<%BANNER%>

Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Truck Level of Service

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 E20101112_AAAACA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T11:39:37Z PACKAGE UFE0019320_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 21422 DFID F20101112_AABFPB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ko_b_Page_009.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
28b1b2c21e668e92141cc7f259bdbd5a
SHA-1
0fa96c0182d0576d2bf95f2a4d3ce7a01c4da073
1053954 F20101112_AABDVP ko_b_Page_245.tif
5660078c094277bbdbc0c7e8b11e02d3
c3f2bbf899df9a90580d7ed443684eace6ef3c45
111996 F20101112_AABESI ko_b_Page_304.jp2
b3b76f4f2604f355c858ab83ea016fea
329150d8ada2f634561a3fb949c0db7fbc54665c
7930 F20101112_AABDIE ko_b_Page_282thm.jpg
6033d854c254f0ec5f11dbaab89fc7f6
97f726c876bb8ae57126a99697eccd87cbf97fda
27145 F20101112_AABCYW ko_b_Page_164.QC.jpg
b961ac84c655b4b38fafb0a372d0ea81
e6e02424f8783e765f39ad0131100b7dff931780
5596 F20101112_AABFPC ko_b_Page_009thm.jpg
0f96fb43d5df0c157b822ecdc986a064
f0617a41af1155245b84f6b461e07aa964ee4fb7
116641 F20101112_AABDVQ ko_b_Page_027.jp2
6e466155a7af65983f301718510ac5dc
9ada982803124c0357e953fb15d14e387567a572
125880 F20101112_AABESJ ko_b_Page_307.jp2
abbc5d3e2663e5ae1a9f9b9bf86dee83
63b3a7c2cfebbb208445ed98bc6ea7c1a88b8d58
96561 F20101112_AABDIF ko_b_Page_267.jp2
951b17d92d217e86889807da815cee75
daa77039af0150871f40bf7e50d53502555654e1
113546 F20101112_AABCYX ko_b_Page_031.jp2
126fa07b463fc50a8dd974b8fe82803b
a3847167bd3ae61c30754bc5714bdce8db1b3187
25214 F20101112_AABFPD ko_b_Page_010.QC.jpg
dc4a5386ab23204ef0af3fb6c46ca48e
b803aeeb1d63d5561902f02976419ef6331dadf5
53116 F20101112_AABDVR ko_b_Page_176.pro
69b482442329bb858b17340da8fc325b
011adb71cdbf4b5bb797f3fe51eda18c216ef5f9
132556 F20101112_AABESK ko_b_Page_308.jp2
f15cb87735b5f0a472cbcc006954e614
5f220d77a2408e590b7118a6e0a8417576b0d710
1960 F20101112_AABDIG ko_b_Page_254.txt
8816d8030bc163420495e7407e1eed5b
fd62e8a98f9c7e21c0187e39dceb2e947bca6154
25271604 F20101112_AABCYY ko_b_Page_150.tif
4482c4c221ed4496d65f0e68ed1cc246
937bdc3c66507aa4102d2800a9bf2332b6e942be
6511 F20101112_AABFPE ko_b_Page_010thm.jpg
7d3523ac2132e47f237e9348f69f8625
f8d1b817f7162f2836cbd7b2f31b19b5ad84ccc5
5386 F20101112_AABDVS ko_b_Page_006thm.jpg
b146b1c826bdf504698c3524ebd101ec
87af492117c024362472e15264b363312a8036ad
21946 F20101112_AABESL ko_b_Page_312.jp2
87fb020887c5d35e70e193996ffb9421
700ce9ffc2fcf4e080e208b3924cefbcce07edb9
13191 F20101112_AABDIH ko_b_Page_275.jpg
3b95a82b704d6305998df020788e68a1
672c94f51c9a065401ce5fbf857807a35a8dcda3
55035 F20101112_AABCYZ ko_b_Page_177.pro
7d0d990568cfc27ed6f4344a0a5df4f7
808878682cd36f1f9ceecb2c6704d44f7c70dc89
74277 F20101112_AABEFA ko_b_Page_047.jpg
a03813ad8200cbeb31d03691b53c761e
6e9fe9bb414387e9f424fc868e24d081b26aee13
28188 F20101112_AABFPF ko_b_Page_011.QC.jpg
18644362b9c43f580be4bcb92a55911a
61a03c725e874fcf82524c64063a6126cea63f72
95466 F20101112_AABDVT ko_b_Page_098.jp2
00410a52f1bf3bdbc1a18de102f1876c
8ae47a936536d1e83810deee3b07182ddf95a494
F20101112_AABESM ko_b_Page_004.tif
deab5939bddef1669294eea0ccbe5a51
c0045c086643379c40b8166592d491585dad793c
50671 F20101112_AABDII ko_b_Page_145.pro
a992887958aceef5243f5ea9c558741f
f4157775bffd43546bd375ad4b4153cbba86a15f
78208 F20101112_AABEFB ko_b_Page_049.jpg
33ad798b626c53356104dab94e6313aa
a4e89249e9f6c9655b22b9b6db18a39a97255fa5
22286 F20101112_AABFPG ko_b_Page_012.QC.jpg
43b3734908597e0d42a68be4195749c9
5812c65a35b47479bcd9b2a8a12282e040729d02
2053 F20101112_AABDVU ko_b_Page_065.txt
1f5a08b40a6a18a5c5a90245d9621e43
cefb8f169f67226b4e3556e719879cbc5d38b605
F20101112_AABESN ko_b_Page_005.tif
8bbafe3bfbd82bef812650a9518d4171
eed0a7d5768c59432436fb131fddab2c60bb353c
24577 F20101112_AABDIJ ko_b_Page_167.QC.jpg
e5ce3f08293e3fec50a7552e4381826e
eee3ddadb87ab0f8eaa9165acccb8c62b65a8751
76884 F20101112_AABEFC ko_b_Page_050.jpg
2c30125e53abbb7a415540e6d01fa3e3
