Describe what you consider to be the primar y indicators of the trip quality for each of the two-lane highway video clips. Please be specific as possible when describing what you feel are the important factors used in your assessment of trip quality. Factors you should consider include traffi c conditions and/or characteri stics of the roadway itself. While the written comments proved useful in some situations, helping to interpret and back up the data collected from the fo cus group discussions, many of the comments were either vague, irrelevant, or sometimes illegible. In some cases, participants wrote down merely what they saw in the video clip For instance, if there was a railroad crossing in the video clip, some people si mply wrote RRXing or if there was a guardrail, they would write guardrail. Fo r this reason, some of the responses were difficult or impossible to interpret.

PAGE 86

75 At times however, the written comments we re more specific. For example, in reference to many of the video clips featur ing a two-lane highway through a small or medium sized town (clips 2, 4, 7, 13, and 16) many participants wrote, not compelled to pass or should not be able to pass, i ndicating that they do not feel compelled or expect to pass in these situations. In refere nce to clip 10, in whic h the video vehicle was following a vehicle traveling slower than the speed limit, many participants wrote, would have been frustrated with vehicle go ing too slow or would have passed or I would pass if a car was not doing the speed lim it. Comments such as these, when put into the context of the corre sponding video clip, served as support to the verbal discussions. An effort was made to quantitatively analyze the written comments provided on this survey form. A spreadsheet was create d in which the comments for each video clip were entered. Irrelevant comments were discarded. The remaining comments were then separated into different categories. Exam ples of such includ e: good visibility, pavement quality good, posted speed limit is good/adequate, not compelled to pass, and lane width not good. The frequency of comments pertaining to a particular category (for each video clip) was then calculated. However, as discussed previously, the frequency in which a particular topic is discussed (or in th is case written) does not necessarily reflect its importance. In fact, in this study, th e frequency of certain written comments did not always correlate with th e topics emphasized most heavily in the discussions. The spreadsheet detailing th e frequency of comments is included in appendix H.

PAGE 87

76 Form 2 Unfortunately, much of the results from this form were inconclusive. In many cases the results were inconsistent with the data collected from the focus group discussions and from the written responses on su rvey form 1. In fact, when analyzing the rankings, it appeared that many of the partic ipants either did not understand what was being asked of them or did not want to take the time to properly fill out the form. Since the form was given to the part icipants at the end of the fo cus group session, it is possible that many participants were experiencing fatigue or were simply eager to leave. In general, participants tended to say that all of the roadway and traffic factors listed on the form were of great importance to their perceived trip quality, rather than indicating the relative importance between them. In some cases, participants recorded 7s (indicating extreme importance) for all of th e factors in all of the two-lane highway categories. While it is possible that these individuals felt that all of the roadway and traffic factors were of equal importance on all of the different types of two-lane highways, it is more probable that these indi viduals were eager to leave and therefore did not take the time to fill out the form in a way that truly represented their opinions. However, some general trends were observ ed in the rankings. With respect to the four categories of two-lane highways listed on the form, a general downward shift in the frequency of higher numbered (5s,6s, and 7s) rankings occurred between the high and medium-speed facility categories and the lowspeed categories. This indicates that the majority of participants consider the roadway and traffic characteristics listed on the form to factor more heavily in their assessment of trip quality for high and medium-speed facilities, and less heavily for lower-speed facilities such as those through small towns or coastal areas. The results of this form are included in appendix H.

PAGE 88

77 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The objective of this study was to determin e what performance measures appear to be most appropriate (i.e., c onsistent with traveler per ceptions and expectations) for assessing LOS on different types of tw o-lane highways. As it stands, LOS methodologies can be improved by more accurate ly correlating the roadway performance measures used in analyses to the perceptions and expectations of the roadway users themselves. This will lead to better decisi on making about the allocation of resources to roadway infrastructure improvements. Conclusions Focus Group Implementation and Survey Forms The recruitment of participants with the newspaper advertisement method was generally effective. The response rate exceed ed expectations. Si nce many more people responded to the advertisement than the number needed for the three focus groups, it was possible to select participants such that each focus group consisted of a reasonably diverse sample of individuals. However, the one limitation with this method was that the majority of respondents were older1; thus, almost all of the few younger people (ages 25 45) that responded were selected to participate in the focus groups. All three focus groups ran re latively smoothly and a signi ficant amount of valuable information was obtained. As expected, however, the group discussion w as sometimes 1 This is expected to be due to a large amount of retirees whose schedules are more often more flexible.

PAGE 89

78 dominated by the more talkative or extrovert ed individuals, which consequently led to unequal representation in the a udio recordings. However, th e written survey form was intended to counter this, by giving all participants a fo rum in which to voice their opinions, although those opini ons were limited to the space on the form. While the written survey form (Form 1) proved useful in some situations, helping to interpret and back-up the data from the focus group discussions, many of the comments were either vague, irrelevant, or sometimes illegible. In many cases, the frequency of certain written comments di d not always correlate with the topics emphasized most heavily in the discussions. The use of Form 2 ultimately did not have the desired outcome, in that the results were inconclusive and in some cases inconsistent with the data collected from the focus group disc ussions. It is suspected that participants either did not understand what was being asked of them or did not want to take the time to properly fill out the form. Therefore, it is felt that the audio data recorded from the focus group discussions is the most reliable set of data. Focus Group Discussions The focus group discussions proved to be an effective method of obtaining user perceptions about quality of service on tw o-lane highways. Based on the focus group discussions in this study, it is apparent that motorists cons ider several f actors in their assessment of trip quality on a two-lane highway. The function and/or development setting of the of two-lane highw ay facility also appears to dictate what their trip quality expectations are. In all three focus group sessions, there we re many common themes or topics of discussion that arose repeatedly. For many of the study participants, safety was a primary concern, and was discussed heavily. Pos itive guidance, in the form of appropriate

PAGE 90

79 signage, clear lane markings and striping, re flectors, and in some cases lighting, was considered to be an important factor in th eir assessment of trip quality on all types of two-lane highways. While this is not necessarily a traffic operations issue, it nevertheless was a popular discussion t opic and worthy of noting. Another popular, but non-traffic operati ons, issue involved pavement quality. Participants stressed the importance of high quality, well maintained pavement repeatedly throughout the focus group discussions. For example, many participants immediately noticed and responded to the hi gh quality pavement depicted in video clip 1 and the poor quality pavement depicted in video clip 5. Another heavily repeated theme, that tr anscended all two-lane highway types, involved the presence or absen ce of shoulder area (paved or unpaved). While this is partly a safety issue in term s of having an escape route or leeway in the event of an incident, it can also be an ope rational issue. Some participan ts indicated that a lack of shoulder or adequate clearance zone decrease s their comfort level and overall perception of trip quality. These participants felt that a lack of shoulder area also influences their choice of travel speed. Others, however, clai med that this had no impact on their travel speed or perceived trip quality. In relation to shoulders, lane width was al so discussed in reference to many video clips, including clips 3, 6, 12 and 14. Like shoulders, lane width appears to have an effect on the choice of travel speed and percei ved trip quality for so me study participants, but not others. Speed and following/passing were also themes that arose repeatedly in all of the focus group sessions. The discussions about speed often centered around either an

PAGE 91

80 absolute speed, such as the posted speed of th e roadway, or a relativ e speed, such as the desired travel speed or speed of the vehicles in the video in relation to the posted speed limit. The discussions about following/pa ssing often focused on whether or not the participants felt compelled to pass in a given situation a nd how they felt about following or being followed by other vehicles. Based on the data collected in this study, motorists have different expectations of speed for differe nt types of two-lane highways, as well as different expectations with regard to passing. In reference to video clips 1, 5, 10, 14 and 15, most participants agreed that the posted speed limits on the facilities were approp riate given the context of the facilities. All six video clips featured two-lane highw ays through rural undeveloped areas with 50to 60-mi/h posted speed limits. Study particip ants indicated a desire and an expectation to travel at high speeds on thes e facilities. In most cases th is desired or expected travel speed was the speed limit or above by 5-10 mi/h Most participants agreed that having to travel slower than the posted speed limit on these types of facilities resulted in a lower trip quality. Participants also indicated that passing oppor tunities were an important aspect of trip quality on a high-speed two-la ne highway. However, many participants agreed that they would not feel compelled to pass unless they were following a vehicle going approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed limit, such as with video clip 10. Video clips 2, 4, 7, 13 and 16, all feat ure two-lane highways which travel through small-or medium sized towns. Based on the focus group discussions, many participants agreed that they would not feel compelled or have an expectation to pass in a town area. Participants appeared to feel similarly with respect to passing expectations for the coastal roadway depicted in video clips 8 and 11, which featured moderate surrounding

PAGE 92

81 development and pedestrian activ ity. Participant also felt this way about the two-lane highway segments depicted in video clips 3 and 12. Video clip 3, featured a scenic tree canopy roadway with narrow lanes and video c lip 12 featured a narrow bridge with no shoulder. In all of the above situations, participan ts agreed that they would not have an expectation to pass, but that having to follow a vehicle trav eling slower than the sped limit would negatively affect the trip quality, such as in video clips 13 and 16. Furthermore, participants acknowledged that their preferred travel speed was a speed at or above the speed limit Video clips 6 and 9, the onl y two remaining video clips not discussed previously, both depicted two-lane highway s with moderate residential development on both sides of the roadway. Both video clips received de bate over the appropriate posted speed limit and passing expectations. For video clip 6, so me participants felt that the 45 mi/h speed limit was appropriate due to the residences along the roadway. These participants also expressed that they would not feel compelled to pass for this reason. However, others felt that this speed limit was too low and that they would pass if it were safe to do so. For video clip 9, the majority of participants agreed that the posted speed limit of 35 mi/h was too low. Although they recognized the pres ence of residences, many felt that a speed limit of 45 mi/h would be more appropriate gi ven that very little tr affic would be using these private driveways. Again, some particip ants felt a reasonable expectation to pass in this situation, while others did not. Based on the data collected from the participants in this study, there appears to be at least three categories of two-lane highways from a motorists perspective. There are two very definable categorie s of two-lane highways and the resultant traveler

PAGE 93

82 expectations. However, there we re other two-lane highway situ ations that did not fit into either of those two categories and there was not a clear consensus on the preferred performance measures. The first category includes high-speed (50 mi/h and above) two-lane highways, in generally rural undeveloped areas, in which motorists expect to travel at high speeds and have frequent passing opportuni ties. Therefore, the combin ation of speedand passing opportunity-based performance measures seems appropriate for this category. The current HCM service measures for a Class I two-lane highway include ATS and PTSF. The ATS service measure and corresponding thresholds for Class I are intended to reflect the motorists expectation for high-speed travel. However, the current thresholds for this class are somewhat restri ctive given that the threshold for LOS A is 55 mi/h and, based on this study, motorists tend to perceive facilities with 50-60 mi/h speed limits as falling under this classification. Thus, PFFS may be more suitable than ATS in terms of a speed-based performance measure be cause it references a relative speed rather than an absolute speed. It is felt that the PTSF service measure is reasonable for this class because it accounts for passing opportunities. However, the implication with this measure is that vehicles traveling with head ways of 3 seconds or less are compelled to pass, whereas this may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, this category of two-lane highway (high-speed, rural undeveloped) appear s to be consistent, in terms of service measures, with the current Class I definition. The second category consists of two-lane highways in which there is essentially no passing expectation, includi ng roadways through smallor medium-sized towns, developed coastal areas, and certain scenic ar eas. While these type s of facilities are

PAGE 94

83 certainly not Class I facilities, they do not fit under the Class II de finition either. These types of two-lane highways therefore should be of a separate class, Class III for example. On these facilities, passing oppor tunities are not an issue, an d in general, neither is the percent time-spent-following. While the partic ipants stated that they would certainly rather be traveling with no other vehicles around them, they acknowledged that following is not much of a concern in these situations. Particularly in low-speed conditions, such as in small towns, following does not tend to be of much concern because there are fewer safety implications. On these two-lane hi ghways, the clear consensus from the focus groups was that the motorists primary desire is to travel at a speed at or slightly above the posted speed limit. Therefore, a speed-bas ed measure, such as PFFS, appears to be more appropriate for these Class III two-la ne highways than a following-based measure such as PTSF. Based on the focus group results, it is clear that there are additional two-lane highway situations/configurati ons that do not fall into eith er of the above described categories. These two-lane highways essentia lly fall in between the two other categories in that passing expectations on these roadways do not appear to be as definitive. For example, with video clips 6 and 9, participan ts were essentially divided on the issue of passing. Given the moderate level of reside ntial development depicted in both of the video clips, participants did not expect high-speed travel (such as on a rural undeveloped facility), which in terms of the current HC M classifications, would render this type of highway as Class II. The performance meas ure for a Class II two-lane highway in the HCM is PTSF, indicating that following is the primary determinant of level of service. However, this does not seem to be consistent with the expectations of some motorists.

PAGE 95

84 Instead, for these types of two-lane highways, speed seemed to be a larger issue. While the participants did not have an expectation for high-speed travel, at the same time they did not feel that low speeds we re warranted either (such as in a small town). In reference to video clip 9, most particip ants expressed frustration with what they perceived was an excessively and unnecessarily low posted speed limit, given the context of the facility. On these types of intermediate two-lane highway s, an absolute travel speed appears to be just as important as a relative travel speed. In other words, while most motorists primary desire is to travel at a speed which is at or above the speed limit, on these types of twolane highways it is just as important (from the motorists viewpoint) for the posted speed limit to be set appropriately within the context of the facility. Therefore, for these Class II-type facilities, an absolute-speed-based performance measure such as ATS should be considered. It is possible that, based on the context of the facility and motorists expectations, a following base d performance measure should also be used. However, for these types of two-lane highways, engineer ing judgment will have to dictate. In summary, it is clear from this focus group effort that some improvements could be made to the current classification sche me and corresponding service measures. To begin with, the manner in which the current HCM classifies two-la ne highways does not appear to be comprehensive, and for one of the classifications the chosen service measure is not necessarily appropriate. At this time, classifications are largely based on expectations of travel speed. From this study, it appears that expectations for passing should be considered, in addi tion to travel speed, when di stinguishing among facilities. Also, the current classifications do not addres s two-lane highways through small towns or through coastal and scenic areas. These type s of facilities should receive their own

PAGE 96

85 classification (Class III) and their own speci fic performance measur e, the most logical choice being PFFS. The current HCM Class I methodology is largely consistent with what was determined in this study. However, the us e of PTSF does not account for the possibility that in some situations many people are c ontent to not pass, even if following other vehicles closely. A passing opportunity-bas ed performance measure, rather than a following-based performance measure may be more appropriate for these types of facilities. However, the development of su ch a measure should perhaps be pursued as part of a more long-term research effort. The current HCM Class II definition, which includes all roadways in which motorists do not expect to trav el at high speeds, is also largely consistent with what was determined in the study, except that two-lane highways in which there is no expectation for passing should be designated as Class III. Unlike the current Class II methodology though, the use of a speed-based performance meas ure should be considered, as well as a following-based measure. For these types of roadways, it appears that absolute travel speed (e.g., no less than 45 mi/h) is just as impor tant as being able to travel at a certain speed relative to the posted speed limit. Th erefore, ATS should be considered as a speedbased measure. Thus, a combination of AT S and PTSF, similar to Class I, should be considered; however, the LOS thresholds would be different than for Class I. Recommendations for Further Research For the findings of this study to be adopt ed on a national level, it is recommended that the scope of the video da ta collection and participant recruitment be broadened to include regions outside of the University of Florida/north central Florida area. Additionally, a future study s hould include a larger number of drivers unde r the age of

PAGE 97

86 26. Future research should also consider the use of more video clips, with a more diverse range of roadway and traffic conditions. Based upon focus group feedback, only two of the video clips featured roadways that fell under Class II (although not done intentionally). In this study, the core of the video clips depicted Class I and Class III two-lane highways. It is recommended th at future research include more Class II examples. While the use of written survey forms provided all participants with an opportunity to provide input, the data collected from th e focus group discussions were more reliable and valuable. In a future st udy, it is recommended that if forms are to be provided for written input, there should be more time allo tted for the participants to think about their comments or responses and record them, as well as more time to reiterate the instructions on filling out the forms. Of course, this must be balanced with the overall time requirement for the focus group effort. In this study, the focus group sessions lasted two hours, which may already be pushing the practi cal limits of what can be expected from recruited participants. It ma y be more desirable to not re quire any written input from focus group participants. However, if no wr itten input is to be collected, an attempt should be made to obtain verbal input from each participant. In the previous section, some suggestions were made for making some improvements to the current LOS methodology fo r two-lane highways. With regard to two-lane highways that clearly were neither Class I or III, it became evident that there were not enough video data collected with respect to these type of fac ilities to be able to make definitive recommendations in terms of performance measures. Furthermore, it was made clear that a number of roadway factors (e.g., pavement quality, roadway

PAGE 98

87 striping quality, etc.) are also important to moto rists in evaluating trip quality. Thus, the development of a more comprehensive LO S methodology should be considered. The outcome of such research might be a level of service function that could be applied to all categories of two-lane highways. The function could be defined in terms of a series of variables (performance measures) and corresp onding coefficients. The variables might include PFFS, ATS, PTSF, Passing Opportuniti es, % Heavy Vehicles, Pavement Quality, Lane Striping Quality, etc. The coefficients would be defined separately for each category of two-lane highway. Thus, the wei ghting of the importance of each variable to the overall evaluation of trip quality by a moto rist could be different for each class of two-lane highway.