3f81b9e85c458a401bc6f8fd7c1470859dfc5422
6104 F20101112_AABFPH ko_b_Page_012thm.jpg
fddd53d08111088499359d4c690080f3
428293d0d08934ca0873f7df4e80081190b97fc6
110808 F20101112_AABDVV ko_b_Page_023.jp2
e837b85baab49e2ec66d8ace2a45c96b
f804ed088d8e5c7cf45d8daf869e65211bd5f56e
F20101112_AABESO ko_b_Page_006.tif
8bdbfe416629aa58421995af6aa3014c
ed82a5a526d1446d06cfd136d051e77137968b68
118774 F20101112_AABDIK ko_b_Page_240.jp2
5a7ae5073b6373ba32abb9b3c23a1271
681000fb18d0e5ff686eb8fb69dae5813d7f7f44
75854 F20101112_AABEFD ko_b_Page_051.jpg
4eb49b531515e718d250bed59a3583b9
c98f23612d55caea66ea43f3081a13a709db795a
19767 F20101112_AABFPI ko_b_Page_013.QC.jpg
9aa2eb10841687ec6e099398d6a0e8b8
fb025c2a09935b48ec5d0e42350a3b031810a382
2334 F20101112_AABDVW ko_b_Page_232.txt
fd2cff62fa555fb07b8a5f873020f17d
fefdd580d14c0714ab15a9deca7e44af456d59e2
F20101112_AABESP ko_b_Page_009.tif
8cd5b4177be3446f884511389f695d29
c9c43f7624471b57b71d6cc2e2e8ebfa4b30fda6
77397 F20101112_AABEFE ko_b_Page_052.jpg
24f4615347530fa9063d65d916741274
dd899c5621023bd067797d521d9b3836ca869526
15977 F20101112_AABFPJ ko_b_Page_014.QC.jpg
e8f563d87e8406d1935f2e0d377f28af
b58dea068a4a68727bd669d002c28b17c7a3f730
56425 F20101112_AABDVX ko_b_Page_119.pro
13cb10786b8d6d7c48be52d89d0fa4a8
3b5b63957b20c7b058b605f568a2d160d5f85ae8
F20101112_AABESQ ko_b_Page_010.tif
b6684f73ef9dae710bf543c5470e2287
9ee632f52ea0dea624042811dbff0382a63da442
24937 F20101112_AABDIL ko_b_Page_082.QC.jpg
66854418d5c3ac549324402af76f7014
58eb051b2c87a315d4dfa123e268cebc2caae6d7
78376 F20101112_AABEFF ko_b_Page_053.jpg
9bab3bfd5aa9269349d2fde1e0d33e92
636e7ce80da6ba22a9aa9260a24420a32689159e
2764 F20101112_AABFPK ko_b_Page_016thm.jpg
fb443d712dd6f2a22081f4432d9324e1
ff7df8bcabd0d4cbe9149916bc728138cf4c0cb9
F20101112_AABESR ko_b_Page_011.tif
023e8620ca287f925eb7cca8e03f1677
94e41755757aa6d31ee7f8e4e5904d45f9af7e8f
2224 F20101112_AABDIM ko_b_Page_033.txt
2c0cab7158dea23a97a165f36f15e8a3
14f6b3ba13b8eca43022dc01d6dd577748bd8dc8
74319 F20101112_AABEFG ko_b_Page_055.jpg
3c4f2f4c545a0955e720e244aea3f564
034452180d36c1088832dc1da814e5fc6b301666
25753 F20101112_AABFPL ko_b_Page_018.QC.jpg
1c932f0bb1b61d90eed35c4547ade425
07b2aee0f1fbc27a9e244086202a957e42f39c5f
55551 F20101112_AABFCA ko_b_Page_097.pro
a69d77225b125a3b4f5b0e3f52ca8bc3
cf1280d60cbd3e66d6d4bd4cc2dda9efc8b22952
F20101112_AABESS ko_b_Page_016.tif
431b9d57015adf575c3613cf3d2f3c17
6f0e147cdc418ea653a3cb99e23c456804546aeb
54564 F20101112_AABDIN ko_b_Page_244.pro
f19afd0192965a13e9c6d02c2bc27a9a
1a1f68dab8630b59872aac3f11feb82e19471062
5556 F20101112_AABDVY ko_b_Page_231.pro
3cbc6dbf625e0f8feea7e9c1d69c6e7a
35d357b3598c4316f3d0ae89d2924302fe59b571
6970 F20101112_AABFPM ko_b_Page_018thm.jpg
67ce56ac5cd8f99402b2e375825162f7
a080d8ad93bbfdc2ef80bdca36fde4712d23944e
42999 F20101112_AABFCB ko_b_Page_098.pro
b7aed9bb90ed497822e12e6abefe7ded
f9ef4bb5d34885c72907e0d6edb7f970c19e255c
F20101112_AABEST ko_b_Page_018.tif
de45e59abe95f644c447e6cf136cd5f6
30d2a7373b6fc0bc20aa5cad273774f89caeea29
46459 F20101112_AABDIO ko_b_Page_058.pro
852b84dbcdde7ed9109b4f63c3389909
4d7b931290f91dbc6fda1198194f13dfe3e06d06
77238 F20101112_AABEFH ko_b_Page_057.jpg
32d5667c1efe898b943c987f4b6d7f0c
cfd55bdfc2c3f8663b49eb99bd8a8a68a188abfc
7441 F20101112_AABDVZ ko_b_Page_287thm.jpg
77a83231591f7f2feee25296d2b00ac2
2b1541a85732e27ca27f4c369f61ef65600e5541
3115 F20101112_AABFPN ko_b_Page_019thm.jpg
f8e9a87024ff65cde9dbd4806a4e25a0
cf555d83a577b0ffbebcb2ff633842f260146111
34750 F20101112_AABFCC ko_b_Page_099.pro
20b316822d1494130433f838198a7810
b11e073a9cad031043b611b2094ab93fdf9b3522
55351 F20101112_AABDIP ko_b_Page_173.pro
82d30358ae5f3807287724ecd95f4ba1
36cb8e8fae3686e1d483904528e2efff0eb4ff9b
76608 F20101112_AABEFI ko_b_Page_059.jpg
2ad36b7bbfdcb6650b802cde79d67add
6dd427e78ae3050804c82a99a9edf296deb44647
25000 F20101112_AABFPO ko_b_Page_020.QC.jpg
b07a5fa53374aa5f6f8c96da2ad66ba5
9cd279da4f9d676e3feff74ff91eb27c2efd3426