PAGE 99

APPENDIX A LETTERS FROM FLORIDA OFFICIALS REGARDING HCM 2000 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

PAGE 100

89

PAGE 101

90

PAGE 102

91

PAGE 103

92

PAGE 104

APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS JANUARY 2004

PAGE 105

94 Presentation by Douglas Harwood of MRI Midwest Research InstituteLevel of Service Assessment For Developed Two-Lane HighwaysNCHRP Project 20-7(160) Douglas W. Harwood Midwest Research Institute Objective and ScopeOBJECTIVE Recommend procedures to assess quality of service for two-lane highways in developed areas KEY DECISIONS What service measure to use? Where in HCM does procedure belong? Existing HCM Chapter 20 Procedure Class I highways: motorists expect to travel at relatively high speeds service measures: PTSF and ATS threshold values: Exhibit 20-2 Class II highways motorists do not expect to travel at relatively high speeds service measure: PTSF only threshold values: Exhibit 20-4 Scenarios Where Existing HCM Chapter 20 Does Not Apply two-lane highway through a small town with a reduced speed limit located on a major road with speeds of 55 mph or more two-lane highway in a transition area between rural and urban/suburban conditions with reduced speeds and low-to medium-density development Scenarios Where Existing HCM Chapter 20 Does Not Apply two-lane highway with continuous urban/suburban development but no traffic signals or traffic signals spaced at intervals greater than 2 mi Are such facilities: generally uninterrupted flow? partially interrupted flow? Two-Lane Highways with Continuous Development Candidate service measures: PTSF ATS PTSF and ATS combined Recommended service measure: ATS only Threshold values: based on percentage of FFS

PAGE 106

95 LOS Thresholds for HCM Chapter 15 LOS A/B boundary90% of FFS LOS B/C boundary70% of FFS LOS C/D boundary50% of FFS LOS D/E boundary40% of FFS LOS E/F boundary30% of FFS HCM Chapter 15 Procedure for Urban Streets At signals: use HCM Chapter 16 to estimate delay Between signals: use running time per km from HCM Exhibit 15-3 Combine segment running time and signal delay to get average running speed Apply LOS thresholds Potential Weaknesses of HCM Chapter 15 Methodology as Applied to Developed Two-Lane Highways Running time between signals is based on signal spacing but does not consider: effects of driveways and roadside development on delay effects of unsignalized intersections on delay Procedure does not apply to: streets without signals streets with signal spacing over 2 mi HCM Gaps Between Chapters HCM2000 does not address: multilane urban streets without signals or with widely spaced signals two-lane urban streets without signals or with widely spaced signals developed two-lane highways HCM Chapter 21 addresses rural and suburban multilane highways service measure: density Where in HCM to Address Developed Two-Lane Highways Same service measures as HCM Chapter 15 Same threshold values as HCM Chapter 15 Physical facility like an arterial except for signal spacing Would very out of place in HCM Chapter 20 Recommendation: incorporate in HCM Chapter 15 or a new facilities chapter Related Questions for Two-Lane and Multilane Arterials How to evaluate arterials with no signals or widely spaced signals? Why not consider delays between signals when substantial? Need a true facilities chapter to combine: multilane and two-lane segments (including driveway and development effects) unsignalized intersections signalized intersections Alternative Approaches Adapt current procedures (combine appropriate elements of existing HCM Chapters 15 and 20) OR Research effort to develop better developed two-lane highways procedure OR Major research effort (new urban arterial facilities procedure) Combine Existing Procedures If developed two-lane highway has no signals: segment length has no effect, so HCM Exhibit 15-3 is not needed determine ATS with HCM Equation 20-15 apply LOS thresholds from HCM Chapter 15

PAGE 107

96 Combine Existing Procedures If signals are spaced more than 1 mi apart: segment length has no effect, so HCM Exhibit 153 is not needed determine ATS between signals with HCM Equation 20-15 determine signal delay from HCM Chapter 16 use HCM Chapter 15 procedures to combine segment speed and signal delay apply LOS thresholds from HCM Chapter 15 Combine Existing Procedures If signals are spaced less than 1 mi apart: determine running speed between signals based on HCM Exhibit 15-3 determine running speed between signals based on HCM Equation 20-15 use the lower of the two speeds Combine Existing Procedures determine signal delay from HCM Chapter 16 use HCM Chapter 15 procedures to combine segment speed and signal delay apply LOS thresholds from HCM Chapter 15 Small Towns and Transition Areas Analysis approach depends on length of area with reduced speeds Two-lane highway in an undeveloped area: evaluate as Class I or Class II based on existing criteria in HCM Chapter 20 Small Town or Transition Area Two-lane highway in a small town or transition area on a Class I highway: evaluate as Class II highway if developed area with reduced speeds extends for less than 2 mi and most traffic is through traffic if developed area with reduced speeds extends for more than 2 mi or there is substantial local circulating traffic, evaluate with developed two-lane highway procedure Research Needed Desirable, but not comprehensive: HCM procedures for developed two-lane highways Long-term, more comprehensive: urban arterial facilities procedure for any combination of: segments (including driveways and development) unsignalized intersections signalized intersections

PAGE 108

97 Presentation by Doug McLeod of FDOT FDOTsMajor Recommendations in Contrast to NCHRP 20-7 There should be one class (Class III) of uninterrupted flow two-lane segments that applies in all developed areas Percent free flow speed is the best service measure for these segments in developed areas, not percent time spent following or average travel speed Practical level of service thresholds should be established for these segments, not untested thresholds Because these segments are uninterrupted flow, they should be addressed consistently in an uninterrupted flow chapter not interspersed with an interrupted flow chapter(focus of this workshop) Class III for All Developed Areas (1) Current HCM classes apply to undeveloped areasClass I high speed segments Class II not high speed segments Class III Typical developed areasSmall towns/communities (most typical situation) Roads with development along them (e.g., beach roads) In urbanized areas (e.g., fringe areas) 5 8 4 14 16 Recommendation1 Recommendation1Class III for All Developed Areas(2) Class III should apply to all developed areas Conceptually it makes sense to Group developed areas into one category of roads HCM users would probably appreciate Simply first making a choice of developedor undeveloped Not having to go to different chapters and use different performance measures for comparable situations Class III for All Developed Areas (3)Current NCHRP 20-7 Recommendations Does not recommend a Class III Small townsShould be treated like other Class II segments Should use percent time spent following as the service measureOther developed situations (greater than 2 miles)Should be treated in the urban streets interrupted flow chapters Should use average travel speed as the service measure Recommendation1 Recommendation2 Use Percent Free Flow Speed as the Service Measure(1) In small towns/communities what are through drivers primarily concerned with? Percent time spent following (largely reflecting the desire to pass) Average travel speed (largely reflecting the desire to maintain a set speed) Percent free flow speed (largely reflecting the desire to maintain a speed reflective of specific roadway/area circumstances Other 4 Recommendation2Use Percent Free Flow Speed as the Service Measure(2) FDOTsposition -in small towns or along developed roadways posted (e.g.,) 50 mph with no stop conditions drivers would:Probably like to average about 55 mph Probably not expect to be able to pass vehicles Probably not expect to average a set speed (e.g., 45 mph) FDOTsposition -in small towns posted (e.g.,) 30 mph with no stop conditions drivers would:Probably like to average about 35 mph Probably not expect to be able to pass vehicles Probably not expect to average a set speed (e.g., 45 mph)

PAGE 109

98 Recommendation2Use Percent Free Flow Speed as the Service Measure (3)Current NCHRP 20-7 Recommendations Small townsPercent time spent following as the service measure Implied -drivers in these areas are most concerned about trying to passOther developed situations (greater than 2 miles)Average travel speed as the service measure Implied -drivers expect to go the same speed regardless of the roadway/surrounding conditions Recommendation2Use Percent Free Flow Speed as the Service Measure(4) Percent Free Flow Speed is the best service measure for these segments in developed areas, not Percent Time Spent Following or Average Travel Speed X X Practical LOS Thresholds Should Be Established(1) Practical level of service thresholds should be established for these segments, not untested thresholdsRecommendation3 ~ Service Volumes (using 20-7 Chapter 15 approach in other developed areas)A = 3,100 B = 15,500 C = 23,500 D = N/A E = N/ARecommendation3EXAMPLE~ Service Volumes(using FDOTsapproach with Exhibit 20-2 as a base)A = 2,500 B = 7,200 C = 12,700 D = 17,300 E = 23,500~ Service Volumes (using 20-7 Chapter 20 Class II approach for small towns)A = 1,900 B = 3,700 C = 7,100 D = 13,300 E = 23,500 Recommendation3EXAMPLE~ Service Volumes(using FDOTsapproach with Exhibit 20-2 as a base)A = 2,500 B = 7,200 C = 12,700 D = 17,300 E = 23,500 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000ABCDE Ch 20 FDOT Ch 15~ Service Volumes (using 20-7 Chapter 15 approach in other developed areas)A = 3,100 B = 15,500 C = 23,500 D = N/A E = N/A ~ Service Volumes (using 20-7 Chapter 20 Class II approach for small towns)A = 1,900 B = 3,700 C = 7,100 D = 13,300 E = 23,500 Recommendation3Practical LOS Thresholds Should Be Established (1) FDOTsposition LOS thresholds need to make sense when applied in the real worldHCM practitioners would probably appreciate LOS thresholds that can be applied consistently for these roads in developed areas Resulting LOS calculations and service volumes for these roadways need to make sense in relation to those in undeveloped areas and those that are signalized Recommendation3Practical LOS Thresholds Should Be Established (2) FDOT has provided LOS percent free flow speed thresholds directly linked to HCM Exhibit 20-2 (on average travel speed) that work reasonably well FDOT has provided closely related alternative percent free flow speed thresholds that may work even better in the field Practical LOS Thresholds Should Be Established (3)Current NCHRP 20-7 RecommendationsDifferent service measures in different areas Small townsUse of Class II percent time spent following thresholds result in abnormally low LOS service volumesNorthern California case (Local perceptions) Georgia case (FHWA requiring LOS C for design)Other developed situations (greater than 2 miles)Use of HCMsinterrupted flow average travel speed criteriaThe related percent free flow speeds have a heavy dependence on control delay Essentially LOS D & E would never existRecommendation3

PAGE 110

99 Practical LOS Thresholds Should Be Established(4) Practical level of service thresholds should be established for these segments, not untested thresholdsRecommendation3 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000ABCDE Ch 20 FDOT Ch 15 These Roadways Should Be Addressed in the HCM Uninterrupted Flow Two-Lane Segment Chapter (1) FDOTsposition -Uninterrupted flow highway segments should be treated in the same chapter of the HCM They should not be split between the current two-lane segment chapter and the interrupted flow urban streets chapterRecommendation4 These Roadways Should Be Addressed in the HCM Uninterrupted Flow Two-Lane Segment Chapter (2)Current NCHRP 20-7 RecommendationsSmall towns evaluate in the current uninterrupted two-lane chapter (20) Other areas evaluate in the current interrupted flow urban streets chapter (15), even though they are uninterrupted Is this logical to the HCM practitioner?Recommendation4 FDOT Side Issues(not the focus of this workshop) Quality of service research should be conducted as to what drivers actually believe is most important Research is needed to develop an HCM facilitychapter on generally uninterrupted flow facilities combining uninterrupted flow two-lane and multilane segments and isolated stop control conditions (FDOT has funded in-state research and has submitted a research proposal as a future NCHRP project) Concerns about the current service measures for Class I and II These roadways should be multimodal in approach (i.e., bike LOS analysis should be included)

PAGE 111

100 APPENDIX C SCHEMATIC OF IN-VEHICLE EQUIPMENT

PAGE 112

APPENDIX D MAPS OF DRIVING ROUTES

PAGE 113

102Day 1 *Blue dot indicates approximate location of video clip footage

PAGE 114

103 Day 2 *Blue dot indicates approximate location of video clip footage

PAGE 115

104 Day 3 *Blue dot indicates approximate location of video clip footage

PAGE 116

105 APPENDIX E GAINESVILLE SUN NEWSPA PER ADVERTISEMENT FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS Needed for a UF Transportation Study If you are: A licensed driver at least 25 years of a g e and have experience drivin g on two-lane roadways If you are willing to: Complete a short survey about y our driving experience, participate in a 2 hour focus group session Then you are eligible to participate In this study. You will be paid $50 for competing the study. Please call 392-9537 ex. 1537 Leave a message with your name and contact phone #.

PAGE 117

APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY SURVEY FORM

PAGE 118

107 CONTACT PHONE #: ________________ 2-Lane Highway Preliminary Questionnaire Opening: Hi, this is Jessica calling from the University of Florida Transportation Research Center with the Civil Engineeri ng Department. We r eceived your message about your interest in participa ting in a focus group session. Do you have a few minutes now so I can tell you a little bit about th e research project? If yes: These focus groups are being conducted to find out about peoples opinions and perceptions of travel on 2-lane highways Focus group participants will be shown several short video clips and then will participate in a group discussion. Participants will then be asked to comple te a short survey. It will take about 2 hrs. and afterward you will receive $50 for your participation. Are you still interested in being considered for participation in one of these focus groups? If yes: We are planning to hold the focus group sessions either on Saturday April 16th or Saturday April 23? Are you available for either or both of these dates? Can you tell me about what time would you prefer to meet. Morning, mid-day or afternoon? Now, Id like to ask you a few demographic qu estions so that we can be sure that participants are a representative sample. 2. Number of years of driving experience: _________ 3. Do you have experience dr iving on 2-lane highways? Yes No if no, thank and end call. 4. How frequently do you drive on 2-lane highways? Frequently Somewhat Frequently Not Frequently 5. Gender: Male Female dont ask, just record.

PAGE 119

108 6. Age: 25 to 34 yrs 35 to 44 yrs 45 to 54 yrs Over 54 years 7. Marital Status: Single Married Other 8. # of Kids: _________ 9. Highest level of education: High School College degree Some college 10. Is your familys total yearly income before taxes $35,000 or less, or more than $35,000? Less than $35,000 More than $35,000 Not Sure 11. Would you please tell me your race? Black/African American White Asian Hispanic Other Closing: Thank you very much for participating in our preliminary selection pr ocess. Ill be in touch with you within 7 days to let you know if youve been chosen to par ticipate in the next phase of the study. To facilitate that followup, can you please tell me: 12. Your first name: 13. Your last name: 14: Can I confirm that your telephone # is:_______________ 15. Can I get your mailing address: 16. Do you have an email address where we can send you information? Thank you, that completes the first part of the pr ocess. If you are sele cted to participate, we will contact you within 7 days Ha ve a nice evening (day).

PAGE 120

APPENDIX G FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION SHEET AND SURVEY FORMS

PAGE 121

110 Instruction Sheet

PAGE 122

111 Form 1 Section 1

PAGE 123

112 Form 1 Section 2

PAGE 124

113Form 2

PAGE 125

APPENDIX H WRITTEN SURVEY FORM RESULTS

PAGE 126

115Form 1 Results Clip #Comment TypeFrequency Percentage of Comments Good trip quality23.4 Good visibility, sight distance610.3 Low traffic volume, density23.4 Good passing opportunities35.2 Lane width good23.4 Shoulder and/or clearance space good1322.4 Pavement quality good58.6 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good1220.7 Needs more positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.)610.3 Posted speed limit good/appropriate712.1 Mentioning of on-steet parking615.4 Good trip quality12.6 Shoulder and/or clearance space inadequate512.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good37.7 Speed limit reduction warning signs needed820.5 Speed reduction as roadway approaches town too abrupt410.3 Posted speed limit in town was good/acceptable820.5 Posted speed limit should have resumed more quickly outside of town410.3 Good trip quality24.2 Visibility not good36.3 Should be allowed to pass48.3 Should not be allowed to pass/not compelled to pass48.3 Should have designated passing lanes24.2 Lane width good/sufficient12.1 Lane width not good36.3 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate1429.2 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good24.2 Wildlife crossing signs needed36.3 Posted speed limit good/appropriate918.8 Posted speed limit too high12.11 2 3

PAGE 127

116Form 1 Results Continued High level of activity/surrounding development25.7 No problem with having to stop for traffic signals411.4 Did not like having to stop for traffic signals25.7 Bad or poor trip quality25.7 Visibility not good25.7 Not compelled to pass25.7 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate38.6 Did not like following larger vehicle12.9 Pavement quality good12.9 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) insufficient25.7 Posted speed limit in town was good/acceptable720.0 Posted speed limit in town was too slow or low411.4 Posted speed limit in town was too high38.6 Liked safety aspect of guardrail618.8 Bad or poor trip quality13.1 Mediocre trip quality13.1 Good visibility, sight distance26.3 Following negatively affects trip quality-tailgater39.4 Good passing opportunities39.4 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate412.5 Pavement quality bad1031.3 Posted speed limit is good/adequate26.3 Hills/terrain influence more cautious driving12.3 Negative comments about overhanging tree limbs24.5 Positive comments about the tree limbs enhance driving quality12.3 Bad or poor trip quality12.3 Good trip quality24.5 Visibility, sight distance not good12.3 Good visibility, sight distance12.3 Lanes too narrow36.8 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate818.2 Needs more positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.)1227.3 Posted speed limit is good/adequate49.1 Posted speed limit is too slow or low613.6 Posted speed limit too high24.54 5 6

PAGE 128

117Form 1 Results Continued Liked exclusive turn lanes at traffic signal37.7 Mediocre trip quality12.6 Good trip quality37.7 Should not be allowed to pass/not compelled to pass37.7 Lane width good/sufficient12.6 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate615.4 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good410.3 Pavement quality good25.1 Posted speed limit in town/developed area was good/acceptable1641.0 High level of activity/surrounding development/pedestrians24.9 Positive comments about scenic nature of roadway37.3 Negative comments about scenic nature of roadway too distracting12.4 Mediocre trip quality24.9 Not compelled to pass12.4 Following negatively affects trip quality49.8 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate922.0 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good37.3 Posted speed limit is good/adequate1331.7 Posted speed limit is too slow or low12.4 Posted speed limit is too high24.9 Good visibility, sight distance37.0 Lanes too narrow12.3 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate818.6 Shoulder and/or clearance space good24.7 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good716.3 Needs more positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.)24.7 Posted speed limit is good/appropriate37.0 Posted speed limit is too slow or low1739.57 8 9

PAGE 129

118Form 1 Results Continued Good visibility, sight distance12.9 Good passing opportunities38.8 Would pass slower vehicle-does not like following at reduced speed926.5 Shoulder and/or clearance space not good/inadequate not paved617.6 Shoulder and/or clearance space good12.9 Posted speed limit is good/adequate1132.4 Posted speed limit is too high38.8 Need for more pedestrian crossing/saftey zones and pedestrian crossing signs1023.8 Does not like parking on side of roadway49.5 Mediocre trip quality12.4 Not compelled to pass24.8 Does not like vehicle following behind12.4 Shoulder and/or clearance space inadequate24.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good24.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) insufficient37.1 Posted speed limit too high for high pedestrian activity and development1228.6 Posted speed limit is good/adequate511.9 Good trip quality13.1 Good visibility, sight distance13.1 Should not be allowed to pass/not compelled to pass26.3 Lane width not good412.5 Shoulder and/or clearance space not adequate825.0 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good13.1 Pavement quality good13.1 Posted speed limit is good/adequate825.0 Posted speed limit is too high618.810 11 12

PAGE 130

119Form 1 Results Continued Liked exclusive turn lanes at traffic signal26.3 No problem with having to stop for traffic signals26.3 Good trip quality13.1 Should not be allowed to pass/not compelled to pass13.1 Does not like following at reduced speed13.1 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good618.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) insufficient26.3 Speed reduction unclear13.1 Posted speed limit is good/adequate1443.8 Posted speed limit is too high26.3 Good trip quality36.5 Good visibility, sight distance12.2 Good passing opportunities36.5 Lane width not good48.7 Shoulder and/or clearance space inadequate919.6 No need for shoulder12.2 Pavement quality good24.3 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) insufficient48.7 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good24.3 Posted speed limit is good/adequate919.6 Posted speed limit is too slow or low817.4 Would like there to be exclusive turn lanes for vehicles turning off of roadway49.1 Good trip quality613.6 Good visibility, sight distance511.4 Lane width good12.3 Shoulder and/or clearance space inadequate12.3 Shoulder and/or clearance space good36.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good36.8 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) insufficient49.1 Posted speed limit is good/adequate1431.8 Posted speed limit is too high near the more developed area and driveways36.813 14 15

PAGE 131

120Form 1 Results Continued Good trip quality12.5 Did not like presence of side-parking12.5 No problem with having to stop for traffic signals12.5 High traffic volume negatively affects trip quality410.0 Does not like following at reduced speed37.5 Should not be allowed to pass/not compelled to pass1127.5 Shoulder and/or clearance space good12.5 Shoulder and/or clearance space inadequate12.5 Positive guidance (signage, lane markings, reflectors,etc.) good25.0 Pavement quality good25.0 Posted speed limit is good/adequate1332.516