F20101112_AABESU ko_b_Page_019.tif
768c31304284c93519051afa8ec88369
d4343c7e206e246f75c193cda5e86f6d65008552
69836 F20101112_AABDIQ ko_b_Page_279.pro
c4390b12a8664f9458660bc5c126949e
80ba73840648d9b412853a8159d30eb3ef576dab
75432 F20101112_AABEFJ ko_b_Page_061.jpg
87c4da6291e3747956f8480e0c0b81e3
d891ed7051cdc512fb23f4192fe3fedb258355f4
25252 F20101112_AABFPP ko_b_Page_021.QC.jpg
8efd39626f9ea7c071c89090dfe5fff2
5c0411d439ac24d7028f90469d15ded5ef54e339
39390 F20101112_AABFCD ko_b_Page_100.pro
190de3f64c2f407ede5b22d5707a8016
d15d6418f944d1162516aead2ef9fad3a6a915bd
F20101112_AABESV ko_b_Page_020.tif
a752e8ce4da14b7ad831101214666891
df5517e88d15b9031b2abb6d9d8d86962c2c84e0
1884 F20101112_AABDIR ko_b_Page_200.txt
d5c6526e5d3d0585febb8d963c802702
ded4ea6144ea0f4e85dd370b001bc032f9b5b24f
67533 F20101112_AABEFK ko_b_Page_062.jpg
eb6b9cf82312e16705d1c5a4f9ecbf47
67c897523aa88f17919c7d6174ecc63e670b8c09
35243 F20101112_AABFCE ko_b_Page_101.pro
eefd01560b7810753517849356126dae
348cbe6fed28b0ee5ed4c0a65b98670354fc8dde
F20101112_AABESW ko_b_Page_021.tif
33f7ea4b5a04852ee89d2565fa35ba81
e0d2a2c629be74508890ad37615a83844dcf90c3
F20101112_AABDIS ko_b_Page_264.tif
fe431e6333f55b58a0c6991394412afd
613765ae682982612660f2effe9ab26be751995a
76304 F20101112_AABEFL ko_b_Page_063.jpg
4b6d3c6070c0f8b0b830b1af364f6ccc
4ae9891e7466079c6fa718518a155f6446b67e50
25688 F20101112_AABFPQ ko_b_Page_022.QC.jpg
7ccd2cb4dd31f5072fafaa7f328de945
29de5b784e8ba03d0dd68c7cd60cda60532d9853
27253 F20101112_AABFCF ko_b_Page_102.pro
d136a72433e93fc0ef3c15e59f5abdd7
66ef0f372f05b43e7b0f84b0d0e5c726229cb8b1
F20101112_AABESX ko_b_Page_022.tif
1c45b8b0d971be9ad68394b8b4284de2
c735a56f7c171a215699021121b4bd5d5023ac08
F20101112_AABDIT ko_b_Page_126.tif
5e76e3a0844e4559003d22359c4d1334
c5b257d50b27447cc59a230aabfb5b0194b8fc14
76946 F20101112_AABEFM ko_b_Page_064.jpg
3338aff6f6cc8d725facc002f1b599eb
3f45185b9be4ae75df1811e9485614e9635a959b
7033 F20101112_AABFPR ko_b_Page_022thm.jpg
075b7a2ae0ecedb2271a7c730c6d2f55
7f9ea125ddeca319c1b22c2dbef5e09fef22847a
52962 F20101112_AABFCG ko_b_Page_103.pro
e21ceace95cf0221674b78b1669660d3
073607a4d0b45bd7aca2bfb52c6d994ddbd82e6c
F20101112_AABESY ko_b_Page_023.tif
c812a3d357d845acc458ff76a658e63c
34b592c08a787df4f09e86d037e0d0b594075466
72137 F20101112_AABDIU ko_b_Page_071.jpg
7dcd7cc0e0cbfc475f1e6b7d67218fb8
2b1645f358cbda805adffbfdf06a96d08f069317
71551 F20101112_AABEFN ko_b_Page_065.jpg
fcef6b2e1aa29fc6650c6da5f4f2652c
1b4b03bbbc818280560ae4e97d75a7267345e371
24637 F20101112_AABFPS ko_b_Page_023.QC.jpg
102bf37bf369939137864e8e4eac1b7a
f34108a7736912e2778b20ac7699a4c1482a8fdf
49493 F20101112_AABFCH ko_b_Page_106.pro
6645fea17f34b6638212f02269bbd7ad
3d3ecf62b65ca148beda0ccb7fe7ae2ded6cfc14
F20101112_AABESZ ko_b_Page_024.tif
65610110f78d048bd0bf5c9a2e77cee8
b486dd95844c7ba857b01a8c9a514134d499912e
7102 F20101112_AABDIV ko_b_Page_032thm.jpg
0eefc77c71045e291484ed9bbf25c61a
bcca7449dee145232bd7b3eeb6564133d1c52931
76642 F20101112_AABEFO ko_b_Page_066.jpg
bfc99c247cdfe909cb6c99db2d9757c9
252875468f3d34c38144b95d13433c9c6e7522b6
23595 F20101112_AABFPT ko_b_Page_024.QC.jpg
90008077d189e4133ba21576e41c631a
def03fcdcff4b3a69457ba84baec432ed8fbb423
27801 F20101112_AABFCI ko_b_Page_108.pro
55e8e512eb548718c9082c2e7b78061e
054f119b253084cdf9f80b70638daed52447915b
6589 F20101112_AABDIW ko_b_Page_092thm.jpg
b2d8e906c904e52599754147cb397cbd
e390d8e6d8835b5eaafd3c97b15f36d24e15ebc3
76098 F20101112_AABEFP ko_b_Page_068.jpg
dfb6b58a571782208508c94c93f072d5
15fd9839a83d5717ba56cd087735bf5c162e26e7
6351 F20101112_AABFPU ko_b_Page_024thm.jpg
caae538d273928555a7d0d9c538f5fcc
6b8fb4b4d5d1c76f7b9b2b7b730f2c88ff3aab34
11145 F20101112_AABFCJ ko_b_Page_109.pro
09ac54038f467690b508653fee895aad
461534ea573e1a286b6dbc8ac1e3a93334678049
F20101112_AABDIX ko_b_Page_053.tif
7f8c99c537e933bab3032390c516a5ed
8392e3b01c3ccc5b1e9e505f4cbd9530d1f308a4
74865 F20101112_AABEFQ ko_b_Page_069.jpg
5f771b539d7626c751849da664782423
835256eb5c06606bd933fe78d5f94c956b35d643
4100 F20101112_AABFPV ko_b_Page_025thm.jpg
f70dd31f44b10c840f76a5c7fb6dd871
102be695acfad72810bcc53bb0a8078037fc190b
29256 F20101112_AABFCK ko_b_Page_110.pro
f0ac9b22ac9623dd127f820bd39a5937
b097b8b8f8f042833b173ad3ecad082f20bc0326
73019 F20101112_AABDIY ko_b_Page_023.jpg
987bf7b5a93db82284ac5a98cef3d7e1
ae588c630d0193b396e923e36a0f920827f9110c
75161 F20101112_AABEFR ko_b_Page_070.jpg
5aea44cc7bc4b723e9ad3cc5ec053ebf
0714355f4ea455e2c6e13fc584747892a3a8cd66
24465 F20101112_AABFPW ko_b_Page_026.QC.jpg
439f6a13420a03c0d2b9623410121346
d08f8e9c691649d718c9bbc66b6b886dc5337fb5
14405 F20101112_AABFCL ko_b_Page_113.pro
f28c91ad655405390173addd716aed51
fd27815ce5f64cd6d5c126f29ddd33684b3aeccc
2904 F20101112_AABDIZ ko_b_Page_253.txt
feed882865f693273e7a5233f6b23795
0106f0581e799aced7e6571855d3f38e6ce537d0
74337 F20101112_AABEFS ko_b_Page_072.jpg
791b8df4d0200235a6b6785ab89a77f9
550290df8f3364b18b5edf902bf9124efdf8749c
6972 F20101112_AABFPX ko_b_Page_026thm.jpg
679045ee2be7f54f6ce8266ec90232ef
03d33beebc22264ae510260845bbf6e376c69c90
7847 F20101112_AABFCM ko_b_Page_114.pro
0356d2b363ac7e5335ebc3a7e0fee4a7
fcea0a9a46a6c03e17a375d61bef7227c6e83dc3
78444 F20101112_AABEFT ko_b_Page_075.jpg
a7349defdc25ccf51c8cbf759275d5f9
7cdd0556c54820f6a4843259ddc6be91ab8ec67a
F20101112_AABFPY ko_b_Page_027.QC.jpg
431934b947e86d929b99d09150d4c82a
5e1a14ee16642832e709c86bd8b394750396ee9c
45726 F20101112_AABFCN ko_b_Page_115.pro
e140e75b2e23cff84775a2d7d447cf18
b7250e6a5012754830b664fd0fcdd667fb49a484
76506 F20101112_AABEFU ko_b_Page_076.jpg
7daf8e1a5864f2cc997595de4be38a04
e445f196be88ae392197579251e09d2b0c41c524
6826 F20101112_AABFPZ ko_b_Page_027thm.jpg
b1e703e7c9e4bb998859e7a535670c7e
99cbf386dd046207c53274c6ad758ba68d03fcda
54326 F20101112_AABFCO ko_b_Page_117.pro
cb41c983af2860dedf0748ebc3d41902
aa1c3e0dd5cb14111775bc59367beb29e3436f64
78590 F20101112_AABEFV ko_b_Page_077.jpg
cb22e2231a0116eac97213ef7406103b
345db9fd2c82c1955b27034ef16be9a6624a58fb
56726 F20101112_AABFCP ko_b_Page_118.pro
9892b42245943ce4f22b4e6325fdba7e
3a06238f116fd0fb2437de53b1f75ffaf4c6933b
74421 F20101112_AABEFW ko_b_Page_079.jpg
40803e13c2d3bf07a5389bbdf857e252
c9aa4a81516344f0a75e0b0ec2fed13e938e9f1e
F20101112_AABEYA ko_b_Page_236.tif
aca080beb23fbc416b605adbdc0b171d
05fb2d3611df734b2396e80b63404f6f4a8a00f8
55800 F20101112_AABFCQ ko_b_Page_120.pro
a812e02f5f059462c3d1696087889568
5ce4f0522d20ae893baacf13b848ca2546e18fab
60496 F20101112_AABEFX ko_b_Page_080.jpg
726d72e6dd35ed0aa8c44dee26df0ef3
c96b551ff8c9650bf70ad31df711cc1aa8b48351
F20101112_AABEYB ko_b_Page_239.tif
001b6afce9644c716a0ce02a597bab24
b3e952756ccbca221752e49f278f77e957f49197
55891 F20101112_AABFCR ko_b_Page_121.pro
ff452c6ee278f3c407a812bdd0e20b0d
487967c4f4ad043437230f09c8771b946689d0b8
78330 F20101112_AABEFY ko_b_Page_081.jpg
6b73209dcbc4f43684c712dc8e056bb6
25ca8f3147f8a48cff8a990143bf063ce06e0615
F20101112_AABEYC ko_b_Page_240.tif
ced70e5bef726af360923150b56979f4
0e1ddaa8e322979fa3083d274a2e65181dc504a4
58027 F20101112_AABFCS ko_b_Page_122.pro
29d8aaa417bb96cba5dc96552bbc77d4
a7d72e38b6148d574338171e1952c77e7850751b
72865 F20101112_AABEFZ ko_b_Page_084.jpg
1c89e07928464be731aff74bee01fd3e
9780e177d8ae580d96785dbff3eb533547fe8162
F20101112_AABEYD ko_b_Page_241.tif
1a5c34109bfc3caa5975b9608118e398
027ab468d1518e92142aaebad1acacb15c0f54d1
57044 F20101112_AABFCT ko_b_Page_124.pro
64d88f3ac4d07e0917fa13787deebe2b
1787c5e8d1352f6a3915b0e636cbf40a2b482da7
F20101112_AABEYE ko_b_Page_242.tif
d8c5d450ed2076664658f8f5fea871f3
6c0f06ce8bcb2e21d456026c501265360bb66750
56741 F20101112_AABFCU ko_b_Page_126.pro
009b7e0d4b07f95140c31627951beb84
f1fd3bd4ee03bfaeea731f19618552337c93173b
53039 F20101112_AABDOA ko_b_Page_069.pro
96983fef299a875963216c10e02bb326
ef28320bb6539b4f24fd49f8bc3f55dca66fc169
F20101112_AABEYF ko_b_Page_243.tif
4a13b47dde7b6d2a3deba6ea1e64f80f
119208140f150c7bc6fac2b37777dbc870867e0b
55047 F20101112_AABFCV ko_b_Page_128.pro