PAGE 132

121Form 2 Results 1234567Sum High-Speed Roadways (generally used for travel between cities) Ability to consistently maintain your desired travel speed376.171.210023110 18 34 Ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit175.971.45101448 16 34 Frequent passing zones (i.e., dashed yellow line)176.071.2910106 1115 34 Frequent passing lanes175.371.85214266 13 34 Infrequent steep grades and/or sharp curves175.471.88302447 14 34 Small % of large commercial trucks in traffic stream175.172.01323365 12 34 Small % of large personal veh. (pickups, vans,SUV's) in traffic stream174.252.135533 8 37 34 Wide, paved shoulders175.971.77203044 20 33 Wide travel lanes176.171.32100257 18 33 Medium to Lower-Speed Roadways (w/i cities or connects to HS) Ability to consistently maintain your desired travel speed375.671.2100176 1010 34 Ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit275.551.280123 1010 8 34 Frequent passing zones (i.e., dashed yellow line)275.571.31011598 10 34 Frequent passing lanes174.951.541154 99 5 34 Infrequent steep grades and/or sharp curves174.971.91322675 9 34 Small % of large commercial trucks in traffic stream175.171.85215293 12 34 Small % of large personal veh. (pickups, vans,SUV's) in traffic stream174.551.963442 10 47 34 Wide, paved shoulders175.371.99313247 13 33 Wide travel lanes175.771.55111359 13 33 Lower-Speed Roadway through Small Town (maybe w/ signal) Ability to consistently maintain your desired travel speed274.9151.540344 12 47 34 Ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit174.8851.431128 13 36 34 Frequent passing zones (i.e., dashed yellow line)174.5371.93326573 8 34 Frequent passing lanes174.0031.7950 10 4843 34 Infrequent steep grades and/or sharp curves174.1231.7432 88 544 34 Small % of large commercial trucks in traffic stream174.9771.80214674 10 34 Small % of large personal veh. (pickups, vans,SUV's) in traffic stream174.0351.875346 10 24 34 Wide, paved shoulders174.6472.03423565 8 33 Wide travel lanes275.2471.56023585 10 33 Lower-Speed Roadway that Scenic (coastal, tree canopy) Ability to consistently maintain your desired travel speed274.5341.58045 9 655 34 Ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit174.4751.782365 7 65 34 Frequent passing zones (i.e., dashed yellow line)174.1831.9933 11 3347 34 Frequent passing lanes173.6231.8454 10 5343 34 Infrequent steep grades and/or sharp curves173.9421.863 666 544 34 Small % of large commercial trucks in traffic stream175.0051.843052 9 6 9 34 Small % of large personal veh. (pickups, vans,SUV's) in traffic stream174.4452.035162 9 47 34 Wide, paved shoulders174.4272.21527154 9 33 Wide travel lanes174.7651.902352 8 5 8 33 Frequency Two-Lane Highway Category or TypeMinMaxMeanSt. Dev. Mode

PAGE 133

122 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000. 2. Harwood, Douglas W., May, Adolf D., A nderson, Ingrid B., Leiman, Lannon, Archilla, A. Ricardo. Capacity and Quality of Service of Two-Lane Highways: Final Report of NCHRP Proj ect 3-55 Task 3. Midwest Research Institute. Berkeley, California, 1999. 3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1985. 4. De Arazoza, Rafael E. and McLeod, Douglas S. Methodology to Assess Level of Service on US-1 in the Florida Keys. Transportation Research Record : Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1398. TRB, National Research Council. Washington D.C., 1993. 5. Botha, Jan L., Sullivan, Edward C., Zeng, Xiaohong. Level of Service of TwoLane Rural Highways with Low Design Speeds. Transportation Research Record : Journal of the Transportation Res earch Board, No. 1457. TRB, National Research Council. Washington D.C., 1994. 6. Washburn, Scott S., McLeod, Douglas S., Courage, Kennth G. Adaptation of Highway Capacity Manual 2000 for Planning-Level Analysis of Two-Lane and Multilane Highways in Florida. Transportation Research Record : Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1802. TRB, National Research Council. Washington D.C., 2002. 7. Florida Highway Data 2003 CD-ROM. Flor ida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida, 2003. 8. Florida Traffic Information 2003 CD-ROM. Fl orida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida, 2003. 9. Roadway Characteristics Inventory Fiel d Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida, 2004.

PAGE 134

123 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Lora Morriss is a 24 year old graduate student at th e University of Florida. She is currently pursuing her Master of Engi neering degree, specializing in transportation engineering. Jessica was born and raised in Tampa, Florida, and graduated from Paul R. Wharton High School in 1999. She received he r Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of Florida in May 2004.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011833/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Level of Service on Two-Lane Highways
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: UFE0011833:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011833/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Level of Service on Two-Lane Highways
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: UFE0011833:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE
ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS















By

JESSICA LORA MORRISS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Jessica Lora Morriss

































I would like to dedicate my thesis to my parents, Jack and Debby Morriss, as well as my
grandmother Celie Rueping and my best friend Becca Smith. I would never have been
able to do this without their continued support and encouragement.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Scott Washburn, and my committee

members, Dr. Ageliki Elefteriadou and Mr. Bill Sampson.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



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

LIST OF TABLES .............................. ..... .... .. .. ............... ....... viii

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

A B ST R A C T ............... ...................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

B a c k g ro u n d ................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statem ent .................. .......................... .......................... .2
Research Objectives and Tasks ............................................................................. 4
C chapter O organization ........ ....... .......................................................... ............... 5

2 M ETH OD OLOGY REVIEW ........................................................... ............... 6

H ighw ay Capacity M annual (1985)............................ ........... .................... ... 6
Methodology to Assess Level of Service on US-1 in the Florida Keys (1993) ..........7
Level of Service of Two-Lane Rural Highways with Low Design Speeds (1994)......8
Highway Capacity Manual (2000).................... .......................9
Adaptation of the HCM2000 for Planning Level Analysis of Two-Lane and
M ultilane H ighw ays in Florida (2002)................................................................ 12
N CH RP Project 20-7 Task 160 (2003).................................................. ................. 13
Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee Workshop on Developed
Tw o-Lane H ighw ays (2004) ........................................................ ............. 14
M r. Douglas Harwood's Presentation ...................................... ............... 15
Mr. Doug McLeod's Presentation ............... .......................... 16
W ork shop O utcom e ...... .. ................................ .................. .................... 17

3 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXAMPLES: PERCENT TIME SPENT FOLLOWING
VERSUS PERCENT FREE FLOW SPEED ......... ............ ............. 19

Exam ple LO S C alculations................................................ ............................. 19
Initial C om putations ........................ .. ......................................... 20
C calculations For PT SF ............................................... ............................. 21









C calculations F or P F F S ........................................................................... .... ... 23
Comparison of PTSF and PFFS Service Measures .............................................25
Com prison of Service Volum es................................................... ............... ... 27

4 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................ ............... 28

S u rv ey M eth o d ...................................................................................................... 2 8
V ideo D ata C collection ............................................. .................. ............... 29
Selection of Two-Lane Highways ........... ................................ ...............29
Equipm ent Setup .................................. .. .. ...... ...............30
C collection of V ideo Footage ................................. ...........................................31
V ideo C lip P rodu action .............................................................. .....................32
Focus G roup Im plem entation ............................................. ............................ 35
Participant Recruitm ent ............................ ......... ...... ................... 35
P articipant Selection ......... ...... ........ .. .......................................... ........ 37
Focus Group Implementation ...................... ...................... 40

5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................................... .................43

Analysis Method ............. ........................... ... ...... 43
Focus Group D discussions ............................................................................. 43
Survey Form s.................................................................................... 44
R e su lts ............... ........ ...... ................................................................. ..... 4 5
Focus Group D discussions ............................................................................. 45
Survey Form s.................................................................................... 74
F o rm 1 .......................................................................................7 4
F o rm 2 ................................................................7 6

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 77

C o n c lu sio n s ................... ..... .. ......................................... .............. 7 7
Focus Group Implementation and Survey Forms ................. ....... ............... 77
Focus G group D discussions ............ ....... ........... ............... ............... 78
Recom m endations for Further R research ........................................ .....................85

APPENDIX

A LETTERS FROM FLORIDA OFFICIALS REGARDING HCM 2000 TWO-
LANE HIGHWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .........................................89

B TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS
JA N U A R Y 2004 .................. ...................................... .... .......... .... 94

Presentation by Douglas Harwood of MRI ............... .......................................94
Presentation by Doug McLeod of FDOT .........................................................97

C SCHEMATIC OF IN-VEHICLE EQUIPMENT ............................................. 100









D M APS OF DRIVIN G ROU TES .......................................... ....................102

E GAINESVILLE SUN NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT................................ 105

F PRELIMINARY SURVEY FORM ..........................................107

G FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION SHEET AND SURVEY FORMS.....................110

In stru ctio n S h eet ............................. ................................ .............................. .. 1 10
F orm 1 S section 1 ...................................................................... 1 1 1
Form 1 Section 2 ......... ...... ................................ ....... .............. ... 112
F o rm 2 .................................................... ................... ................ 1 1 3

H WRITTEN SURVEY FORM RESULTS..... ........ ..................115

LIST OF REFEREN CES ......................................... ........................ ............... 122

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................ ............. .............123
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1. Input R oadw ay and Traffic D ata.......... ............................................. ............... 20

2. LOS Thresholds for Class II and Class III Two-Lane Highways.............................20

3. Class II and Class III Service Volumes (AADT) .......................................................27

4. Tw o-Lane H ighw ay D riving Routes........................................ .......................... 33

5. V ideo C lip D escriptions....... ..................................................................... .. .... ..... 36

6. Summary of Participant Demographic Characteristics ............................................38

7. Summary of Participant Two-Lane Highway Driving Characteristics........................39
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1. Class II LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN................................ ........................ 26

2. Class III LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN ........................................ ............... 26

3. In-vehicle V ideo C am era Setup ......................................................................... ... 31

4. Screenshot of Composite Video Image...................................... ........................ 34

5. Screenshot of Video Clip 1 .........................................................................................46

6. Screenshot of Video Clip 2. ....................................................................................... 48

7. Screenshot of Video Clip 3.........................................................................................49

8. Screenshot of Video Clip 4. ........ ..............................................................................52

9. Screenshot of Video Clip 5. .......................................................................................54

10. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 6. ................................................................ ....................56

11. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 7. .........................................................................................58

12. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 8. ................................................................ ....................60

13. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 9. ................................................................ ....................62

14. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 10. ................................ ..................................... .............63

15. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 11 .............. ................. .................................. ...............65

16. Screenshot of Video Clip 12. ............................... ............. ..................................... 67

17. Screenshot of Video Clip 13 ...... ...................................................... ....... ..............68

18. Screenshot of Video Clip 14. .................................. ................................................ 70

19. Screenshot of Video Clip 15. .............. ... ......... ................. ............... 72

20. Screenshot of V ideo Clip 16. ........................................... ............ ...... ............73















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 Engineering

IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE
ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS

By

Jessica Lora Morriss

August 2005

Chair: Scott S. Washburn
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

The concept of level of service (LOS) is central to the Highway Capacity Manual

(HCM) and is used to assess the performance of all types of roadway facilities. Many

transportation infrastructure funding decisions are based on LOS analyses and the

resulting LOS designations are intended to represent user perceived quality of service.

This paper provides an overview of the evolution of the two-lane highway LOS

analysis methodology and identifies weaknesses in the methodology as perceived by the

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as well as other HCM users. In

particular, this study focuses on deficiencies in the methodology (in terms of performance

measures, LOS thresholds and service volumes) with respect to rural developed two-lane

highways, such as those facilities through small towns or developed coastal areas.

Although the HCM intends for LOS designations to correlate with user perceived

quality of service, little research has been done to ascertain what those perceptions are.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine what performance measures









appear to be most appropriate (i.e., consistent with traveler perceptions and expectations)

for assessing LOS on different types of two-lane highways. This objective was facilitated

primarily through direct input from non-transportation specialist travelers in a series of

three focus group sessions. Focus group participants watched a series of video clips

depicting different two-lane highway driving situations. Audio recordings of focus group

discussions and data collected from survey forms were analyzed.

Based on the data collected in this study, it is apparent that motorists consider

several factors in their assessment of trip quality on a two-lane highway. The function

and/or development setting of the facility also appears to dictate what their quality of

service expectations are. At this time, two-lane highway classifications are largely based

on expectations of travel speed. However, from this study, it appears that expectations

for passing should also be considered, in addition to travel speed, when distinguishing

among facilities. Also, the current classifications do not address rural developed two-

lane highways (e.g., facilities through small towns, developed coastal areas, etc.). These

types of facilities should receive their own classification (Class III) and their own specific

performance measure.

Ultimately, the development of a more comprehensive LOS methodology should be

pursued. The outcome of such research might be a level of service function, defined in

terms of a series of variables (performance measures) and corresponding coefficients that

could be applied to all categories of two-lane highways.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [1] is widely accepted among

governmental agencies in the United States as the definitive tool for level of service

(LOS) analysis on all types of roadway facilities. The Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) is no exception, and has committed itself to implementing the

principles outlined in the HCM when evaluating the LOS for transportation facilities

found within the state.

The HCM 2000 defines LOS as a "qualitative measure describing operational

conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed

and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and

convenience" [1]. It also states that "each LOS designation (A through F) represents a

range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions" [1]. In

other words, the concept of LOS serves primarily as a means of evaluating the operating

conditions and quality of service of a roadway as perceived by the traveling public.

Because decisions regarding transportation infrastructure investment are largely

based on LOS analyses, roadways with poor LOS designations typically receive higher

priority for funding. Therefore, LOS methodologies that accurately reflect the roadway

user's perception of operating conditions are necessary to avoid spending taxpayer

money where it is not necessary.









With this in mind, transportation researchers are continually trying to develop new

or improved methods for accurately estimating roadway performance measures and

translating those into LOS values that hopefully correlate well with the quality of service

as perceived by the traveling public. Again, with better LOS analysis methodologies,

transportation practitioners and funding decision makers will be able to make better

infrastructure investment decisions in the eyes of the public.

Problem Statement

One area of special concern to the FDOT since the early 1990s has been the LOS

analysis of two-lane highways in rural developed areas. Since the publication of the 1985

HCM, FDOT has questioned the applicability of the two-lane highway methodology to

two-lane highways in rural developed areas.

This issue came very much into focus when officials in Monroe County, Florida

had difficulty accepting the results of HCM LOS analyses for US-1 (Overseas Highway)

from the Florida mainland to the Florida Keys. After applying the 1985 HCM

methodology, state transportation officials felt that the resulting LOS determinations

along this highway were unrealistically low and did not reflect actual user perceived

quality of service. US-1, like many other two-lane highways in the United States,

features uninterrupted flow with alternating sections of undeveloped and developed

surrounding land use. However, as some transportation officials would later come to

believe, the 1985 HCM two-lane highway methodology was not designed to account for

developed sections of two-lane highway with uninterrupted flow.

These concerns did not apply only to US-1 however. In addition to FDOT

officials, other HCM users were expressing dissatisfaction with the 1985 HCM two-lane

highway methodology with respect to these types of facilities. Prior to the release of the









HCM 2000, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored

Project 3-55 Task 3 [2] to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the 1985 HCM two-

lane highway chapter. As part of this project, a survey was conducted that asked HCM

users to identify ways in which they would like to see the two-lane highway LOS

methodologies improved. Among the responses, several comments were made regarding

the lack of an explicit methodology for uninterrupted flow two-lane highways in rural

developed areas as well as two-lane highways with reduced design speeds. One user

stated, "There is a need to develop a consistent level of service measure to address

situations where a rural two-lane road passes through 'village' areas where posted speeds

are less than those considered in the current methodology. In many cases, these areas

cannot be considered urban or suburban and, thus, there is not an appropriate method to

assess level of service" [2]. Another comment was, "The procedure should address levels

of service for roads with design speeds down to 25 mi/h" [2]. The project report also

noted that several agencies felt inclined to invent their own procedures to deal with these

types of facilities.

While the two-lane highway analysis methodology in the HCM 2000 was more

robust than the previous methodology, transportation officials at the FDOT still felt that

this revised methodology fell short of adequately addressing LOS analysis issues for two-

lane highways in rural developed areas. Despite the introduction of two different classes

and corresponding service measures, which allowed more flexibility in two-lane highway

analyses, the FDOT still felt that traveler expectations on two-lane highways in rural

developed areas were not consistent with the service measures, LOS thresholds, or









roadway travel functions defined for either of these two classes. This is essentially the

core of the problem for the FDOT.

Although the HCM intends for LOS designations to correlate with user perceived

quality of service, little research has been done to ascertain what those user perceptions

are and rarely have user perceptions been compared to the current LOS designations

assigned to a facility.

Research Objectives and Tasks

The objective of this study was to determine what performance measures appear to

be most appropriate (i.e., consistent with traveler perceptions and expectations) for

assessing LOS on different types of two-lane highways. This objective was facilitated

primarily through direct input from non-transportation specialist travelers in a series of

three focus group sessions. The following tasks were carried out in support of this

research objective:

* Determine suitable two-lane highway segments from which to collect field data,

* Collect video footage of roadway and traffic conditions from these chosen two-lane
highway segments,

* Produce short video clips to be shown to focus group participants,

* Recruit focus group participants,

* Conduct focus group sessions to solicit traveler opinions and perceptions about the
factors most important to them for assessing trip quality on two-lane highways

* Perform an analysis of focus group participant responses, and

* Recommend performance measures for use in two-lane highway LOS analyses
based upon the analysis of the focus group participant responses.









Chapter Organization

Chapter 2 includes an overview of existing literature relevant to this topic as well

as a timeline describing the sequence of events that led up to the current research detailed

in this paper. Chapter 3 is an extension of chapter 2 in that it provides a more

comprehensive look at the methodology in terms of service measures, LOS thresholds

and service volumes. This is achieved through a series of example LOS calculations.

Chapter 4 describes the research approach used in this study, including the selection of

two-lane highways, equipment setup, collection of video footage, video clip production,

focus group participant recruitment and selection, and focus group implementation.

Chapter 5 describes the analysis method as well as the results. Chapter 6 is comprised of

conclusions and recommendations. Several appendices are also included with supporting

data and information.














CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of the historical development of the two-lane

highway analysis methodology in the HCM, deliberations by the Highway Capacity and

Quality of Service (HCQS) committee on the topic, as well as other relevant literature.

The material in this chapter is organized chronologically and traces the development of

the methodology over approximately the last 20 years, as well as the related issues that

ultimately motivated this research study.

Highway Capacity Manual (1985)

The 1985 publication of the HCM introduced the concept of percent time delay as

the primary service measure to be used in the assessment of LOS for two-lane highways.

Percent time delay is essentially a measure of decreased mobility as a result of traffic

platooning, or more precisely, "the average percent of time that all vehicles are delayed

while traveling in platoons due to the inability to pass" [3]. Average travel speed (ATS)

and capacity utilization were named as secondary measures.

Also introduced in this edition was the concept of capacity as a function of the

directional split of traffic. However, the capacity analysis procedure still only estimated

capacity for both directions combined (two-way), such as in the 1965 HCM. Also

discussed in this edition are several measures that can be implemented to improve

operations by reducing platooning. One of the measures discussed is the usage of passing

lanes; however, no corresponding procedure accounting for their effect on operations is

incorporated into the methodology.









Another aspect of the methodology was that it appeared to focus mainly on

uninterrupted flow two-lane highways with high design speeds and undeveloped

surrounding land use. Under the methodology, two-lane highways with "design speeds

greater than or equal to 60 mi/h" were considered ideal, and quality of service

representative of LOS A would consist of "motorists being able to drive their desired

speed" with "average travel speeds approaching 60 mi/h" [3]. However, many two-lane

highways are not designed for high speed travel, either because of terrain, surrounding

development, or other conditions. As discussed in the following sections, many users of

this methodology came to believe that it did not adequately address these types of

facilities.

Methodology to Assess Level of Service on US-1 in the Florida Keys (1993)

One such example, as described in a 1993 paper by De Arazoza and McLeod [4],

was US-1 in the Florida Keys (Monroe County). US-1, the sole roadway connecting

mainland Florida to the Florida Keys, is primarily an uninterrupted flow, two-lane facility

with rural developed and suburban land use. US-1 passes through several small

communities and developed areas, with alternating stretches of rural, open highway.

When trying to assess the LOS on US-1 using the 1985 HCM, state of Florida and

Monroe County transportation officials felt that the methodology presented in the HCM

did not adequately address the unique aspects of US-1, nor did it produce LOS

designations that realistically reflected user perceived quality of service.