6bf579990485f0d8fa47b46a824d40ce
054ff90ab7f5fb9f68957cd5939ee2065051e13b
F20101112_AABDOB ko_b_Page_001.tif
509a86ff6f0bfae4cd7ed1888bd35b5a
5f7904c7bbe3cd152f7a133855d54cec9346a34f
F20101112_AABEYG ko_b_Page_247.tif
93c0ebba6c099bdcbb8785a2752279f2
8af48564c08d9a89ef78dca7ccb8626597cfd0ae
56908 F20101112_AABFCW ko_b_Page_129.pro
ae9052dbb5aac2c3b48a70ab27230011
18f92aa8da0744724a141fb65a50ac08ecd26161
F20101112_AABDOC ko_b_Page_310.tif
6b35f42a5ec1d8bd9cdb2d336f591d14
a0375a2722fdc12fd338deda5769a5ba279aa6d2
24763 F20101112_AABFVA ko_b_Page_133.QC.jpg
aa3e9ca21f2a999c7f3801c584c6002a
b7ca0655e79032bbaa102b386863e03e7a712309
F20101112_AABEYH ko_b_Page_248.tif
53e940041ebe48e36a5164782aaa671c
cd7d3d8514413c82bbd798a0f6871f4502b04da5
55128 F20101112_AABFCX ko_b_Page_131.pro
12afa2b2cdd0cfa2cf39bb8c5c695cb2
46e0558925212d2a2fefe46c9f04223aee2ba17f
79017 F20101112_AABDOD ko_b_Page_147.jpg
a55a0f7e25e247cf40bd19b6d2c9eb0a
01a0714742ba0662e49a8805e69af233699584a3
6914 F20101112_AABFVB ko_b_Page_133thm.jpg
c71c78de04b44192ee0a51050ac0a6ae
dc418634e5fc8e64da9ec80984aa55b0c5d2998c
F20101112_AABEYI ko_b_Page_250.tif
22fd13f65bdc873daab9003610b82609
f2f070590832a7ea2c61c958a4c92fc10ea31da9
51743 F20101112_AABFCY ko_b_Page_133.pro
9f8aa26b140568d14b762ce026a277be
2c03c67216c90ce0d00e0b401ee4473f2100c4d7
2473 F20101112_AABDOE ko_b_Page_010.txt
c494f86e4de223086c700de48bb83c5a
885e4691565eae8f70e94ad3a486839a71c25761
7015 F20101112_AABFVC ko_b_Page_134thm.jpg
a44aec20dbe90b4d399c535153e5a996
f5cab54196eff5413ca5a7c0f9eb78a204d660b0
F20101112_AABEYJ ko_b_Page_252.tif
71e537e1eecf29b1387217602635dcca
4c0d71a4d37d79cc1d427750491e56bf56f731d0
55228 F20101112_AABFCZ ko_b_Page_134.pro
567eb1058d35c27c758b331593fc5db2
d3acc8a9fbd6123681e02798f2f7c1fbc3361cc3
25932 F20101112_AABDOF ko_b_Page_124.QC.jpg
3410c990cf4ccfcb0319adccd6f428fd
cd911a3be8ae4965d449b3a148a5473207a13e6a
24996 F20101112_AABFVD ko_b_Page_135.QC.jpg
2b6a8b8795c595b4d02a0e42cb02a3a9
f3c9e7d50fe3e9c0f364244c4c15c1a4f6d5cdc7
F20101112_AABEYK ko_b_Page_254.tif
d64e6d304b34611a2633cd53a625586f
9750757836f2be4d9b2cecf15876fa39af7993a4
27124 F20101112_AABDOG ko_b_Page_291.QC.jpg
26772e58abcb34cab4f88783dae80d97
3cf2b9acb875985a1254b7395fb713bb076d0681
7306 F20101112_AABFVE ko_b_Page_136thm.jpg
1adcce867f801d715b3d6ea51d6a9a10
9807170b2f7ad057678dc66f259f19d2ada57741
F20101112_AABEYL ko_b_Page_257.tif
d61fe32ccbcf0ca0c0f67605de363b24
e1d32e8035d624ef07c2f148873f9d2fdd33c6e6
2320 F20101112_AABDOH ko_b_Page_223.txt
9ced479dff21f039c3ff4ea09719754a
9a2db82e4d53bafaec1a2bec249dbefd03348f35
102014 F20101112_AABELA ko_b_Page_295.jpg
4f44b0d03afdccdc605f58858cb3aa08
8ceac7e39a246b4d4f19f02e42308817876f849d
25930 F20101112_AABFVF ko_b_Page_137.QC.jpg
b10948c6a361f9ae66da5ab2261a2961
aa259f70f477586e99a96d393a26d1faf747648c
F20101112_AABEYM ko_b_Page_258.tif
6b580c55998234e6521009a2034913a6
c8922ce07e4523a566cb8f1c6fc05bee640ea26e
F20101112_AABDOI ko_b_Page_244.tif
d0c2a775249ea1341c6fcc2ea81b732d
d5b30c85a7f891217961973866b124af1915f65e
104492 F20101112_AABELB ko_b_Page_296.jpg
de9e1ebf4cf50b2c4d78c0afba08c633
2817482160308dc15618aa55f3507921d54fe101
22747 F20101112_AABFVG ko_b_Page_138.QC.jpg
4678bb843022ec0f58913d7488fbc046
cbe3aee46718ed73d902a478248138378ac28a6a
F20101112_AABEYN ko_b_Page_259.tif
d943756acaea185f995bfd389ed4f807
12c4d83a32a82d4fe31fde8b2cdda8ef3da76dd0
32068 F20101112_AABDOJ ko_b_Page_281.QC.jpg
e63f7184064c679382de070b2c8889b0
48ecde824397c7c2fce91c7d587bc623fc6c9fe6
86165 F20101112_AABELC ko_b_Page_297.jpg
69e442cba5a661bee273eb910437dac8
f2247b103474e4bde54247a8a33416c6dfb6a01c
25438 F20101112_AABFVH ko_b_Page_139.QC.jpg
0c3659db181a2648d612f4ba456d1adb
0bb4c3f6a3e13f9a4abfe183a00239d3a7181a39
F20101112_AABEYO ko_b_Page_260.tif
6a784bc2aa2ef2aba75ec080c72f5aa7
1f7f8d8aba8b0afc8c79406590e0901c4444faa6
F20101112_AABDOK ko_b_Page_163.tif
113741d7e0df11df71477cfca0a94e71
e0c443192b5a874618ec91794bba5316d2761cf0