Largely in response to this finding, the State of Florida and Monroe County formed

the US-1 LOS Task Force in 1990, of which the authors, De Arazoza and McLeod, were

members. Around the same time, the FDOT formed a subcommittee, comprised of









members from the previously established Florida LOS Task Team (1988), to deal

specifically with issues regarding two-lane highways in developed areas.

As explained in the De Arazoza and McLeod paper, the Monroe County Task

Force, as well as the Florida LOS Task Team, held the belief that on two-lane highways

in developed areas "most drivers were more concerned with maintaining a decent travel

speed under uninterrupted flow conditions than trying to pass." In other words, both task

teams did not believe that the 1985 HCM LOS service measure of percent time delay was

appropriate for this situation. As a result, the Monroe County US-1 LOS Task Force

developed an alternative LOS methodology in which average travel speed (ATS) was

used as the service measure, which they believed would reflect user expectations more

effectively. The task force then developed LOS thresholds relative to the roadway's

posted speed limit (weighted by segment length).

In 1991, and then again in 1992, the Monroe County Planning Department

conducted a travel speed and delay study of US-1. The alternative methodology, using

ATS as the service measure, was applied to the study data to assess the LOS on different

segments of US-1, as well as the overall facility. Based on knowledge of the local area

and the supporting travel speed and delay data, De Arazoza and McLeod found that using

ATS as a means to determine the LOS on US-1 produced results that "accurately

reflected traffic operations and perceived levels of congestion." Therefore, the authors

recommended that ATS be used as the primary service measure in the assessment of LOS

for uninterrupted flow two-lane highways in developed areas.

Level of Service of Two-Lane Rural Highways with Low Design Speeds (1994)

A 1994 paper by Botha et al. [5] also expressed concern with the two-lane highway

chapter of the 1985 HCM. The authors noted the lack of an explicit methodology to









assess two-lane highways with lower design speeds (less than 60 mi/h) and questioned

the appropriateness of percent time delay as a service measure. These concerns were

brought about when the authors observed discrepancies in the LOS results after applying

both the 1965 and the 1985 HCM methodologies to two-lane highways with design

speeds less than 60 mi/h.

While this paper recognized the need to address two-lane highways with low

design speeds, the authors do not refer specifically to two-lane highways through

developed areas (small towns, coastal areas, etc.). Instead, the focus of the research

described in this paper was on the "evaluation of methodological alternatives for defining

the LOS for two-lane highways with 50 mi/h design speeds" [5]. The methodological

alternatives, other than percent time delay as used in the 1985 HCM, included other

service measures and concepts such as density (two-way), functional classification of the

roadway, limitation on achievable LOS range for low design speeds, and a combination

of percent time delay and density.

Ultimately, the authors did not recommend any specific service measure or

methodology. However, one of the main points that can be deduced from this paper is

that the 1985 two-lane highway analysis methodology was insufficient in terms of

evaluating two-lane highways with low design speeds and that further research needed to

be conducted in an effort to remedy this issue.

Highway Capacity Manual (2000)

In 1994 and 1997, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) released updated

editions of the HCM. However, there were no changes to the two-lane highway

methodology introduced in either of these updates. In 1999, research conducted as part

of NCHRP 3-55 Task 3 [2] resulted in the development of a new two-lane highway









analysis methodology for the HCM. This methodology was incorporated into the 2000

edition of the HCM and with it came many significant changes. The two most significant

changes involved the introduction of a directional procedure for capacity analysis and the

introduction of a classification scheme defined in terms of user expectations of travel

speed and roadway function. The classification scheme and the corresponding service

measures outlined in the HCM 2000 are the focus of this section.

When following the current HCM methodology, the first step in determining the

LOS of a two-lane highway is to classify the roadway. There are presently two

classifications, which are defined below (directly from the HCM 2000):

* Class I highways are defined as two-lane highways in which drivers expect to
travel at relatively high speeds. Two-lane highways that are major intercity routes,
primary arterials connecting major traffic generators, daily commuter routes, or
primary links in state or national highway networks generally are assigned to Class
I. These highways are often used in long-distance trips or as links between
highways that serve long-distance trips.

* Class II highways are defined as two-lane highways in which drivers do not expect
to travel at high speeds. Two-lane highways that function as access routes to Class
I facilities, serve as scenic or recreational routes that are not primary arterials, or
pass through rugged terrain generally are assigned to Class II. These roadways are
often used for relatively short trips, the beginning and ending portions of longer
trips, or for trips that include sightseeing, such as trips along scenic routes.

Once the classification is selected, the LOS can be determined by calculating the

appropriate service measures) and applying the corresponding thresholds. Two service

measures are used to determine the LOS of a Class I highway: percent time spent

following (PTSF) and ATS. The definition of PTSF is essentially the same as that for

percent time delay. The term was changed to percent time spent following to more

clearly communicate the meaning of the service measure [2]. However, only PTSF is

used to determine the LOS of a Class II highway.









While the two-lane highway analysis methodology in the HCM 2000 was more

robust than the previous methodology, transportation officials at the FDOT still felt that

this revised methodology fell short of adequately addressing LOS analysis issues for two-

lane highways in rural developed areas. Despite the introduction of two different classes

and corresponding service measures, which allowed more flexibility in two-lane highway

analyses, the FDOT still felt that traveler expectations on two-lane highways in rural

developed areas were not consistent with the service measures or LOS thresholds for

either of these two classes.

More specifically, the FDOT felt that these types of facilities did not seem to easily

fit into the new classification scheme. In accordance with the HCM's intent that LOS

methodologies, and corresponding service measures, reflect user perceived quality of

service, the two classifications (Class I and Class II) are defined in terms of user

expectations of travel speed. Class I facilities are those in which motorists expect to

travel at high speeds, while on Class II facilities motorists do not necessarily have this

expectation.

User expectations are in large part tied to roadway function. Roadways that

function as major intercity routes or primary arterials are often synonymous with high

speed travel, and are therefore usually designated Class I facilities. Local collectors,

scenic or recreational routes, and mountainous roadways often do not carry the same

expectations for high speed travel and are therefore usually designated as Class II

facilities.

However, the primary travel function of the roadway is not always consistent with

user expectations of travel speed. In fact, Chapter 12 of the HCM 2000 states, "The









classes of two-lane roads closely relate to their functions most arterials are considered

Class I, and most collectors and local roads are considered Class II. However, the

primary determinant of a facility's classification in an operational analysis is the

motorist's expectations, which might not agree with the functional classification" [1].

This discrepancy between traveler expectation and roadway travel function formed the

basis of the FDOT's concern with the two-lane highway analysis methodology.

Adaptation of the HCM2000 for Planning Level Analysis of
Two-Lane and Multilane Highways in Florida (2002)

A 2002 paper by Washburn et al. [6] further explained this sentiment and outlined

the FDOT's attempt to remedy it by revising the LOS determination aspect of the HCM

2000 two-lane highway methodology. The authors note, "Many of the state's two-lane

highways are in areas that would be considered scenic in nature (e.g., along the coasts,

the Florida Keys route), implying a Class II classification, yet many of these highways

also serve well-developed areas, which would imply a Class I classification" [6]. As a

result, FDOT LOS Task Team members "had to decide if either one of these

classifications would be appropriate for these types of highways, or if a new classification

needed to be developed" [6].

As mentioned previously, FDOT's LOS Task Team members believed that the

primary concern of drivers on rural developed two-lane highways was the ability to

maintain a decent travel speed rather than the ability to pass. Consequently, the FDOT

decided to revise the two-lane highway LOS methodology of the HCM 2000, based on

recommendations from researchers at the University of Florida Transportation Research

Center, to more adequately address their needs. These revisions were ultimately









incorporated into the FDOT's two-lane and multilane highway level of service analysis

software package (HIGHPLAN).

One of the principal changes dealt with the addition of a third class of two-lane

highway that used percent of free flow speed (PFFS) as its primary service measure. The

third class of two-lane highway was intended to represent those roadways in rural

developed areas (e.g., along the coasts, through small communities/towns). The proposed

service measure, PFFS, gives the average travel speed relative to the free flow speed.

The authors note that the use of relative speed, as opposed to an absolute speed, provides

a more accurate gauge of LOS than the ATS measure recommended in the US-1

methodology. Additionally, the authors proposed that the LOS thresholds also be based

on PFFS.

Ultimately, the authors concluded that there is great need for the HCM to recognize

that a third class of two-lane highway exists and they recommended the use of PFFS as

the corresponding service measure to be used in LOS analyses.

NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160 (2003)

In April of 2002, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering issued an emergency

contract1 to the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to address issues regarding the two-

lane highway LOS methodology in the HCM 2000. The prime contractor, MRI, was to

deal with two main concerns, initially raised by the FDOT, but also echoed by some other

HCM users. The first concern involved the overestimation of PTSF in the directional

segment methodology. The second concern (which is relevant to this methodology

1 NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160: Two-Lane Highway Analysis Methodology in the Highway Capacity
Manual: Final Report. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City, Missouri, 2003.









review) dealt with the fact that the HCM 2000 methodology did not appear to address

two-lane highways in developed areas. Appendix A contains copies of letters from

representatives of FDOT and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council

(NCFRPC) regarding this concern.

The project report identified three scenarios not directly addressed by the HCM's

two-lane highway methodology:

1. a two-lane highway with continuous urban/suburban development but with no
traffic signals or traffic signals spaced at intervals greater than 2 miles,

2. a two-lane highway through a small town with a reduced speed limit, located on a
major road with speeds of 55 mi/h or more, and

3. a two-lane highway in a transition area between rural and urban/suburban
development, with reduced speeds and low-to-medium density development.

Alternative conceptual methodologies were outlined in an attempt to address these

three scenarios. The contractor also made recommendations as to where the new

procedures should appear in the HCM. While reviewers of the report felt that the first

issue regarding directional segment PTSF was addressed adequately by the contractor,

there were still concerns with the second issue regarding two-lane highways in developed

areas and questions still remained on how to proceed. Therefore, the final report was

never officially published by the TRB. The correction to the PTSF estimation for the

directional analysis methodology was incorporated into the official errata of the HCM,

but the potential methodologies for analyzing two-lane highways in the situations listed

above were not published.

Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee
Workshop on Developed Two-Lane Highways (2004)

In January 2004, at the annual TRB Conference in Washington D.C., the HCQS

committee held a workshop to discuss the results of NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160. At









the workshop, both Mr. Douglas Harwood of MRI and Mr. Doug McLeod of the FDOT

presented their respective opinions and recommendations of how to handle LOS analysis

for two-lane highways in rural developed areas. Dr. Scott Washburn of the University of

Florida was the workshop moderator. The following sections summarize the

presentations by Mr. Harwood and Mr. McLeod and the outcome of this workshop.

Mr. Douglas Harwood's Presentation

Mr. Harwood's presentation (refer to appendix B) summarized the results of

NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 160 and addressed all three of the two-lane highway scenarios

described above in which the current HCM methodology does not apply. For scenario 1

(two-lane highway with continuous suburban/urban development), Mr. Harwood argued

that this type of facility was essentially the same as an urban street, except for the

absence or wide spacing of signals. Therefore, he recommended that an approach similar

to the urban street analysis methodology be used, with ATS as the service measure. An

estimated (or measured) ATS was then to be compared to speed values representing

percentages of the facility's FFS, such as in Chapter 15 (Urban Streets) of the HCM.

He recommended that ATS be calculated using procedures from either Chapter 15

or Chapter 20 (Two-Lane Highways), depending on the presence or spacing of signals.

The proposed LOS threshold values were the same as those used in Chapter 15 to assess

LOS for urban streets. Because the recommended service measure and threshold values

were the same as those found in Chapter 15, Mr. Harwood also recommended that the

procedure be incorporated into that chapter.

Because scenarios 2 (two-lane highway through a small town) and 3 (two-lane

highway in a transition area) share similar characteristics, Mr. Harwood issued the same

recommendations for each. The recommendations for these types of facilities were based









on two factors: 1) the length of the developed area with reduced speeds and 2) the amount

of through traffic versus locally circulating traffic. The extent of development and the

amount of through and/or local traffic is reasoned to be important because of the differing

user expectations involved.

If the developed area with reduced speeds extends for 2 miles or less and most

traffic is through traffic, then Mr. Harwood argued that the roadway should be evaluated

as a Class II two-lane highway. Through motorists on a Class I facility, who travel

through a small town or transition area most likely expect to return to Class I conditions

shortly. Therefore, Mr. Harwood contended that the reduced speed does not affect their

perception of quality of service as much as the platooning that occurs as a result of it,

which in turn hinders passing ability once Class I conditions are resumed.

If the developed area with reduced speeds extends for more than 2 miles, with

mostly local circulating traffic, Mr. Harwood argued that the procedure described above

for two-lane highways with continuous development (scenario 1) should be used. He

contended that if the majority of users are local, traveler expectations may more closely

relate to expectations of urban streets, thereby suggesting ATS be used as the service

measure.

Mr. Doug McLeod's Presentation

Mr. Doug McLeod's presentation [refer to appendix B] consisted of

recommendations in contrast to those outlined by Mr. Harwood. The recommendations

presented were essentially those expressed by Washburn et al. in the paper described in a

previous section. These recommendations included the introduction of a third

classification of two-lane highway that applied to all uninterrupted flow two-lane

highways in developed areas and the use of PFFS as both the service measure and basis









of LOS threshold values. Mr. McLeod also argued that these types of facilities should be

addressed in an uninterrupted flow chapter as opposed to Mr. Harwood's

recommendation of addressing them in Chapter 15, an interrupted flow chapter.

Mr. McLeod suggested that the use of PFFS is more consistent with user

expectations while traveling on a two-lane highway through a developed area. He

explained that PFFS reflects the "desire to maintain a speed reflective of specific

roadway/area circumstances, while PTSF "largely reflects the desire to pass," and ATS

"largely reflects the desire to maintain a set speed." Mr. McLeod argued that motorists

traveling through small towns or other developed areas do not have an expectation to

pass, and in many cases are restricted from passing, thereby rendering PTSF

inappropriate. By that same token he suggested that motorists "do not expect to go the

same speed regardless of roadway/surrounding conditions," which is what the use of ATS

implies.

Additionally, Mr. McLeod called attention to the differences between the current

Class II two-lane highway methodology (as revised by the NCHRP 20-7 Task 160

results) and the FDOT's proposed methodology, in terms of service volumes on a rural

developed two-lane highway. He argued that the resulting service volumes using the

PTSF service measure were largely underestimated for this type of facility and are

inconsistent with user expectations.

Workshop Outcome

In conclusion, workshop participants were unable to reach consensus on the best

way to proceed. Some participants felt that the mixed use of Chapters 15 and 20 of the

HCM, as recommended by Mr. Harwood, would potentially cause added confusion for

users. Many workshop participants felt that more specific research should be conducted









to address the issue, and that a long term solution should be sought and released in a

future edition, rather than a temporary fix released as errata. Recognizing that a great

deal of time would be required to perform additional research, the participants decided

that some language be included in Chapter 20 cautioning users that the existing

methodology does not address two-lane highways in developed areas.

In reaction to this workshop, the FDOT sponsored quality of service research to

explore preliminarily what roadway performance measures are appropriate for assessing

the level of service for two-lane highways. This research was performed by soliciting

information from the travelers themselves. The details of this research are the subject of

chapter 4.

The next chapter provides a more comprehensive look at the differences between

the HCM 2000 Class II methodology and the FDOT's proposed methodology with

respect to levels of service and service volumes. Numerical examples illustrating these

differences are presented through a series of LOS calculations using both PTSF and PFFS

service measures.














CHAPTER 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE EXAMPLES:
PERCENT TIME SPENT FOLLOWING VERSUS PERCENT FREE FLOW SPEED

This chapter provides a detailed review of the computational procedures and

resulting level of service (LOS) determinations for the PTSF and PFFS service measures.

Two-lane highways that travel through small towns or along the coast clearly do not fit

the HCM Class I definition, as discussed previously. Thus, by default, they must be

considered as Class II under the current HCM methodology. The service measure for

Class II two-lane highways is PTSF. However, the FDOT does not believe that this

service measure or the corresponding LOS thresholds are appropriate for these types of

highways. In response, the FDOT has created a third classification (Class III) in which

PFFS is used as the primary service measure.

The practical differences between the application of the PTSF service measure1 and

the PFFS service measure2 to these types of highways can best be illustrated by an

example LOS calculation and corresponding service volumes for a given set of input

conditions.

Example LOS Calculations

The following example calculations utilize the input conditions outlined in Table 1.

The LOS thresholds for Class II and Class III two-lane highways are included in Table 2.




1Based on the revised methodology from NCHRP 20-7 Task 160

2As outlined in Washburn et al. [6]









Table 1. Input Roadway and Traffic Data
Roadway Variables Traffic Variables
Area Type = Rural developed AADT = 5,000 veh/day
Number of Lanes = 2 K factor = 0.097
Analysis Type = Segment D factor = 0.55
Terrain = Level PHF = 0.895
Posted Speed = 50 mph % Heavy Vehicles = 4%
Presence of Median = No Base Capacity = 1700
Presence of Left Turn Lanes = Yes Local Adjustment Factor = 0.92
% No Passing Zone = 40% Adjusted Capacity (calculated)= 1475
Presence of Passing Lanes = No


Table 2. LOS Thresholds for Class II and
Class III Two-Lane Highways
Class II" Class III
LOS PTSF PFFSbc
A < 40 >91.7
B > 40-55 > 83.3
C > 55-70 > 75.0
D > 70-85 > 66.7
E > 85 > 58.3
a. Values are directly from the HCM [1]
b. Values are directly from Washburn et al. [6].
c PFFS Values derived by assuming a FFS of 60 mi/h and dividing into the Average
Travel Speed thresholds in Exhibit 20-2 of the HCM 2000 [6]

Initial Computations

1. Calculate DDHV

DDHV = AADT x K x D

DDHV = 5000 x 0.097 x 0.55 = 266.75 veh/h

2. Determine adjustment for the presence of a median and/or left turn lanes

Left Turn Lane Adjustment (LTadj) = 0.0

Median Adjustment (MedAdj) = 0.0

AdjMedLTL = 1 + LTadj + MedAdj


AdjMedLTL = 1 + 0.0 + 0.0 = 1.0









3. Determine Facility Adjustment Factor (FacAdj)

FacAdj = 1.0 for Analysis Type = Segment

4. Calculate Adjusted Volume (AdjVol)

AdjVol = DDHV / (PHF x LAF x AdjMedLTL x FacAdj)

AdjVol = 266.75 / (0.895 x 0.92 x 1.0 x 1.0) = 323.96veh/h

Calculations For PTSF

5. Determine ET (Truck passenger car equivalency factor)

Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-10 (no interpolation necessary)

Directional flow rate (323.96) > 300 600, terrain = level, .'. ET = 1.1

6. Calculate fHv (heavy vehicle factor)

1
fHv = 1 HCM Equation 20-4


1
fHv = = 0.9960159
1+0.04(1.1-1)

7. Determine fG (grade adjustment factor)

Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-8 (no interpolation necessary)

Directional flow rate (323.96) > 300 600, terrain = level, .'. fG = 1.00

8. Calculate forward direction volume (vd)

V
vd = HCM Equation 20-12
PHF fG *f

Since the PHF was already accounted for in Step 4, the following equation is used:

AdjVol 323.96
Vd d-- = 3236 325.26 veh/h
fG *fH 1.0*0.9960159

Check this value against flow range used for Exhibits 20-10 and 20-8, and repeat

steps 6 through 9 as necessary. No further iterations are necessary









9. Calculate opposing direction volume (vo)

p *(1-D) 325.26 *(1-0.55) 266.12 veh/h
V -- V = = 266.12 veh/h
D 0.55

10. Determine values of coefficients 'a' and 'b' for HCM equation 20-17

Look up values from HCM Exhibit 20-21 (linear interpolation if necessary).

Vo is rounded to nearest 10 veh/h, .-. 266.12 270.0 veh/h

From exhibit, for Vo = 200; a = -0.0014, b = 0.973

From exhibit, for Vo = 400; a = -0.0022, b = 0.923

For Vo = 270 veh/h,

a = -0.0014 + (270- 200- 00014- (-00022)= 0.00168
\ 200 400

0.97(2700.973 (0.923)
b = 0.973 + (270 200 0973-(0923)= 0.9555
\ 200 400 )

11. Calculate base percent time spent following (BPTSF)

BPTSFd = 100(1- e") HCM Equation 20-17


BPTSF = 100( e0.00168*325269555 )= 34.454

12. Determine value of fadj for HCM equation 20-16

Determine fadj value from HCM Exhibit 20-20 (linear interpolation if necessary,

by % no passing zone, directional split and two-way flow rate).

For FFS = 55 (posted speed + 5), %NPZ = 40, Vo = 266.12 veh/h

This example only calls for interpolation by volume,

fad = 46.05521


13. Calculate percent time spent following (PTSF)










PTSFd =BPTSFd +f ad Vd HCM Equation 20-16
\ +vo

Vd = 325.26 from Step 9

Vo = 266.12 from Step 10

BPTSFd =34.454 from Step 12

f, = 46.05521 from Step 13


PTSFd = 34.454+46.05521 325.26
( 325.26 + 266.12)

PTSFd = 34.454 + 25.330 = 59.78

14.Determine Level of Service (LOS)

LOS from Table 2 is C

Calculations For PFFS

5. Determine ET (Truck passenger car equivalency factor)

Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-9 (no interpolation necessary)

Directional flow rate (323.96) > 300 600, terrain = level, .'. ET = 1.2

6. Calculate fHV (heavy vehicle factor)

1
fHv = P (E 1) HCM Equation 20-4


1
fv = 0.9920635
1+0.04(1.2 -1)

7. Determine fG (grade adjustment factor)

Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-7 (no interpolation necessary)

Directional flow rate (323.96) > 300 600, terrain = level, .'. fG = 1.0

8. Calculate forward direction volume (vd)









V
Vd = P HCM Equation 20-12
PHF fG fHV

Since the PHF was already accounted for in Step 4, the following equation is used:

AdjVol 323.96
vd = Vo Vd = 3= 326.55 veh/h
fG* fHv 1.0 0.9920635

Check this value against flow range used for Exhibits 20-10 and 20-8, and repeat

steps 6 through 9 as necessary. No further iterations necessary.

9. Calculate opposing direction volume (vo)

v *(1-D) 326.55* (1-0.55) 267.18 veh/h
D 0.55

10. Determine adjustment for % no-passing zones in analysis direction (fnp) for HCM

equation 20-15

Look up value from HCM Exhibit 20-19 (linear interpolation if necessary, by

both volume and % no passing zone).

For FFS = 55 (posted speed + 5), %NPZ = 40, Vo = 267.18 veh/h

This example only calls for interpolation by volume,

2.4-1.9
/f = 2.4 +(267.18 -200 24 = 2.23
S200 400)

11. Calculate average travel speed (ATS)

ATSd = FFSd 0.00776(vd + v) fn HCM Equation 20-15

FFSd 55 from inputs

Vd = 326.55 from Step 9

Vo =267.18 from Step 10

fnp = 2.23 from Step 11









ATSd = 55 0.00776(326.55 + 267.18) 2.23 = 48.16 mi/h

12. Calculate the Percent Free Flow Speed (PFFS)


PFFS = ATSdx100
FFSd

48.16
PFFS = x 100 = 87.56
55

13. Determine Level of Service (LOS)

LOS from Table 2 is B

Comparison of PTSF and PFFS Service Measures

The above example calculations (the results are also shown in the HIGHPLAN

output in Figures 1 and 2) demonstrate the difference in LOS when evaluating the given

input conditions as a Class II roadway with PTSF versus a Class III with PFFS. In the

former case, the resulting LOS is C (PTSF = 59.8). However, the average travel speed is

only 1.8 mi/h below the posted speed limit, which indicates that roadway users are

maintaining a reasonable speed even though they are following nearly 60 percent of the

time.

When evaluated with PFFS as the service measure, the resulting LOS is B (PFFS =

87.6), which seems to be a more accurate representation of operating conditions given

that the ATS is so close to the posted speed limit. This example illustrates the FDOT

belief that drivers on rural developed two-lane highways are primarily concerned with

maintaining a reasonable travel speed and are not as concerned with following or passing

other vehicles.. Thus, the LOS C designation that results from applying PTSF is

considered to be overly penalizing, whereas the LOS B designation that results from

PFFS is thought to be more consistent with traveler perceptions. The LOS B result












reflects that travelers are maintaining a speed close to the posted speed limit, but


operational conditions are not representative of LOS A since they are traveling somewhat


slower than the posted speed limit.


FIile View Help


Facility Data and LOS
-Description
Road Name
From/To
Analysis Type j.-..I .
Peak Direction rr.,r,.:.,.. -_
Study Period Ir, hil
File Information
Analyst [ District
Date I1 ,
Agency
User
Notes
Results


I" Service Volume Tables
- Roadway Variables
AreaType IRuraldeveloped j Median
---- Left Turn Lanes
t of Lanes (both dirJ Left Turn Lanes
F Passing Lanes
Terrain I .. Spacig r(mi

Posted Speed50 FFS 5 NoPaine

Traffic Variables
AADT F ... PHF r 0.895 Base Capacity
Kfactor F % Heavy -- Local Ad. Factor 0
D f r Vehicles I
Factor F_ e"" Capacity 1475


R i % Time Spent p-8 Average Z F Flo [eed U- LOS
Ratio Following Speed Flow Spee I


Name of Roadway Acceptable Range

figuree 1. Class II LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN



File View Help


Facility Data and LOS Service Volume Tables


-Description
Road Name
From/To
Analysis Type ISegment
Peak Direction r| .'i I: ..F.1 1
Study Period IlI I
-File Information
Analyst [ District
Date \1 :' :i''
Agency
User
Noeslt
Results


-Roadway Variables
AreaType ":.,.,1..- ,:.. r Median

# of Lanes (both dir) Left Turn Lanes
r Passing Lanes
Terrain Il.- -i SF1in l

Posted Speed FFS 5 %NoPassing

-Traffic Variables
AADT PHF 0.895 Base Capacity 17
Kfactor ,','" Heavy--- LocalAdj. Factor 092
Factor VehiclesCapaciy
Factor ,i': Capacity F11


v/ % Time Spent Average S2 Free [dl 7 LOS
Following I Speed Flow Speed


Acceptable Range:


Figure 2. Class III LOS Calculation in HIGHPLAN


I


Name of Roadway


clla.101 l FRD.lal


I









Comparison of Service Volumes

Service volumes indicate the maximum volume that can be accommodated for a

given set of roadway, traffic, and control conditions, for a specified level of service. As

can be seen in Table 3, the Class II service volumes are much lower than the Class III

service volumes for the given input conditions used in the above example calculations.

The volumes in this table represent the annual average daily traffic (AADT).

Many transportation agencies, such as the FDOT, use service volumes at LOS C to

design and plan future facilities and to assess the operations of existing facilities.

Facilities with flow rates in excess of the LOS C volume threshold would be considered

operationally deficient and in need of improvement. In many cases, the design

improvements required to bring a facility up to operational standards are of great

expense. This reinforces the importance of accurately estimating roadway performance

measures that translate into LOS threshold values which correlate well with the quality of

service as perceived by the traveling public.

Table 3. Class II and Class III Service Volumes (AADT)
Class II Class III
LOS PTSF PFFS
A 2100 2800
B 4200 8000
C 8000 14100
D 14800 19300
E 26100 24300














CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH APPROACH

This chapter describes the research approach used in this study. The sections that

follow will describe the method used for collecting example two-lane highway driving

data as well as the process used to gather roadway user opinions and perceptions with

regard to trip quality on two-lane highways.

Survey Method

This study used an approach that combined aspects of both a video survey and a

focus group. Video surveys allow survey participants to watch pre-recorded video

footage of actual two-lane highways. When video is taken from the driver's perspective,

participants are presented with a reasonably realistic representation of two-lane highway

travel. Because all participants view the same video footage, survey responses are based

upon the same conditions, thereby establishing a baseline. Video data collection is less

costly and involves no liability on the part of the researchers (with respect to survey

participants).

Focus groups allow survey participants to engage in roundtable-like discussion.

Discussion is usually led by a moderator, who attempts to solicit participant opinions in

an unbiased way, while simultaneously attempting to keep the discussion focused on the

topic. Focus groups offer a more flexible approach to data collection by allowing the

participants to present issues of importance to them and to discuss their opinions in an

open environment. They also give the researcher the opportunity to prompt further

discussion about certain topics or ask for clarification if necessary.









In this study, survey participants watched a series of video clips depicting travel on

two-lane highways (from a driver's perspective) and then participated in a group

discussion facilitated by a moderator. This approach combined the control of a video

survey with the flexibility of a focus group. The following sections describe the video

data collection process and focus group implementation in more detail.

Video Data Collection

In this study, sample driving scenes from two-lane highways were viewed in a

focus group setting to facilitate discussion on potentially important performance

measures used in the assessment of trip quality. Video data collection included four

specific tasks: selection of two-lane highways, equipment setup, collection of video

footage, and video clip production.

Selection of Two-Lane Highways

The first step of the video data collection process involved the selection of several

two-lane highways from which video footage were to be collected. The intent was to

choose a representative sample of two-lane highways within reasonable proximity to the

University of Florida. The 2003 Florida Highway Data (FHD) CD-ROM [7] as well as

the 2003 Florida Traffic Information (FTI) CD-ROM [8], provided by the FDOT, were

used in the preliminary stages of the two-lane highway selection process. Both CDs

employ a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based user interface in which users can

access information on roadway characteristics and traffic data for nearly every roadway

in the state of Florida.

The FHD CD-ROM provides roadway characteristic information including, but not

limited to: functional classification, number of roadway lanes, median widths and types,

shoulder widths and types, speed limits, and locations of intersecting roadways.









The FTI CD-ROM provides roadway traffic information collected through the use

of traffic monitoring stations located throughout the state. Each traffic monitoring station

uses Inductance Loop Detectors (ILD) to gather traffic data such as Average Annual

Daily Traffic (AADT), truck percentage, K30 and D30. K30 is defined as the proportion of

AADT occurring during the 30th highest hour of the design year. D30 is defined as the

proportion of traffic in the 30th highest hour of the year traveling in the peak direction.

Through the use of these two CD-ROMs, as well as the FDOT Roadway

Characteristic Inventory (RCI) Field handbook [9], numerous two-lane highways within

proximity to the University of Florida (approximately a 60 mile radius) were identified

and selected for use in the collection of video footage. The selected two-lane highways

consisted of a diverse range of roadway and traffic characteristics as well as functional

characteristics.

Equipment Setup

The next step of the video collection process was the instrumentation of the data

collection vehicle. A 4-door Chevrolet Cavalier was rented and outfitted with two video

cameras, two portable VCRs, a microphone, a monitor, an A/V selector switch and two

batteries used to power all of the equipment. The video camera setup was intended to

portray two-lane highway travel from the driver's perspective. Therefore, one camera

was set up to capture the windshield view, which also included a view of the interior rear-

view mirror, while the second camera recorded the view of the speedometer. During a

later step, images recorded from the two cameras would be combined into one image for

the creation of the video clips.

The camera capturing the windshield view was attached to a pole which was

secured between the floor and ceiling behind the driver's seat. The camera capturing the









speedometer view was mounted to the steering column. See Figure 3 for photos of the

in-vehicle camera setup. The two VCRs recorded the images captured by the two video

cameras. A microphone was also connected to one of the VCRs, allowing the researcher

to verbally identify which two-lane highway was being driven as well as changes in the

posted speed limit. The monitor and A/V selector allowed the researcher to switch

between VCRs to see if the cameras and other equipment were functioning properly. A

schematic depicting the in-vehicle data collection equipment setup is shown in appendix

C.






















Figure 3. In-vehicle Video Camera Setup

Collection of Video Footage

Video footage was collected over three separate days between January 20th and

January 23rd, 2005. Approximately 450 miles of two-lane highway were driven and

about 9 to 10 hours of video footage were recorded over the three-day period. The

weather on all three days was sunny and dry. Table 4 lists the route number, the county









in which the two-lane highway is located, the direction of travel, and the approximate

distance driven on each of the two-lane highways during the three day period. Appendix

D contains maps of the driving routes.

The video footage was collected from a representative sample of two-lane

highways throughout the north-central Florida area. These two-lane highway facilities

can generally be divided into four categories which are described below:

* High Speed Roadways generally used for inter-city travel.

* Medium to Lower Speed Roadways generally connect to higher speed facilities or
are used for intra-city travel.

* Lower Speed Roadways that are scenic could be coastal, or with a tree canopy,
etc.

* Lower Speed Roadways that go through a small town either with or without the
presence of a signal.

Video Clip Production

As mentioned previously, survey participants were to be shown a series of video

clips depicting travel on two-lane highways from a driver's perspective. After all video

footage was collected, the researcher reviewed all of the footage-entering specific

roadway and traffic characteristic information for each roadway into a spreadsheet. This

spreadsheet was then used to determine which footage would be edited into video clips.

In an attempt to more accurately portray the driver's perspective, video footage of

the front windshield view and interior rear-view mirror, as well as the speedometer, was

compiled into a single video display to be shown to survey participants. Also, a graphic

display of the roadway's speed limit was included in the composite video image. This

graphic changed as the roadway's speed limit changed during the progression of the

video clip. A screenshot from one of the video clips is shown in Figure 4.












Table 4. Two-Lane Highway Driving Routes
Approximate Distance
Date of Travel Route Number County Direction of Travel Approximate Distance
(mi)

SR 326 Marion East 10
SR 40 Marion, Lake, Volusia East 65
anu 2, 2 SR 19 Marion North and South 16
January 20, 2005
SR A1A Volusia, Flagler North 14
SR 100 Flagler, Putnam West 80
SR 26 Putnam, Alachua West 22

CR 219 Putnam North 4
SR 100 Bradford East 16
SR 16 Bradford, Clay, East 40
January 22, 2005 St. John's
Int'l Golf Pkwy St. John's East 7
SR 207 St. John's, Putnam South 24
SR 20 Putnam, Alachua West 43

SR 121 Alachua, Union North 12
SR 18 Union, Bradford East 7
SR 231 Bradford, Union North 10
SR 238 Union, Columbia West 15
US 41 Columbia South 5
January 23, 2005
CR 18 Columbia West 6
SR 47 Columbia, Gilchrist South 22
CR 339 Gilchrist, Levy South 15
SR 24 Levy, Alachua East 10
US 27 Alachua North 10









The video footage was then edited into 16 clips, with each clip being between 1.5

and 2 minutes in length. As a whole, the video clips were intended to showcase two

things: 1) the four different categories of two-lane highway facilities described above,

and 2) the various roadway and traffic conditions that one may typically experience while

driving on a two-lane highway. However, a significant number of the video clips

featured roadways in small towns and in coastal areas. This was done because it was felt

that there were a larger number of questions about user perceptions with regard to these

types of facilities.















SPEED
LIMIT


Figure 4. Screenshot of Composite Video Image

Three separate focus group sessions were held in which the video clips were

viewed. However, as a result of time limitations, each focus group was not able to view

all 16 video clips. Therefore, the 16 video clips were divided into three separate groups,

or blocks. Clip blocks 1 and 2 were each comprised of five video clips. Clip block 3 was

comprised of six video clips. Focus group session 1 was shown a total of 10 clips (clip

blocks 1 and 2). Focus group session 2 was shown a total of 11 clips (clip blocks 2 and

3). Focus group session 3 was shown a total of 11 clips (clip blocks 1 and 3). This









system of viewing clips ensured that each clip block would be viewed by 2 separate focus

groups. Table 5 describes the 16 video clips (by clip block) shown during the three focus

group sessions.

Focus Group Implementation

As mentioned earlier, three focus group sessions were held in which participants

watched a series of video clips depicting travel on two-lane highways. The following

sections will discuss the participant recruitment process, the participant selection process,

and the implementation of the focus group sessions.

Participant Recruitment

Participants were selected from those who responded to an advertisement placed in

the Local section of the Gainesville Sun newspaper. The Gainesville Sun serves the local

Gainesville area as well as the University of Florida and many of the surrounding

counties. The advertisement ran for three consecutive days, between Friday, March 18th

and Sunday, March 20th. This allowed those who receive only the Sunday paper, as well

as those who receive the paper throughout the rest of the week to have the opportunity to

view the advertisement. The newspaper is also available for purchase through coin-

operated machines found at popular locations throughout the local area. In addition to

appearing in print, the advertisement was also placed in the Online Marketplace section

of the Gainesville Sun's website.

The advertisement solicited individuals interested in participating in a focus group

as part of a University of Florida transportation study. The advertisement requested that

individuals be over the age of 25 and have previous experience driving on two-lane

highways. See appendix E for a copy of the advertisement. Interested individuals were

to respond by contacting the Transportation Research Center of the Civil and Coastal
















Table 5. Video Clip Descriptions


Clip Dir Of
Blop Clip # Dr. Route #
Block Travel


County


Clip
Length


Shoulder Type 1 I Shoulder Type 2


Type


Width Width
(ft) p (ft)


Speed
Limit
(mil/h)


Description of Video Clip


Clip 1 North SR 121 Alachua 1:40 Paved 4-5 Lawn 20-30 60 Open road, no traffic, many passing zones, wide shoulders

Clip 2 North SR 121 Union 210 Paved 4-5 Lawn 15-20 60,55,45 Approaching small town, decreasing speed limit, passing and no passing zones, no traffic, side
,35 parking. No signals.
Int'l Golf
Clip 3 East St. John's 1:30 Lawn 8-10 na na 50 Designated scenic roadway, tree canopy, narrow lanes, little to no shoulder.
Pkwy
Clip 4 East SR 100 Bradford 2:00 Paved 4-5 Lawn 10-15 45,35,25 Approach medium sized town, decreasing speed limit, following large vehicle, no passing zone,
driveways and roadside development, side parking.
Clip 5 West SR 100 Flagler 1:35 Paved 2-4 Lawn 5-6 60 Guardrail on right side, paved shoulder, passing zones, car following, pavement quality is poor.

Clip 6 North CR 219 Putnam 1:50 Lawn 2-10 na na 45 P.:.iiir. terrain, narrow lanes, alternating passing/no passing zones.

Clip 7 East SR 100 Clay 1:45 Paved 3-5 Lawn 10 45,35,45 Approaching small town, decreasing speed limit, traffic signal, moderate traffic, driveways and
roadside development.
Clip North SR AA Volusia 1:40 Paved 4-5 na na 4045 Atlantic ocean on right, view of water, moderate traffic, parking pullout areas on right, dunes, no
Ci passing zone, alternating shoulder/no shoulder, pedestrian crossing zones,some pedestrian
ClipS East SR 24 Levy 1:45 Lawn 20 na na 35 Near small town, no traffic, lawn shoulder, low speed residential area. 35 mph for extended
Distance.
Clip 10 East SR 16 Bradford 1:45 Lawn 15-20 na na 60 Following slower vehicle. Light traffic, passing zones.