110962 F20101112_AABELD ko_b_Page_299.jpg
42489fcd47e03a70f2c03a2bc0c4ce90
e9e202739adef2b7cfae35e8673a8c44fead88ff
6870 F20101112_AABFVI ko_b_Page_139thm.jpg
cb1521917a6023ec7274255af71dded6
d2822e463f17acafa32cde64f7b29931f82606cd
F20101112_AABEYP ko_b_Page_261.tif
3599495ca318ac44c8a5f77ff451675e
95f90f7b768e660251caddc0c807869948448e86
95448 F20101112_AABDOL ko_b_Page_269.jp2
ca8f4d3868c643674c5f4f478588d7ac
4f2ec3b82114ce816c4c7a3e08e5ae79bca99742
92870 F20101112_AABELE ko_b_Page_300.jpg
eb6514a2c41b6f083c46b3f2b5ee04fb
5cea4e4a29fb489bee9e5efd3c9699f2c20d1b34
26153 F20101112_AABDBA ko_b_Page_171.QC.jpg
c962e33d3455531dee566524118fcfab
b06fce9fe800654f2b7792847a01a9300d68e64e
26427 F20101112_AABFVJ ko_b_Page_140.QC.jpg
15209045477f865e159192fffeedb421
712cf790d79c0e8c2ba3bc4fc81ec25471c80d05
F20101112_AABEYQ ko_b_Page_263.tif
85a3722e501c959fa01ec568f434c884
6a61d14facd6c486b69b6a9fbcb034fad1adde2e
79705 F20101112_AABDOM ko_b_Page_168.jpg
5db7b8a8ab570399e5b46c5ad1f7c7d3
08ef9212734d0f2fffe4c2ae41160e22ec8e5fea
12047 F20101112_AABELF ko_b_Page_302.jpg
0bbd9118bf5c5ff38f23e8a4de4f5e0a
1ad89327608b72fc2d5cb025feaa1e619c3d0fda
54200 F20101112_AABDBB ko_b_Page_160.pro
81f25e6dbd4b2ce43df4f771911d30d2
4f260de7f6cb0701fd9affc8d1b594025b6a2bd6
7160 F20101112_AABFVK ko_b_Page_140thm.jpg
cf880cff666c9ae976d939f81120aa9c
7ae121c8ca9b5eb3b1f9780bb9fda83552c4dc3c
F20101112_AABEYR ko_b_Page_266.tif
fd16c805c522b1281f8a7adcc0802cd3
61200da841cb6d7def85b7d761fea31937dd5d82
F20101112_AABDON ko_b_Page_002.tif
a2fe43e23575e65012e688789be3fcf7
78eceec606c542fa49d8d7f9be9234714690b905
78224 F20101112_AABELG ko_b_Page_303.jpg
18c31e804e6213c5ab49e52908d68e01
98ebb8d1045ea9b9cdf4376bf70defbe83f29f07
3307 F20101112_AABDBC ko_b_Page_225thm.jpg
7fd14cdf9f475fd5d6792a7aaa3f4bdc
651eef3810c80bd6b608a3b938529676fb16e463
25847 F20101112_AABFVL ko_b_Page_141.QC.jpg
39485d4ae42f0e80e84b7042fab1683c
57907dc758560332da84f994fefe95cca7bda32f
F20101112_AABEYS ko_b_Page_268.tif
82aae7d00f0279393f96c8697a5856b6
4f3962f73ef5eb5bfd3f6f68b715b15306af109a
1961 F20101112_AABDOO ko_b_Page_106.txt
b0eef8753b5c659fa5982c3bc935265c
ae7b3974906922e7ad79265e96ee26e3c17a3a4b
72987 F20101112_AABELH ko_b_Page_304.jpg
6288dbbca243d90e22be14dfb45c6152
f9add60c1b621f3e1e28ca6ca5e8785e1812343f
1976 F20101112_AABFIA ko_b_Page_030.txt
788882a499a4d41bf192f962dae587f4
dbc08010cd8fa867b902f633b7e9d99d32138291
4191 F20101112_AABDBD ko_b_Page_008.txt
5b1f36b9250bdf8933ef331301f803fc
393bdfc7c4a283cabda367440edab80bcc40b5ff
7151 F20101112_AABFVM ko_b_Page_141thm.jpg
276d2b548912932e086215b030e07052
fb1b768689cf1fa8b8e44b37ca74563e35a7ea3d
F20101112_AABEYT ko_b_Page_269.tif
a823e56c59c7a72a2b9cd5938836b581
a48d61f2f5068feb32e4e7d0695e41c90ead1d7f
35357 F20101112_AABDOP ko_b_Page_236.jpg
290ebaca601f6001ec5d2a6d54a861d4
2fd0198c03e1f0c7ff7bcd2b2f4b56c7fa193e19
71717 F20101112_AABELI ko_b_Page_305.jpg
f48c9aa79c3b15be6a8eafafbeffbabb
38844733022cbbf4b45244aa8b256414c8f201a4
2120 F20101112_AABFIB ko_b_Page_032.txt
35203b50c0e7e7528666f7f39b680547
0f317aabe9983be4c9965304978c5b69414abb05
26102 F20101112_AABFVN ko_b_Page_142.QC.jpg
37acd755e4c33cd5efc3c3f8dba5fcb5
c7782ce8a630b4148725b458b45c1646ace8a145
F20101112_AABEYU ko_b_Page_270.tif
5883395c7ba467e714ac41313bef0bee
2708b07e165d94731081ba2abe719e5ae15801f6
32886 F20101112_AABDOQ ko_b_Page_282.QC.jpg
08c9aefb8296b381a4bdf9bff5a9da90
9f3bcf47143e5936c7055f5abcb3aaa375919271
86041 F20101112_AABELJ ko_b_Page_308.jpg
2c9fc69135aabda0bde9c67d1860f073
c19ff2b905d0328e2f8e1aa721d5924711c4f6b3
2141 F20101112_AABFIC ko_b_Page_034.txt
a684ce68aaf99a7eec49e0beb25f11e6
ca1c145e507edc211a7cb9f3562f2e844871b542
46255 F20101112_AABDBE ko_b_Page_222.jpg
b3ba05caedaaf56a8e8fbfbe7fa2dce1
289bf824fd98b437894145a12ae6a062821da37f
27250 F20101112_AABFVO ko_b_Page_143.QC.jpg
017d3a9c1d4bd42f65c17fab25eab808
28f958060b29ac93d524dcdabb491b1f199aa225
F20101112_AABEYV ko_b_Page_271.tif
3a359d3afb6e6de0a8945b05a901754b
d21c58e0ff74e004cfdb855321ac9b72223edfbe
95400 F20101112_AABELK ko_b_Page_309.jpg
05ee39bc3dbefa4c8a362781649608dd
4a51fe10e5b421162f0400da316f95c756724881
2221 F20101112_AABFID ko_b_Page_036.txt
8101547bf39814ef39cf281fec921b0f
bcfb759142d725c15fbe5504448c91931e1741ab
6792 F20101112_AABDBF ko_b_Page_057thm.jpg
f06f9cb951927c734e46e29ade0c4b35
8778d329641451ab95f7d65ce7c87e7e689debfd
7231 F20101112_AABFVP ko_b_Page_143thm.jpg
1e938f873cf7c809c93b2c712570b74d
ef7aa01c7a8f01c85d01bdb03f579bce350493a9
F20101112_AABEYW ko_b_Page_273.tif
b257513e86d36d0e648c91858e79b64a
99d0fbaa0a8f3cef1ec324be14629bdcf954fe7a
26010 F20101112_AABDOR ko_b_Page_085.QC.jpg
0eae058d50fde62d1746ea2eecc25c3e
3b8fce67f985d8c5b803131c49171baa818103f0
64279 F20101112_AABELL ko_b_Page_310.jpg
be4ec949dd4926aad3b2f3d8345f1c2f
de24a728dfcbed6ef3225b64cb3a30cf7b6ca7fb
2156 F20101112_AABFIE ko_b_Page_040.txt
fe54ec4b15e210615112a4a1fd54d5da
32b0f12c4f82bbed4cff4552c6da08e86404810e
8423998 F20101112_AABDBG ko_b_Page_214.tif
05250e8cddf6bebc0e18395cefb5ab7f
fd89ab37307ea2387dadbfe9d2e173d6e4d1e950
16516 F20101112_AABFVQ ko_b_Page_144.QC.jpg
77bcb1e2d0ec0e442830d78ebb9acec7
d97eeb9c80d31fd9c7196606130b39258381ef6f
F20101112_AABEYX ko_b_Page_274.tif
8885b78b26259695c7a4d1add0007f38
388bb10467c3b002e9276d978063466656c07b26
81506 F20101112_AABDOS ko_b_Page_095.jpg
86fd8cbbb3b4d1590ddd6edd89aea26c
eff66352366c6acee1e0d83413e3ae514c8f8328
19216 F20101112_AABELM ko_b_Page_312.jpg
7690bf0978b9bffe049d74503e658089
17413cf3805585e3843c7a52b2cd0acaa4ee4497
2322 F20101112_AABFIF ko_b_Page_043.txt
82ec1518700ad813dcc24529c62355f6
be0c82e6e9f278162354925bee9ce387f719f728
38194 F20101112_AABDBH ko_b_Page_191.pro
6225c8bd6b381b00366b69fb27d1638b
b5529c1f233714d9e81d4e73cf80b1e004482402
4632 F20101112_AABFVR ko_b_Page_144thm.jpg
38452c1ca9861c20d4db9dfbb8028f2e
0bec64d9cc7053080514994edcbf9ce57c13b7c0
F20101112_AABEYY ko_b_Page_276.tif
2d5733fb710457a0fe28f10e517fff02
b418b0e4fb49c063457a0887773c0cb8ff7fef65
87221 F20101112_AABDOT ko_b_Page_157.jpg
903b6e62a4df0e644ac9a476cc31da83
3822dfa93627493ebb10a59114a357961ec119d1
2129 F20101112_AABFIG ko_b_Page_044.txt
b0ca22fc6d2a66894c043b0032749a07
5652d453315ef3a51dd36a0f504d6a3e6990a997
26328 F20101112_AABDBI ko_b_Page_029.QC.jpg
5bba81062868990a663b247f7c083fb7
9f4f293e78c90b2fe24d1ba9c49b4a534a668c02
24031 F20101112_AABFVS ko_b_Page_145.QC.jpg
849a0e1570404d0c17069dc40c5b90bc
efcbc909639dc4c22000c04ca3a0732a38f53501
F20101112_AABEYZ ko_b_Page_277.tif
1fdcdd3a5acbd954c6cd8063c633c9b4
3fb1715a5505b6c5b6b737e410b46d842e27cb6e
1498 F20101112_AABDOU ko_b_Page_298thm.jpg
7cd66185457ed232d0269bd9e3556944
1b8d53f07c3ba22242b46aa3cd38f5055616a1c1
4946 F20101112_AABELN ko_b_Page_002.jp2
7346b7e952afc4ad295e479c03b86ed5
ea5dc64b2758e9941e961016abc476e1c7f9dbcc
2267 F20101112_AABFIH ko_b_Page_045.txt
a66c98c83339f535ced8f477e7c7f3fa
85a6a687ba0c50293a403c4a07a07ecf55a236d2
14863 F20101112_AABDBJ ko_b_Page_224.QC.jpg
18fdd2a85d9f3413845c8009a43bb8cc
7f9d57c0bb57b7ba22bc755e267482dbf6fbc420
6799 F20101112_AABFVT ko_b_Page_145thm.jpg
ff9fb1b70cf14f088efbf05b9e464fb2
36d33c32d82a567dae775079f5d240c4f6150c84
4397 F20101112_AABDOV ko_b_Page_224thm.jpg
7725962ac46b4c71586743197ca94e7e
587f1690cdd4de7c05f858678fbc3ac165c7408b
6874 F20101112_AABELO ko_b_Page_003.jp2
241af13f9a46149236359af3c3119967
7dbe0bac03ed42a29dc07eeb82be76ff5df2500e
2160 F20101112_AABFII ko_b_Page_046.txt
ba54a156950ca961335b5f5b2cc81490
5548548ed6f5e86bdbf0693999cc490ae1f3b965
34829 F20101112_AABDBK ko_b_Page_274.pro
2ac4b438463caa0af35fa86b9f664323
cf6639d57e4200b5deb6bfbf2602316f590b850d
7131 F20101112_AABFVU ko_b_Page_146thm.jpg
688bbb0aaaa53f05769bae45c1401476
e4510c4fdceeea571fea69de9bd4b683d43032ef
6913 F20101112_AABDOW ko_b_Page_050thm.jpg
7947a0490d9355947b2a3344d478c0c2
30d94a81849e7dfd7b712c38c0b68f1700d3bdbb
100496 F20101112_AABELP ko_b_Page_004.jp2
6a257d90e4a0b0e90a7f36a8587c1fbb
50ba8feff4ec3f21f32799007bd685319ac1f4ed