Clip 11 North SRA1A Flagler 1:52 Lawn 3-4 na na 45,3530 Atlantic ocean on right, passing zone in beginning, lower roadside activity/development,
transitions into higher activity/development, no passing, pedestrian activity. Traffic signal.
Clip 12 East SR 16 Clay, St. 1:50 Paved 3-4 Lawn 15-20 55 Following vehicles traveling at speed limit or above. Go over 2 lane bridge with guardrails and no
John's shoulder. St. Johns river.
Clip 13 West SR 20 Putnam 2:00 Paved 3 Lawn 10-15 45,35,45 Approaching small town, decreasing speed limit, following slower vehicle, roadside
3 development, moderate traffic, traffic signal.
Clip 14 East SR 18 Bradford 1:40 Lawn 20-30 na na 50 No traffic, narrow lanes, no paved shoulder, passing zones.

Clip 15 East SR 40 Volusia 1:40 Paved 2-3 Lawn 4-10 45,55 Following vehicles, moderate opposing traffic, passing zones, ditch & trees on both sides, some
Ip s roadside development.
Clip 16 West SR 100 Putnam 2:00 Park Ln 8 Curb 45,35, Approaching medium sized town, decreasing speed limit, moderate traffic, following vehicles,
side parking. Approaching traffic signal.









Engineering Department at the University of Florida. Approximately 60 responses were

received within one week of the ad's placement.

A researcher then contacted all individuals who responded to the advertisement.

Each person was given information about the study and the purpose of the focus group

sessions. Also at that time, the researcher collected demographic information from each

respondent, as well as information regarding their two-lane highway driving experience.

Demographic information was requested in an attempt to secure a reasonably

representative sample. Respondents were also asked about their availability and

scheduling preferences. All information was recorded on a preliminary survey form. See

appendix F for a copy of the preliminary survey form.

Participant Selection

Participant selection was based on the desire to obtain a representative sample for

use in the three focus group sessions. A total of 36 individuals were invited to participate

in the study, 12 for each session. Those chosen to participate were divided into the three

sessions based upon their two-lane highway driving experience and demographic

information collected in their preliminary survey form. This was done in an attempt to

create a balance of personal backgrounds and driving experience between the 12

participants in each session. A special effort was made to accommodate scheduling

preferences. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the demographic information and the two-lane

highway driving characteristics respectively, for participants in each of the three focus

group sessions, as well as the overall study.

The abundance of responses to the newspaper advertisement allowed for the

selection of a demographically diverse group of participants. The majority of participants

(17) were between the ages of 46 and 65, with an equal number of participants (8) over










the age of 65 and between the ages of 26 and 45. Additionally, participants were asked to

rate their typical driving style on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very conservative, 5-very

aggressive). As can be seen in Table 7, the results of this survey question indicate that

most participants rated their driving style as more conservative. Therefore, it is possible

that the higher number of "older" participants contributed to the high percentage of

conservative driving styles. Thus, it is also possible that the opinions expressed in the

focus group discussions and on the survey forms, may have a more conservative overtone

than if there were a larger number of younger participants.

Table 6. Summary of Participant Demographic Characteristics
Participant Information Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3 All
Total # of Participants 12 12 10 34
# Yrs. with Driver's Lic. 35.4 36.5 32.6 36
Gender
Male 7 5 2 14
Female 5 7 8 20
Age Range
16 to 25 0 0 1 1
26 to 45 3 4 1 8
46 to 65 7 4 6 17
Over 65 2 4 2 8
Marital Status
Single 1 1 6 8
Married 8 7 2 17
Separated/Divorced 1 3 2 6
Widowed 2 1 0 3
Highest Education Level
Some or no HS 0 0 0 0
HS diploma or equivalent 1 4 0 5
Tech. College (A.A.) 1 2 7 10
College Degree 5 3 1 9
Post-graduate Degree 5 3 2 10
Household Income
No Income 0 1 1 2
Under $25,000 2 1 2 5
$25,000- $49,999 3 8 6 17
$50,000- $74,999 5 2 1 8
$75,000- $99,999 1 0 0 1
$100,000- $149,999 0 0 0 0
Over $150,000 1 0 0 1
Ethnicity
White 9 11 8 28
Black 2 1 2 5
Other 1 0 0 1










Table 7. Summary of Participant Two-Lane Highway Driving Characteristics
Participant Information Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3 All
Total # of Participants 12 12 10 34
Average Percentage of 93.7 77.3 84.1 85
Trips as Driver
Vehicle Most Often Used na na na Sedan
Most Common Trip na na na Business & Personal
Driving Style (1-very
conservative, 5-very
aggressive)
1 3 1 2 6
2 3 5 5 13
3 6 5 3 14
4 0 1 0 1
5 0 0 0 0
Typical # of Passengers
for Two-Lane Highway
Trips
0 5 5 4 14
1 2 1 3 6
2 5 5 3 13
3 0 1 0 1
Typical # of Two-Lane
Highway Round Trips Per
Month
1 to 2 0 0 1 1
3 to 4 0 1 1 2
5 to 6 1 1 0 2
7 to 8 2 1 0 3
9 to 10 3 1 1 5
11 to 12 1 0 0 1
Over 12 5 8 7 20
Typical One-Way Length
of Trip (miles)
less than 5 1 1 1 3
6 to 10 4 2 3 9
11 to 20 2 7 3 12
21-40 3 1 2 6
41-60 0 0 1 1
Over 60 2 1 0 3

All respondents were contacted within one week of initial contact and told whether

or not they had been selected to participate in the study. Those who had been selected to

participate were told when and where their focus group session was to be held. The

selected participants were also sent a letter of confirmation with more detailed









information. Those who had not been selected were thanked for their interest and were

told that their contact information would be kept on file if there were any cancellations.

Focus Group Implementation

The two main objectives for conducting the focus group sessions were: 1) to

identify the factors (e.g., roadway and/or traffic conditions) that are important in the

assessment of trip quality provided on a two-lane highway, and 2) to identify the relative

differences, if any, between the importance of these factors in the assessment of trip

quality for different types of two-lane highways (i.e., the four categories discussed

previously).

All three focus group sessions were held on Saturday April 23, 2005 on the

University of Florida campus in the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department's main

conference room. The room was equipped with a video projector and large screen for

viewing the video clips. All focus groups sessions were audio recorded with the

permission of the participants. Focus groups sessions 1 and 2 had twelve participants.

Focus group session 3 had ten participants (two persons failed to show and did not

previously cancel). Each session was approximately 1.5 to 2 hours in length and was

audio recorded. The duration of each focus group session provided ample time for the

moderator to engage the members in meaningful discussion and obtain the information

sought for this research study. Dr. Scott Washburn, the principal investigator, was the

moderator of each focus group to ensure consistency across each of the three sessions.

A one page written instruction sheet was developed and given to participants upon

arrival. The instruction sheet described the purpose, objectives, and format of the focus

group session. See appendix G for a copy of the instruction sheet. Participants were also

given a survey form (Form 1) that was comprised of two sections. The first section was









similar to that of the preliminary survey conducted over the phone during the participant

selection process. In this section, participants were to provide information about their

personal background and two-lane highway travel habits. Examples of this information

include income level, education level, marital status, typical number of two-lane highway

trips taken per month, typical number of passengers for two-lane highway trips, etc. This

information was summarized previously in Tables 6 and 7. The second section of the

survey form was used by participants to write down their responses to each of the video

clips. See appendix G for a copy of the survey form.

Each focus group session began with some brief introductory statements by the

moderator pertaining to the purpose and objectives of the focus group. Prior to viewing

the video clips, the moderator verbally reviewed the instruction sheet and survey form for

each session of focus group participants. After reviewing all instructions and answering

questions, the participants began watching the video clips.

Each video clip was between 1.5 and 2 minutes in length. Immediately following

the conclusion of the video clip, the moderator facilitated group discussion about the

conditions observed in the clip and what the important factors are for the assessment of

trip quality. Approximately 5 minutes of discussion time was allotted for each clip.

After the group discussion, participants wrote down their opinions on the survey form.

The above steps were repeated for all of the video clips.

After watching all of the video clips, there was an additional 10 to 15 minute

discussion about the overall performance measures, or factors, that group members felt

were important in their assessment of trip quality on a two-lane highway. This discussion

served more as a summary, and was not in reference to any particular video clip.






42


Finally, the session moderator facilitated a short group discussion about the

different types of two-lane highway classifications, or categories. Participants were given

a second survey form (Form 2), asking them to rank the importance of certain factors to

the assessment of their trip quality on different types of two-lane highways. Examples of

these factors include: the ability to consistently maintain desired travel speed, ability to

travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit, frequent passing zones, wide travel

lanes, wide shoulders, etc. Refer to appendix G for a copy of the second survey form.














CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

As discussed in the previous chapter, the two main objectives for conducting the

focus group sessions were: 1) to identify the factors (e.g., roadway and/or traffic

conditions) that are important in the assessment of trip quality provided on a two-lane

highway, and 2) to identify the relative differences, if any between the importance of

these factors in the assessment of trip quality for different types of two-lane highways.

This information was obtained from focus groups, where participants engaged in a

roundtable-like discussion led by a moderator and recorded written responses on survey

forms. The following sections describe the methodology used to analyze the focus group

discussion and survey form data, as well as the results of these analyses.

Analysis Method

Focus Group Discussions

Audio recordings from each focus group session were reviewed thoroughly and all

relevant discussion material was transcribed to a word processor. As is the case with

most group discussions, there is a natural tendency for discussion to get side-tracked.

Discussion that was not relevant to the topic was not transcribed or analyzed.

The discussions were transcribed in sections, with each section corresponding to a

different video clip. Resulting discussion could then be more easily interpreted by

referring back to the video clips. Important themes from each video clip discussion were

identified and direct quotations supporting those themes were extracted.









Some common focus group analyses include the usage of computer software

programs that determine the frequency in which certain words, phrases or themes appear

in discussion. While counting the frequency in which certain topics are discussed is

sometimes an important component of qualitative analyses, it does not always accurately

reflect the level of importance in which participants view these topics. For example,

more discussions pertaining to lane width than the presence of SUVs, does not

necessarily mean that participants consider lane width to be a more important factor in

their assessment of trip quality. In fact, in this study, certain topics were sometimes

raised by the moderator either because they didn't arise naturally or because further

discussion or elaboration was deemed necessary. Therefore, the frequency in which

certain topics were raised was noted but not strictly counted.

Instead, the responses of the participants to the video clips and related questions

posed by the moderator were judged solely on their own merit. Themes or points that

were raised and received agreement (or disagreement) among participants were noted, as

well as the emphasis participants placed on those themes. The results section of this

chapter describes, on a clip-by-clip basis, the discussions and corresponding themes or

points that emerged during each of the focus group sessions.

Survey Forms

As discussed previously, there were two different survey forms filled out by

participants during the focus group sessions. The first form consisted of merely blank

spaces, one for each video clip. On this form (Form 1), participants could write down

what they felt were important factors in the assessment of trip quality for the roadway

segments depicted in each clip. These written comments served as summaries and as

further support of the verbal discussions. Comparisons between the written responses









and corresponding dialogue contained in the transcripts helped to analyze and interpret

the results. Refer to appendix F for a copy of this survey form.

The second form (Form 2) asked participants to rank the importance of certain

factors to the assessment of their trip quality for different types of two-lane highways. As

discussed previously, four different types, or categories, of two-lane highways were

included on the form, ranging from high-speed, intercity facilities to low-speed facilities

through small towns or scenic areas. For each type of two-lane highway, participants

assigned numbers, from 1 to 7 (1-not at all important, 7-extremely important), to different

items listed on the form, indicating how those items affect the quality of their trip.

Examples of these items, or factors, include: the ability to consistently maintain desired

travel speed, ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit, frequent

passing zones, wide travel lanes, wide shoulders, etc. Refer to appendix F for a copy of

this survey form. The data collected on this form served as quantitative reinforcement of

the verbal discussions and was entered into a spreadsheet for further analysis. Results

from these survey forms are discussed in the latter part of this chapter.

Results

Focus Group Discussions

Below are descriptions of the roadway and traffic conditions depicted in each video

clip as well as the results of the focus group discussions. Each video clip was watched by

two of the three focus groups.

Video clip 1

Description: A high-speed facility with a 60-mi/h speed limit and very little traffic

in either direction. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings, standard-

width lanes (12 feet), paved shoulder (4-5 feet), large clearance zone between pavement









and other obstacles, and many marked 'passing' zones (as indicated by a dashed-yellow

center line).

















SPEED
LIMIT

60

Figure 5. Screenshot of Video Clip 1.

Discussion results: One of the major themes that emerged in the discussion about

this clip was the importance of pavement quality and positive guidance through lane

markings. Members of both focus groups made comments about the high quality of the

pavement saying "pavement quality good" and "the road itself looked good, no pot holes

or anything." Other comments focused on the lane markings, such as "the outside white

lines are painted, which I think is real good so you know where you're at on the road"

and "the markings on the outside of the lanes were great."

Another major theme, which was raised by the moderator, concerned the speed of

the facility. The moderator asked both focus groups if they felt the posted speed limit

was reasonable. Several participants from both groups seemed to agree that the speed









was reasonable for this section of roadway, saying "60 mi/h was a good speed limit" and

"it's rural out there, so yes."

Another issue that was raised by one person from each group concerned passing

opportunities. One person said that one of the most important things in terms of trip

quality was that there be "lots of places to pass." The other person only noted that the

roadway depicted in the clip offered "good proviso for passing."

In summary, pavement quality and positive guidance were two issues initiated by

members of both groups. Participants also seemed to agree that the posted speed was

appropriate and was consistent with the rural context of the facility. The importance of

passing opportunities was also raised by a couple of participants. Given the lack of

traffic present in the video scene, there was little discussion about specific traffic factors.

Video clip 2

Description: The speed limit transitions from 60 to 35 mi/h (60-55-45-35) as the

roadway approaches a small town. No traffic in either direction was present in the video

scene. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings, and standard-width

lanes. Pavement markings in town area indicate 'no-passing' (solid-yellow center line).

No traffic control is present on the mainline in town.

Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this

video clip. One dealt with expectations of travel speed in a small town and the other

dealt with expectations for passing.

In one session, members were asked if they felt the posted speed of 35 mi/h within

the small town was acceptable and what speed would they go if they were traveling on

that section of roadway. Several people agreed that they would travel at a speed around









35 mi/h. One person said, "The 35-mi/h [speed limit] seems consistent with the fact that

it's a smaller town, it's a shorter span, and it's only a two-lane road."


Figure 6. Screenshot of Video Clip 2.

When asked how they felt about the speed reduction upon entering a small town

area, two participants commented negatively about this type of situation. One person

said, "Often times the speed reductions come too rapidly and you don't have enough time

to reduce to the posted speed." Another person expressed frustration about having to

constantly change speeds when traveling on these types of highways, saying "As soon as

you get up to speed you're having to slow down again."

Members of this group were also prompted to discuss their expectations for passing

in this situation. Several participants stated that they felt no expectation to pass in a small

town area. One person said, "It just wouldn't be safe, you might have people crossing the









roadway, you may have cars coming in from the side." Another said frankly, "I don't

feel compelled to pass anybody in those small towns."

In summary, many participants felt that the reduced speed in a small town was both

acceptable and expected. For this particular video clip, only members from one group

discussed their expectations for passing and most agreed that they would not feel

compelled to pass in that type of situation.

Video clip 3

Description: A designated scenic roadway with extensive tree canopy and a 50-

mi/h speed limit. The roadway has narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder and

very little clearance zone between pavement and trees. Light traffic was present in the

video scene.


tlgure /. Screenshot ot Video Ulip 3.









Discussion results: Members of both focus groups spoke positively about the

scenic nature of this tree canopy roadway, referring to the beauty of the surrounding

trees. However, in one session, several participants mentioned that the lack of a shoulder

or clearance zone was of concern to them. One person stated that there were "no paved

shoulders, not much right-of-way, and tree and brush growth was close to the road."

Others said that there was no "escape route" or "breakdown area," illustrating a desire for

increased shoulder space or clearance between the roadway and the trees.

For members of the other focus group, the main topic of discussion centered on

their expectations for passing other vehicles on a roadway such as this. When asked if

passing restrictions on the roadway, as indicated by lane markings, decrease their

perception of the trip quality, a few group members said "no" with one person saying,

"No, not if it is for a short length." Another person stated that, "There should be no

passing on a road like this because people do not have a good enough sense of speed and

distance."

Most members of this group expressed that they would not feel compelled to pass,

as long as the surrounding cars were going the speed limit or above. One person said that

someone would have to be going "15 or 20 below" for them to want to pass in that

situation. For this reason, one member expressed that passing should not be restricted by

saying, "Sometimes you'll be behind someone who's going very slow and if it is safe to

pass [then you should be able to]."

Another interesting comment that was made dealt with the different perspectives of

local travelers versus through travelers. One person stated, "I think all of us enjoyed the









scenic part, but if you drove it everyday going back and forth to work or whatever, you're

not thinking 'oh this is a beautiful road' because you're late to work or whatever."

In summary, many participants enjoyed the scenic nature of the roadway in the

video clip however they did not feel comfortable with the lack of shoulder or clearance

area. Additionally, most participants (with the exception of a few) felt that passing

restrictions on a roadway such as the one depicted in the video clip did not lower the trip

quality because they had no expectation for passing in that situation.

Video clip 4

Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 25 mi/h (45-35-25) as the

roadway approaches a medium-sized town. A significant amount of roadside

development and many driveways are present in the town area. The pavement markings

in this area also indicate 'no-passing' (solid-yellow center line). Moderate opposing

traffic is present in the video scene. The video vehicle is following a large vehicle

traveling approximately 5 mi/h under the speed limit and is also being followed. There

are two traffic signals present in town.

Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this

video clip. One dealt with expectations of travel speed in a small town, such as with

video clip 2, and the other dealt with the relative importance between travel speed and

following or being followed by other cars.

While most people agreed that a slower speed was appropriate while traveling

through the developed town area, there was some disagreement as to what that travel

speed should be. Many participants, from both groups, remarked that the posted speed

limit, including transitions, was appropriate. However, one person from each group said









that the 25-mi/h speed limit through the busiest part of the town was too slow. One

person commented that in that situation, a "constant speed" was the most important thing

to them. When asked "What speed?", they replied, "30 mi/h in a small town like that."

When asked "If it were posted 40 mi/h what speed would you go?", the same individual

said, "Still slower, 30 mi/h."


figure 6. acreensnot or viaeo tilp 4.

In one session, the moderator posed a hypothetical question involving the relative

importance between speed and following. He asked, "For example, with the speed limit

at 35 mi/h, would you prefer to be doing maybe 25 mi/h and not be following anybody or

having anybody follow you, than to be doing 35 mi/h and be following other people?" A

few participants said that they preferred the former situation, with a few mentioning

tailgating and the high number of vehicles as reasons.









Also, many members of both groups stated that they had no expectation for passing

in this situation, saying "there was too much traffic" and "there's no way you're going to

be able to pass in town like that, you'll have to wait until you get back onto the rural

part."

When asked if the presence of the occasional traffic signal influenced their

perception of the trip quality, several members of one group said that it did not and that it

was "no big deal." However, one person said, "I think it depends on how long you know

your overall trip is going to be. For example, traveling on [US] 301 up toward

Jacksonville, you feel like you're stopping and going. The presence of more of those I

think decreases the value of your trip."

In summary, members from both groups felt that a slower travel speed was

appropriate and that there was no expectation for passing due to the high level of

development and surrounding vehicular activity depicted in the video clip. This

sentiment is consistent with the discussions from video clip 2. It also seemed that the

occasional or rare presence of a traffic signal was not a large factor in their perceived trip

quality, but for a couple of people, the "stop and go" on long trips is frustrating and

lowers the trip quality. In reference to the discussion about speed and following, it

appears that a few participants in one of the focus groups do not feel comfortable having

to follow or be followed by other vehicles and that in this case speed is a secondary

consideration. However, this may be attributable to tailgating fears and the generally

conservative driving style of many of the participants.









Video clip 5

Description: A high-speed facility with a 60-mi/h speed limit. The roadway has

standard-width lanes with a 5-6 foot grass shoulder bordered by a guardrail, and many

marked 'passing' zones (indicated by a dashed-yellow center line). The pavement quality

is poor with visible rutting and degradation. Minimal opposing traffic was present in the

video scene. The video vehicle is traveling 5 mi/h over speed limit with two cars

following closely. The second car back passes both the video vehicle and the vehicle

behind it.


















SPEED
LIMIT
60

Figure 9. Screenshot of Video Clip 5.

Discussion results: One major theme that arose again was the importance of

pavement quality. Members of both groups remarked about the poor pavement quality of

the roadway depicted in this video clip. When asked about the significance of pavement

quality, the majority of participants stated that it was "very important."









Another major theme dealt with the passing situation shown in the video clip.

Members of one group were asked to express their feelings about passing. Several

people said that it does not bother them to get passed by other vehicles and that they have

no problem passing other vehicles themselves. However, in reference to the scenario in

the clip, one person said "I am fearful of passing, especially two cars and if they are at

least going in that 5-mi/h range of the speed limit, then I'm not going to pass." When

asked how much slower than the speed limit would someone have to be going for them to

consider passing, several people say "10 mi/h."

Another comment that was made dealt with the use of cruise control, a common

feature on cars that allows the driver to set a nearly-constant vehicle travel speed. This

issue arose when one person remarked that they liked the conditions depicted in the video

clip because "you could set your cruise control." The moderator prompted further

discussion by asking about the use of this feature on a two-lane highway. Many

participants said that they do not expect to be able to use it on a two-lane road. However

a couple of people said that they use it sometimes, if there is no traffic.

A minor theme that was discussed involved the presence of the guardrail. The

majority of participants liked the guardrail, saying that they would rather the guardrail be

there to prevent them from running into the trees along the roadway. A couple of people

did not like it, however.

In summary, the importance of high quality pavement was reiterated. This was one

of the first things that the participants noticed when viewing the clip, and these feelings

are consistent with the discussion about pavement quality for video clip 1. Many people

do not seem to be bothered by passing maneuvers; however they do not feel compelled to









pass unless they are following a vehicle going approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed

limit.

Video clip 6

Description: The speed limit is 45 mi/h with rolling terrain. The roadway has

narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder, and alternating 'passing' and 'no-passing'

zones. In the video scene, there is moderate residential development present, driveways

on both sides of the roadway, and minimal traffic in either direction.



















LIMIT
45

Figure 10. Screenshot of Video Clip 6.

Discussion results: One major topic that was discussed in both of the focus groups

was the relationship between lane width, shoulder area, terrain and speed. Several

members of one group expressed concern with the narrow lanes and lack of shoulder

area. A few people agreed that they "wouldn't go faster than the speed limit" due to the

rolling terrain. Another group member stated that they "wouldn't feel comfortable going









faster [than the speed limit]" because "there are a lot of houses." However a couple of

people felt that the speed limit was too low because there was "no traffic" and "good

visibility." Further discussion was prompted when the moderator asked one group of

participants, "If there were no posted speed limit, or even if there was one posted, would

you be wanting to drive faster if there was a wider lane and more shoulder area?"

Several people said, "Yes, of course." One person added however, that if they "were

unfamiliar with the road, they would drive more conservatively, but if they were used to

it then their speed would pick up."

Another issue that was discussed in reference to this clip was the effect of

overhanging tree limbs on the drivers. Although this roadway was not a "tree canopy"

roadway such as the one depicted in video clip 3, there were several overhanging tree

limbs present. One person said that they are "very distracting" and that they affect

visibility. Someone else continued by saying, "I think the psychological aspect of the

tree canopy is key. I believe that when you travel through an area that has a tree canopy,

traffic slows down much more."

In summary, lane width, shoulder area, terrain, and level of roadside development

are factors that appear to influence the choice in travel speed for many of the participants.

Also, some members of one group felt that presence of overhanging tree limbs or a tree

canopy affected visibility and travel speed.

Video clip 7

Description: The speed limit decreases from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway

approaches a small town with moderate roadside development, many driveways and a

traffic signal. After the traffic signal, the speed limit returns to 45 mi/h. The roadway









has well maintained pavement and markings. In the video scene, there is moderate traffic

in both directions and the video vehicle is following other vehicles and is being followed.


Figure 11. Screenshot of Video Clip 7.

Discussion results: As in the discussions about similar video clips, such as clip 2

and clip 4, where there were small or medium-sized towns with reduced speed limits, the

two major themes that were discussed dealt with expectations of travel speed and passing.

Again, members of both groups seemed to agree that the speed limit reduction

approaching the small town and signal was appropriate for the situation. Several people

in one of the groups said that it was fine because of the surrounding "commercial

development." In the other group, most people felt that the posted speed limit, including

transitions, was appropriate, with one person saying, "When you're going through a town

it's fine to slow down, unless you've got a tornado behind you." When asked if going









below the posted speed limit was bad, there were some audible groans of discontent,

indicating agreement with the statement, but no one elaborated.

Additionally, members of both groups reiterated that they had no expectation to be

able to pass in a town area such as the one in the video clip, citing "too much traffic" and

the "urban context with the strip development...and the exits and entrances (driveways)"

as reasons. To clarify responses, the moderator asked one group of participants, "If

you're going about the speed limit, are you going to be happy, whether you're following

cars or not?" A few people confirmed the moderator's assessment and one person said,

"Yes, there's nothing you can do, you just accept it."

In summary, the discussions resulting from this video clip seem to be consistent

with those from other similar clips, in that most people accept the fact that they will have

to reduce their speed and do not expect to be able to pass in a town or developed area.

Video clip 8

Description: Coastal roadway with a speed limit that increases from 40 to 45 mi/h

and a view of the ocean. There are dunes and pull-over parking areas on the edge of the

roadway, however there is no paved shoulder. Moderate traffic in both directions, some

pedestrian activity, and continuous roadside development was present in the video scene.

Discussion results: The main topic of discussion for both groups about this clip

was speed. A majority felt that the speed limit of 40-45 mi/h was appropriate. Members

of both groups also commented on the "recreational" character of the roadway, and took

this into consideration when assessing the speed. For instance, one person said "I don't

mind going a slower speed here because half the time people are looking at the ocean."

A person from the other group commented on speed, following, and passing implications









by saying, "If I were following and being followed and [the person in front of me] was

going below the speed limit, I could appreciate that [that person] was trying to enjoy the

scenery and I wouldn't be trying to pass them."


Figure 12. Screenshot of Video Clip 8.

However, a couple people did not agree with the prospect of having to travel at a

slower speed just because of the "recreational" context of the facility. Their comments

included, "I don't mind going 40 mi/h (the posted speed limit), but I don't want to have

to follow someone [going] 20 mi/h" and "In terms of speed limit, I'm trying to get from

point A to point B. So ultimately, I'm either going to exceed the speed limit or at least

definitely go the speed limit. That would be my desired goal." In relation to this topic,

someone else stated, "If I were going on a recreational trip, I wouldn't be as concerned

with speed. But if it was a business type trip I would be more concerned."


p.


I
L~c '









The lack of shoulder area was another key concern for members of one group,

stating that "having someplace to go is important" and that "when you add the fact that

there is no shoulder, coupled with the dunes, that makes me feel like I have to be more

cautious cause I really don't have anywhere to go." Additionally, when asked if passing

was a concern and if they had and expectation to pass on this type of roadway, members

of this group said "no."

In summary, a majority of participants felt that the posted speed of the facility was

appropriate. The recreational nature of the roadway also seemed to be a factor in their

assessment of speed in relation to trip quality, with some members being more tolerant of

slower vehicles, and others not. The importance of a shoulder area was also reiterated.

Video clip 9

Description: The roadway has a speed limit of 35 mi/h, standard-width lanes, well

maintained pavement and markings, and a wide grass shoulder (15-20 feet). In the video

scene, there is minimal residential development on both sides of roadway and minimal

traffic in either direction present.

Discussion results: The main topic of discussion, which was initiated by both

groups after viewing this video clip, was speed. A majority of the participants seemed to

feel that the posted speed of 35 mi/h was "too low" or "too slow." However a few people

felt that the presence of residences along the roadway (although set back at a significant

distance) warranted the lower speed limit. When asked how much higher the speed limit

should be if the roadway could accommodate a higher speed, many people in one group

said "45 mi/h." Additionally, a few group members said that they would not restrict their

speed based on the posted speed. However an equal number said they would.
































figure Ii. screenstnot ot Video ulip 9.

With regard to these feelings, the moderator asked one group of participants to

describe how much of a factor law enforcement (getting a ticket) would play in their

speed choice and perceived trip quality. One person said, "I follow the posted speeds, but

in that situation I would be frustrated because I thought the speed was too low." Several

other people agreed with this sentiment by saying that they would have gone faster "if

they didn't have to worry about getting a ticket."

In summary, the majority of participants felt the posted speed limit was

unreasonably low for the segment of roadway depicted in the video clip. While some

said that the posted speed would not cause them to restrict their speed, others said that it

would, however many of these same individuals expressed that they would feel

uncomfortable and frustrated traveling at such a slow speed.









Video clip 10

Description: A high-speed facility with a speed limit of 60 mi/h. The roadway has

standard-width lanes, a 15-20 foot grass shoulder, well maintained pavement and

markings, and many marked 'passing' zones (indicated by a dashed-yellow center line).

The video vehicle is following a vehicle traveling approximately 5 mi/h under the speed

limit and there is minimal opposing traffic present in the video scene.























Figure 14. Screenshot of Video Clip 10.

Discussion results: After viewing this video clip, the vast majority of participants

from both focus groups expressed "frustration" and "irritation" with the situation

depicted in the video clip, where the video vehicle was following a pickup truck traveling

under the speed limit. The moderator asked one group of participants, "Given that the

speed limit was 60 mi/h and he was going about 5 mi/h under, how many of you would

have wanted to pass that truck?" The moderator stated for the record that just about

everyone raised their hand.









Both groups were asked if they would feel compelled to pass if the pickup truck

was traveling at 65 mi/h (5 mi/h over the speed limit. Members of both groups said "no"

with one person saying, "No, there's no reason to, because he'd be going at least the

speed limit." One of the focus groups was asked if they would feel compelled to pass if

the truck was going 60 mi/h (the speed limit) and several people stated that they would

not. To follow up, the moderator said, "So the threshold seems to be the speed limit. As

long as they're doing the speed limit then you're OK." Several people said "yes."

As an aside, the moderator asked if the presence of large semi-trucks was a big

issue for members of one of the groups. The majority of the group acknowledged that

they were uncomfortable around large semi-trucks and one person said, "They slow up

your speed and limit your visibility."

In summary, most participants felt frustrated and dissatisfied with the prospect of

having to follow the slow-moving pickup truck. In this situation the threshold between

feeling compelled and not compelled to pass seems to be the posted speed limit. This

appears to be consistent with the discussions resulting from video clip 5, where several

people said they would feel no desire to pass unless the vehicle in front of them was

going approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed limit. Also, large trucks seem to play a

negative role in their perceived trip quality.

Video clip 11

Description: Coastal roadway with a speed limit that transitions from 45 to 30 mi/h

(45-35-30) as the roadway approaches a moderate pedestrian/development activity area

with a traffic signal and parking lot off to one side. The roadway also transitions from a

'passing' to a 'no-passing' zone near the more densely developed and active area. In the









video scene, the ocean can be seen from the roadway and there is moderate traffic in both

directions.




















SPEED
LIMIT



Figure 15. Screenshot of Video Clip 11.

Discussion results: In this discussion a couple of people from both focus groups

mentioned that they thought the speed limit was appropriate but that it should have been

lower in the area where there was higher density development, more pedestrian activity,

and vehicle activity, such as near the parking lot.

Many members of one group remarked that even though the pavement markings

indicated that passing was permitted, they would not do so because of the increased level

of traffic and pedestrian activity. One person said, "I would be less likely [to pass] due to

the fact that we were in a resort area and the activity is going to dictate."

When asked how the number of vehicles would influence their trip quality, a

couple of people from one group said that the quality would "go down with lots of cars."









One person took a different stance by saying, "The number of cars would not be a

problem if traffic was moving."

In summary, although there was no lengthy discussion about any one of the topics

mentioned above, it appears that most people expect to travel at slower speed because of

the higher level of roadside development and activity. There also seems to be no

expectation for passing for the same reasons. These discussions are generally consistent

with those of other similar video clips, such as clip 2, clip 4, and clip 7, which all

depicted travel through small or medium-sized towns.

Video clip 12

Description: Two-lane bridge with a speed limit of 55 mi/h and no shoulder, only a

guardrail. The roadway has well maintained pavement and markings and standard-width

lanes. The pavement markings on the bridge indicate 'no-passing' (solid-yellow center

line). The video vehicle is following other vehicles (but not closely) traveling at the

speed limit or above.

Discussion results: A few issues emerged in the discussion about this video clip.

Members of both groups expressed concern with the lack of a shoulder or pull-off area

for disabled vehicles or other incidents. Additionally, when asked about passing

expectations in this situation, members of both groups resoundingly said that they would

not feel compelled to do so.

Members of one group were asked if the following situation depicted in the video

clip, where the video vehicle was traveling in a well-dispersed platoon at speeds at or

above the speed limit, was an undesirable situation. The only audible responses were

from a few who said "no."
































figure 1i. Screenstnot ot Video Clip 12.

Another issue involved the posted speed limit of the facility as well as the expected

travel speed. In one group, several participants felt that the posted speed was too high for

the type of bridge, citing safety concerns. However, many others felt that the posted

speed limit was appropriate. When asked if the "primary thing in terms of delineating

between poor and good trip quality would be maintaining a speed close to the posted

speed limit", most members of one group said "yes" with one person saying "because

you don't have to worry about people coming in and out."

In summary, the importance of a shoulder is once again reiterated. There also

seems to be no expectation for passing on a facility such as this. Participants did not

seem to be bothered that the video vehicle was following other vehicles because the other

vehicles in the platoon were not closely spaced and were traveling at a reasonable speed.

Participants also noted that a travel speed close to the speed limit was desired.









Video clip 13

Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway

approaches a small town with moderate roadside development, many driveways and a

traffic signal. After the traffic signal, the speed limit returns to 45 mi/h. In the video

scene, the video vehicle is following a vehicle traveling between the speed limit and 5

mi/h under and there is moderate traffic present in both directions.


















SPEED
LIMIT
45

Figure 17. Screenshot of Video Clip 13.

Discussion results: Two major themes emerged in the discussion following this

clip. One dealt with perceptions of trip quality with respect to traffic signals on two-lane

highways and the other dealt with the relationship between speed and following.

Members of both groups were prompted to discuss how the occasional presence of

traffic signals (once every 5-10 miles) on two-lane highways impacts their perception of

trip quality. The majority of member said that traffic signals "didn't bother" them or that









they were "not a big deal." However, one person said that the presence of a traffic signal

was a "big impact, negatively." Another individual said that it was a "medium impact"

and followed by saying, "If it was every 5 miles and the light was red it would start to

become an issue. If it were a longer interval and half of them were green, that would be

better."

When asked if anyone would feel compelled to pass in the situation depicted in the

video clip, several members of one group said "no." One person said, "That person in

front was going 35 in a 45-mi/h zone and that was getting me a little bit antsy, but I

wouldn't have passed either way." A couple more people indicated that they too were

frustrated with having to follow at a lower speed than the speed limit, as depicted in the

video. When asked the same question, a member from the other group said, "It frustrates

me. I would rather do what the speed limit says, and if [the speed limit] is slow, then

fine, but I don't want somebody in front of me going 15 miles below the speed limit."

In summary, the occasional or rare presence of a traffic signal on two-lane highway

trips does not seem to bother the majority of the participants. However, a couple of

participants expressed that the presence of signals does downgrade the quality of their

trip. Most group members agreed that they would not feel an expectation to pass in the

small town area, however, several members were frustrated by having to follow a vehicle

traveling well below the speed limit. These comments are consistent with those

discussions for similar video clips.

Video clip 14

Description: A high-speed facility with a 50-mi/h speed limit. The roadway has

narrow lanes (10-11 feet), no paved shoulder, well maintained pavement and markings,









and many marked 'passing' zones (indicated by a dashed-yellow center line). In the

video scene, there is minimal traffic present in either direction.


Figure 18. Screenshot of Video Clip 14.

Discussion results: The main topic of discussion for this video clip involved the

impact of narrow lanes and lack of shoulders on the participants' perceived trip quality

and choice of travel speed.

As was the case with many of the other video clips, many people commented about

the lack of shoulders, indicating that it may have some impact on perceived trip quality.

However, as the moderator prompted further discussion, many of those participants

began to acknowledge that their concerns were related more to safety than operations.

When asked to consider a hypothetical situation in which the same road was being

judged, but there was no chance of a 'crisis situation' occurring, thereby requiring the









driver to pull over, many people said that the lack of shoulder would not lower their trip

quality, calling it "a fine road" and "a good road."

Furthering the conversation, the moderator attempted to get information about how

roadway characteristics such as narrow lanes and lack of shoulder area impacts the

participants choice of travel speed. To do so, the moderator, once again, described a

hypothetical situation in which he asked participants to compare between a straight

roadway with 12 foot lanes and a paved shoulder, and a straight roadway with 10 foot

lanes and no paved shoulder. The moderator then asked, "Who would drive slower than

that posted speed limit because of the narrower lane and lack of shoulder?" Several

people said that they would, with two people saying "especially at night." The moderator

stated for the record that four people raised their hand to indicate that narrow lanes and

lack of shoulders would not affect their speed.

In summary, it appears that narrow lanes and lack of shoulder do impact the choice

of travel speed for some participants, but others claimed that it has no effect. However,

previous discussion indicated that these characteristics did not necessarily lower their

perceived trip quality.

Video clip 15

Description: A high-speed facility with a speed limit that increases from 45 to 55

mi/h, standard-width lanes, well maintained pavement and markings, and moderate

roadside development. In the video scene there is moderate traffic present in both

directions and the video vehicle is being followed by another vehicle (but not closely).

































figure v1. screenstnot ot Video ulip 13.

Discussion results: While there was no lengthy discussion about any particular

topic, a couple of issues were discussed briefly. Most people seemed to feel that the

speed limit on the facility was appropriate and that the adjacent driveways were easy to

see. Only one person seemed to be bothered that the video vehicle was being followed

by another vehicle, and said that maybe this indicated that the speed limit was not high

enough.

One person mentioned that the addition of deceleration lanes would be an

improvement because "...there were so many driveways turning off, and having a lot of

people slowing down in front of me to turn into driveways, they would have to slow

down really slow and that would bother me."

In summary, most participants felt that the speed limit was appropriate given that

there was some roadside development. The suggestion made by one participant









regarding the addition of deceleration lanes indicates that having to slow down for

vehicles exiting the roadway would lower the quality of the trip.

Video clip 16

Description: The speed limit transitions from 45 to 35 mi/h as the roadway

approaches a medium-sized town. The roadway has standard-width lanes, well-

maintained pavement and markings, moderate roadside development, and many

driveways. In the video scene, there is moderate traffic present in both directions. Also,

the video vehicle being followed closely and is following other vehicles traveling 5 to 10

mi/h under the speed limit.


Figure 20. Screenshot of Video Clip 16.

Discussion results: Both focus groups did not have much to say in reference to this

clip. A couple of people mentioned that they did not like that the video vehicle had to

travel so far under the speed limit due to the vehicles ahead of it. One person said, "If









people were going the speed limit there would have been no problem, but the people were

just going 10 mi/h under." Another group member said that they "wouldn't dare go over

the speed limit" because there was a lot of "activity going on off to the sides." As a result

of the activity and traffic volume, most people said that they would not feel the need to

pass.

In summary, although there was little discussion about this clip, what was said,

however, was consistent with previous statements about passing expectations within

small to medium-sized towns. Also, the statements about expectations of travel speed are

consistent in that most participants do not like having to travel at a reduced speed

(relative to the posted speed limit) as a result of following other vehicles.

Survey Forms

Form 1

For Form 1, participants were asked to use the spaces provided on the form to:

"Describe what you consider to be the primary indicators of the trip quality for each of

the two-lane highway video clips. Please be specific as possible when describing what

you feel are the important factors used in your assessment of trip quality. Factors you

should consider include traffic conditions and/or characteristics of the roadway itself."

While the written comments proved useful in some situations, helping to interpret

and back up the data collected from the focus group discussions, many of the comments

were either vague, irrelevant, or sometimes illegible. In some cases, participants wrote

down merely what they saw in the video clip. For instance, if there was a railroad

crossing in the video clip, some people simply wrote "RRXing" or if there was a

guardrail, they would write "guardrail." For this reason, some of the responses were

difficult or impossible to interpret.









At times however, the written comments were more specific. For example, in

reference to many of the video clips featuring a two-lane highway through a small or

medium -sized town (clips 2, 4, 7, 13, and 16), many participants wrote, "not compelled

to pass" or "should not be able to pass", indicating that they do not feel compelled or

expect to pass in these situations. In reference to clip 10, in which the video vehicle was

following a vehicle traveling slower than the speed limit, many participants wrote,

"would have been frustrated with vehicle going too slow" or "would have passed" or "I

would pass if a car was not doing the speed limit." Comments such as these, when put

into the context of the corresponding video clip, served as support to the verbal

discussions.

An effort was made to quantitatively analyze the written comments provided on

this survey form. A spreadsheet was created in which the comments for each video clip

were entered. Irrelevant comments were discarded. The remaining comments were then

separated into different categories. Examples of such include: "good visibility,"

"pavement quality good," "posted speed limit is good/adequate," "not compelled to

pass," and "lane width not good." The frequency of comments pertaining to a particular

category (for each video clip) was then calculated. However, as discussed previously, the

frequency in which a particular topic is discussed (or in this case written) does not

necessarily reflect its importance. In fact, in this study, the frequency of certain written

comments did not always correlate with the topics emphasized most heavily in the

discussions. The spreadsheet detailing the frequency of comments is included in

appendix H.









Form 2

Unfortunately, much of the results from this form were inconclusive. In many

cases the results were inconsistent with the data collected from the focus group

discussions and from the written responses on survey form 1. In fact, when analyzing the

rankings, it appeared that many of the participants either did not understand what was

being asked of them or did not want to take the time to properly fill out the form. Since

the form was given to the participants at the end of the focus group session, it is possible

that many participants were experiencing fatigue or were simply eager to leave.

In general, participants tended to say that all of the roadway and traffic factors

listed on the form were of great importance to their perceived trip quality, rather than

indicating the relative importance between them. In some cases, participants recorded 7's

(indicating extreme importance) for all of the factors in all of the two-lane highway

categories. While it is possible that these individuals felt that all of the roadway and

traffic factors were of equal importance on all of the different types of two-lane

highways, it is more probable that these individuals were eager to leave and therefore did

not take the time to fill out the form in a way that truly represented their opinions.

However, some general trends were observed in the rankings. With respect to the

four categories of two-lane highways listed on the form, a general downward shift in the

frequency of higher numbered (5's,6's, and 7's) rankings occurred between the high and

medium-speed facility categories and the low-speed categories. This indicates that the

majority of participants consider the roadway and traffic characteristics listed on the form

to factor more heavily in their assessment of trip quality for high and medium-speed

facilities, and less heavily for lower-speed facilities such as those through small towns or

coastal areas. The results of this form are included in appendix H.














CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this study was to determine what performance measures appear to

be most appropriate (i.e., consistent with traveler perceptions and expectations) for

assessing LOS on different types of two-lane highways. As it stands, LOS

methodologies can be improved by more accurately correlating the roadway performance

measures used in analyses to the perceptions and expectations of the roadway users

themselves. This will lead to better decision making about the allocation of resources to

roadway infrastructure improvements.

Conclusions

Focus Group Implementation and Survey Forms

The recruitment of participants with the newspaper advertisement method was

generally effective. The response rate exceeded expectations. Since many more people

responded to the advertisement than the number needed for the three focus groups, it was

possible to select participants such that each focus group consisted of a reasonably

diverse sample of individuals. However, the one limitation with this method was that the

majority of respondents were older1; thus, almost all of the few younger people (ages 25

- 45) that responded were selected to participate in the focus groups.

All three focus groups ran relatively smoothly and a significant amount of valuable

information was obtained. As expected, however, the group discussion w as sometimes



1 This is expected to be due to a large amount of retirees whose schedules are more often more flexible.









dominated by the more talkative or extroverted individuals, which consequently led to

unequal representation in the audio recordings. However, the written survey form was

intended to counter this, by giving all participants a forum in which to voice their

opinions, although those opinions were limited to the space on the form.

While the written survey form (Form 1) proved useful in some situations, helping

to interpret and back-up the data from the focus group discussions, many of the

comments were either vague, irrelevant, or sometimes illegible. In many cases, the

frequency of certain written comments did not always correlate with the topics

emphasized most heavily in the discussions. The use of Form 2 ultimately did not have

the desired outcome, in that the results were inconclusive and in some cases inconsistent

with the data collected from the focus group discussions. It is suspected that participants

either did not understand what was being asked of them or did not want to take the time

to properly fill out the form. Therefore, it is felt that the audio data recorded from the

focus group discussions is the most reliable set of data.

Focus Group Discussions

The focus group discussions proved to be an effective method of obtaining user

perceptions about quality of service on two-lane highways. Based on the focus group

discussions in this study, it is apparent that motorists consider several factors in their

assessment of trip quality on a two-lane highway. The function and/or development

setting of the of two-lane highway facility also appears to dictate what their trip quality

expectations are.

In all three focus group sessions, there were many common themes or topics of

discussion that arose repeatedly. For many of the study participants, safety was a primary

concern, and was discussed heavily. Positive guidance, in the form of appropriate









signage, clear lane markings and striping, reflectors, and in some cases lighting, was

considered to be an important factor in their assessment of trip quality on all types of

two-lane highways. While this is not necessarily a traffic operations issue, it nevertheless

was a popular discussion topic and worthy of noting.

Another popular, but non-traffic operations, issue involved pavement quality.

Participants stressed the importance of high quality, well maintained pavement repeatedly

throughout the focus group discussions. For example, many participants immediately

noticed and responded to the high quality pavement depicted in video clip 1 and the poor

quality pavement depicted in video clip 5.

Another heavily repeated theme, that transcended all two-lane highway types,

involved the presence or absence of shoulder area (paved or unpaved). While this is

partly a safety issue in terms of having an "escape route" or "leeway" in the event of an

incident, it can also be an operational issue. Some participants indicated that a lack of

shoulder or adequate clearance zone decreases their comfort level and overall perception

of trip quality. These participants felt that a lack of shoulder area also influences their

choice of travel speed. Others, however, claimed that this had no impact on their travel

speed or perceived trip quality.

In relation to shoulders, lane width was also discussed in reference to many video

clips, including clips 3, 6, 12 and 14. Like shoulders, lane width appears to have an

effect on the choice of travel speed and perceived trip quality for some study participants,

but not others.

Speed and following/passing were also themes that arose repeatedly in all of the

focus group sessions. The discussions about speed often centered around either an









absolute speed, such as the posted speed of the roadway, or a relative speed, such as the

desired travel speed or speed of the vehicles in the video in relation to the posted speed

limit. The discussions about following/passing often focused on whether or not the

participants felt compelled to pass in a given situation and how they felt about following

or being followed by other vehicles. Based on the data collected in this study, motorists

have different expectations of speed for different types of two-lane highways, as well as

different expectations with regard to passing.

In reference to video clips 1, 5, 10, 14 and 15, most participants agreed that the

posted speed limits on the facilities were appropriate given the context of the facilities.

All six video clips featured two-lane highways through rural undeveloped areas with 50-

to 60-mi/h posted speed limits. Study participants indicated a desire and an expectation

to travel at high speeds on these facilities. In most cases this desired or expected travel

speed was the speed limit or above by 5-10 mi/h. Most participants agreed that having to

travel slower than the posted speed limit on these types of facilities resulted in a lower

trip quality. Participants also indicated that passing opportunities were an important

aspect of trip quality on a high-speed two-lane highway. However, many participants

agreed that they would not feel compelled to pass unless they were following a vehicle

going approximately 5-10 mi/h under the speed limit, such as with video clip 10.

Video clips 2, 4, 7, 13 and 16, all feature two-lane highways which travel through

small-or medium sized towns. Based on the focus group discussions, many participants

agreed that they would not feel compelled or have an expectation to pass in a town area.

Participants appeared to feel similarly with respect to passing expectations for the coastal

roadway depicted in video clips 8 and 11, which featured moderate surrounding









development and pedestrian activity. Participant also felt this way about the two-lane

highway segments depicted in video clips 3 and 12. Video clip 3, featured a scenic tree

canopy roadway with narrow lanes and video clip 12 featured a narrow bridge with no

shoulder. In all of the above situations, participants agreed that they would not have an

expectation to pass, but that having to follow a vehicle traveling slower than the sped

limit would negatively affect the trip quality, such as in video clips 13 and 16.

Furthermore, participants acknowledged that their preferred travel speed was a speed at

or above the speed limit

Video clips 6 and 9, the only two remaining video clips not discussed previously,

both depicted two-lane highways with moderate residential development on both sides of

the roadway. Both video clips received debate over the appropriate posted speed limit

and passing expectations. For video clip 6, some participants felt that the 45 mi/h speed

limit was appropriate due to the residences along the roadway. These participants also

expressed that they would not feel compelled to pass for this reason. However, others

felt that this speed limit was too low and that they would pass if it were safe to do so. For

video clip 9, the majority of participants agreed that the posted speed limit of 35 mi/h was

too low. Although they recognized the presence of residences, many felt that a speed

limit of 45 mi/h would be more appropriate given that very little traffic would be using

these private driveways. Again, some participants felt a reasonable expectation to pass in

this situation, while others did not.

Based on the data collected from the participants in this study, there appears to be

at least three categories of two-lane highways from a motorist's perspective. There are

two very definable categories of two-lane highways and the resultant traveler









expectations. However, there were other two-lane highway situations that did not fit into

either of those two categories and there was not a clear consensus on the preferred

performance measures.

The first category includes high-speed (50 mi/h and above) two-lane highways, in

generally rural undeveloped areas, in which motorists expect to travel at high speeds and

have frequent passing opportunities. Therefore, the combination of speed- and passing

opportunity-based performance measures seems appropriate for this category.

The current HCM service measures for a Class I two-lane highway include ATS

and PTSF. The ATS service measure and corresponding thresholds for Class I are

intended to reflect the motorist's expectation for high-speed travel. However, the current

thresholds for this class are somewhat restrictive given that the threshold for LOS A is 55

mi/h and, based on this study, motorists tend to perceive facilities with 50-60 mi/h speed

limits as falling under this classification. Thus, PFFS may be more suitable than ATS in

terms of a speed-based performance measure because it references a relative speed rather

than an absolute speed. It is felt that the PTSF service measure is reasonable for this

class because it accounts for passing opportunities. However, the implication with this

measure is that vehicles traveling with headways of 3 seconds or less are compelled to

pass, whereas this may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, this category of two-lane

highway (high-speed, rural undeveloped) appears to be consistent, in terms of service

measures, with the current Class I definition.

The second category consists of two-lane highways in which there is essentially no

passing expectation, including roadways through small-or medium-sized towns,

developed coastal areas, and certain scenic areas. While these types of facilities are









certainly not Class I facilities, they do not fit under the Class II definition either. These

types of two-lane highways therefore should be of a separate class, Class III for example.

On these facilities, passing opportunities are not an issue, and in general, neither is the

percent time-spent-following. While the participants stated that they would certainly

rather be traveling with no other vehicles around them, they acknowledged that following

is not much of a concern in these situations. Particularly in low-speed conditions, such as

in small towns, following does not tend to be of much concern because there are fewer

safety implications. On these two-lane highways, the clear consensus from the focus

groups was that the motorist's primary desire is to travel at a speed at or slightly above

the posted speed limit. Therefore, a speed-based measure, such as PFFS, appears to be

more appropriate for these Class III two-lane highways than a following-based measure

such as PTSF.

Based on the focus group results, it is clear that there are additional two-lane

highway situations/configurations that do not fall into either of the above described

categories. These two-lane highways essentially fall in between the two other categories

in that passing expectations on these roadways do not appear to be as definitive. For

example, with video clips 6 and 9, participants were essentially divided on the issue of

passing. Given the moderate level of residential development depicted in both of the

video clips, participants did not expect high-speed travel (such as on a rural undeveloped

facility), which in terms of the current HCM classifications, would render this type of

highway as Class II. The performance measure for a Class II two-lane highway in the

HCM is PTSF, indicating that following is the primary determinant of level of service.

However, this does not seem to be consistent with the expectations of some motorists.









Instead, for these types of two-lane highways, speed seemed to be a larger issue. While

the participants did not have an expectation for high-speed travel, at the same time they

did not feel that low speeds were warranted either (such as in a small town). In reference

to video clip 9, most participants expressed frustration with what they perceived was an

excessively and unnecessarily low posted speed limit, given the context of the facility.

On these types of intermediate two-lane highways, an absolute travel speed appears to be

just as important as a relative travel speed. In other words, while most motorists' primary

desire is to travel at a speed which is at or above the speed limit, on these types of two-

lane highways it is just as important (from the motorist's viewpoint) for the posted speed

limit to be set appropriately within the context of the facility. Therefore, for these Class

II-type facilities, an absolute-speed-based performance measure such as ATS should be

considered. It is possible that, based on the context of the facility and motorist's

expectations, a following based performance measure should also be used. However, for

these types of two-lane highways, "engineering judgment" will have to dictate.

In summary, it is clear from this focus group effort that some improvements could

be made to the current classification scheme and corresponding service measures. To

begin with, the manner in which the current HCM classifies two-lane highways does not

appear to be comprehensive, and for one of the classifications the chosen service measure

is not necessarily appropriate. At this time, classifications are largely based on

expectations of travel speed. From this study, it appears that expectations for passing

should be considered, in addition to travel speed, when distinguishing among facilities.

Also, the current classifications do not address two-lane highways through small towns or

through coastal and scenic areas. These types of facilities should receive their own









classification (Class III) and their own specific performance measure, the most logical

choice being PFFS.

The current HCM Class I methodology is largely consistent with what was

determined in this study. However, the use of PTSF does not account for the possibility

that in some situations many people are content to not pass, even if following other

vehicles closely. A passing opportunity-based performance measure, rather than a

following-based performance measure may be more appropriate for these types of

facilities. However, the development of such a measure should perhaps be pursued as

part of a more long-term research effort.

The current HCM Class II definition, which includes all roadways in which

motorists do not expect to travel at high speeds, is also largely consistent with what was

determined in the study, except that two-lane highways in which there is no expectation

for passing should be designated as Class III. Unlike the current Class II methodology

though, the use of a speed-based performance measure should be considered, as well as a

following-based measure. For these types of roadways, it appears that absolute travel

speed (e.g., no less than 45 mi/h) is just as important as being able to travel at a certain

speed relative to the posted speed limit. Therefore, ATS should be considered as a speed-

based measure. Thus, a combination of ATS and PTSF, similar to Class I, should be

considered; however, the LOS thresholds would be different than for Class I.

Recommendations for Further Research

For the findings of this study to be adopted on a national level, it is recommended

that the scope of the video data collection and participant recruitment be broadened to

include regions outside of the University of Florida/north central Florida area.

Additionally, a future study should include a larger number of drivers under the age of









26. Future research should also consider the use of more video clips, with a more diverse

range of roadway and traffic conditions. Based upon focus group feedback, only two of

the video clips featured roadways that fell under Class II (although not done

intentionally). In this study, the core of the video clips depicted Class I and Class III

two-lane highways. It is recommended that future research include more Class II

examples.

While the use of written survey forms provided all participants with an opportunity

to provide input, the data collected from the focus group discussions were more reliable

and valuable. In a future study, it is recommended that if forms are to be provided for

written input, there should be more time allotted for the participants to think about their

comments or responses and record them, as well as more time to reiterate the instructions

on filling out the forms. Of course, this must be balanced with the overall time

requirement for the focus group effort. In this study, the focus group sessions lasted two

hours, which may already be pushing the practical limits of what can be expected from

recruited participants. It may be more desirable to not require any written input from

focus group participants. However, if no written input is to be collected, an attempt

should be made to obtain verbal input from each participant.

In the previous section, some suggestions were made for making some

improvements to the current LOS methodology for two-lane highways. With regard to

two-lane highways that clearly were neither Class I or III, it became evident that there

were not enough video data collected with respect to these type of facilities to be able to

make definitive recommendations in terms of performance measures. Furthermore, it

was made clear that a number of roadway factors (e.g., pavement quality, roadway









striping quality, etc.) are also important to motorists in evaluating trip quality. Thus, the

development of a more comprehensive LOS methodology should be considered. The

outcome of such research might be a level of service function that could be applied to all

categories of two-lane highways. The function could be defined in terms of a series of

variables (performance measures) and corresponding coefficients. The variables might

include PFFS, ATS, PTSF, Passing Opportunities, % Heavy Vehicles, Pavement Quality,

Lane Striping Quality, etc. The coefficients would be defined separately for each

category of two-lane highway. Thus, the weighting of the importance of each variable to

the overall evaluation of trip quality by a motorist could be different for each class of

two-lane highway.















APPENDIX A
LETTERS FROM FLORIDA OFFICIALS REGARDING
HCM 2000 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY




















Florida Department of Transportation
Im HI H 605 Suwannee Street THOMAS E BARRY, JR.
.i't kIR Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0450 SECRETARY

November 2, 2001





Dr. Richard Dowling
Principal
Dowling Associates
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 995
Oakland, California 94612

Dear Dr. Dowling:

Subject: HCM2000 Uninterrupted Flow Two-Lane Level of Service Thresholds

Florida Department of Transportation I FDO'l I staff has begun working with the new
uninterrupted flow two-lane chapter of the HCM2000 and have serious concerns with
the new thresholds presented. In some cases service volumes for Class I facilities
have dropped approximately 50 percent from those in HCM1997. Thi, change in
service volumes will have a significant impact on FDOT actions in determining
roadway deficiencies, reporting to legislators on the status of the highway system, and
setting priorities. For those states and others who adopt the HCM, requiring the use of
these new thresholds may have similar sinificain impacts.

It is my understanding that there was not a significant amount of discussion on setting
the level of service thresholds by the Transportation Research Board Highway
Capacity and Quality of Service Committee, Because of the significant change in the
thresholds from HCM 1997, we strongly request that the Committee revisit the level of
service A-E thresholds set for those facilities. As appropriate, additional testing, new
research, surveys to users or some other eff.,rl appe.rr warranted.

As you are aware, Florida has been one of the leading states imr'lemerreniir and
advancing the HCM. On an interim basis until the threshold issue is addressed and
resolved. FDOT has made a decision to continue to use the HCM 1997 level of service
thresholds in rural undeveloped areas and will use a newly developed Class HII two-
lane class in developed areas. Our lead researchers and tiall have submitted a
professional paper encompassing these Class III facilities to your committee for its
review and expected presentation at the 2002 TRB Annual Meeting.





www.dot.state.flus ::