6658 F20101112_AABDBL ko_b_Page_055thm.jpg
8ae5f444b72dc078d6b8f8bcab75e128
4ea818131139340287cc127d15ce9e358a6a71e0
7100 F20101112_AABFVV ko_b_Page_147thm.jpg
40241ad4648b8138f7b110880ea046bf
84a7bb7b1b0eecc279bd9acf32ee7a3b00104db1
4276 F20101112_AABDOX ko_b_Page_007.txt
73de9f55e12687d6c0221c7dd6984b36
ef007c24d3dd7e1e8e1daf0bfa2badeb1ba167cd
1051969 F20101112_AABELQ ko_b_Page_007.jp2
5acdb17d34f0684959d84611c65d56f7
e6fbf3824a4d305cc2188ab04f85c0c947bf8f6b
2198 F20101112_AABFIJ ko_b_Page_049.txt
37ae5bc809967c4de91f49b96d8ccf79
80ed7eadc44feeccc4272444a871807479665d0e
2223 F20101112_AABDBM ko_b_Page_093.txt
3799feb72c8410476a56d4bef3e075f4
d73d3fffa9109df68cb166cc2d3f747298656526
25608 F20101112_AABDOY ko_b_Page_076.QC.jpg
6e23e8ccb6fdafc3af1c830e343494aa
418bc8a7fdf14d4a10ebb84400a89d2e7adfd9a4
F20101112_AABELR ko_b_Page_008.jp2
03c884ff18d9de3cddfd154f5b6d69a0
fff02d706eb97e1627352220e60417389cf32907
2133 F20101112_AABFIK ko_b_Page_050.txt
19eb7c9c0e87e7b36adf873ea9de02de
057b98f409e9c197f7266f30adb76bdc364641d1
26003 F20101112_AABDBN ko_b_Page_081.QC.jpg
8c449d2c7957da063c70d78d2ac74141
05b62d6ae261b9979384d317d54003d75f163413
7182 F20101112_AABFVW ko_b_Page_148thm.jpg
6a3a1add9ccc0dd7fb77b37283de98cd
e9deba8039350d230e4c9a1411a8977107b38232
20897 F20101112_AABDOZ ko_b_Page_208.QC.jpg
d94093b26356579d06d8e2df70015663
9a7ff95591c7562e5a7bf631ae4a20fdf903c386
1051963 F20101112_AABELS ko_b_Page_010.jp2
50b7688f471c4178c503cb68ba26ea6c
339281cdadd9dcd0ea582f6d928029ca03721cd5
2102 F20101112_AABFIL ko_b_Page_051.txt
fe0c4415412140f8e675d86eedf10874
36b23af5b46c6721a21b628608dfb0fb8f9296ce
50468 F20101112_AABDBO ko_b_Page_152.pro
5116584d84bf4bac71e357ec66822f36
073102385a5336f961ed79835f14f753b8a27f28
24675 F20101112_AABFVX ko_b_Page_149.QC.jpg
ad2c4446721e769f664229574723185b
b894f3733be11d08f06819138ce3d8725328c237
1051977 F20101112_AABELT ko_b_Page_012.jp2
819ef5e05a887fa2cf1803c5aa0df888
93753329974bf20525f57f8d381d56e0cf9c7314
F20101112_AABFIM ko_b_Page_053.txt
028f5f01e4832a704be57cc6ad65abbc
f41cc19aea3a6c2798b5013731d19fb9c6127a16
F20101112_AABDBP ko_b_Page_031.tif
fdd1be4be808e3d5e880e09950bb301d
6a470c8bbbc33af16eef7b201d29ee64b083e0b3
6955 F20101112_AABFVY ko_b_Page_149thm.jpg
318e6bcb1daff6602edd9beb2dcf533b
3d1380198372874ed18f17b2610fe39869999c9a
1051982 F20101112_AABELU ko_b_Page_013.jp2
27f43b0cacd3974249f485ab63f51148
ca9b79fef3a1e477c2c8439821f148db737ab273
2123 F20101112_AABFIN ko_b_Page_055.txt
5bc76cf1e454d39c2a90b381769e15b3
e76ca2c66988cde0376038bc6b7fdac81461e18d
1051973 F20101112_AABCXA ko_b_Page_164.jp2
5c763601742523fdc01fbfef0b37c5e7
7326aaa5dfe948e3d897e639942f23ad9d6e8b70
3029 F20101112_AABDBQ ko_b_Page_213thm.jpg
9bec431b5ff512fb80ca9db15ef77cef
37fa3709ce87e522bcb51a891a811b00d0a26309
7642 F20101112_AABFVZ ko_b_Page_150thm.jpg
51bb5da0f44c3f218a5f0d0fde0e9488
11d9440d3580d59fc912116d9e5e19df2ed1dd74
56298 F20101112_AABELV ko_b_Page_015.jp2
b594c361cd22c7d1effe732dd02acda4
88f389f69606dad1964e425c0651c9e67091b13f
2016 F20101112_AABFIO ko_b_Page_056.txt
0913d0753793bd9d425581d6835572d9
06a4661b3d0794a462f4813cc5f2dc11ac442770
7495 F20101112_AABCXB ko_b_Page_295thm.jpg
76c954e08f08b234b72b318e7d5a9074
73c0f62ff5ed6ec611694c4f0b1aa262d3c96e16
2143 F20101112_AABDBR ko_b_Page_047.txt
85faa7b022251fe77c92cc9adb7244f6
3be947ebb6e75afba513d3f94b41dfbbee0b7b03
96904 F20101112_AABELW ko_b_Page_017.jp2
200c4ae1c5228391895625b955252b2c
f84f61af019c8e6b65219286e9f2c583f63cdc18
2168 F20101112_AABFIP ko_b_Page_059.txt
7b1cc5ca52580d586f95b893eb266620
00b09af9396091565da84db6007333fc570463cc
64335 F20101112_AABCXC ko_b_Page_058.jpg
18c9d2093889d24479e28a6020aa729c
1ac0328cf7f067d66ed9767c0d7e4f3e907f58e8
F20101112_AABDBS ko_b_Page_188.tif
46263d3a218ca4103bc415bd6b80ed03
416dbccb2d139c2a3e57d46b509b28a1f328f0a9
38965 F20101112_AABELX ko_b_Page_019.jp2
4cef47afbbbc2aa04bdfb0432d7b0bfd
ed1765934a2698307a8fead0a3490d70d9bcf930
2036 F20101112_AABFIQ ko_b_Page_060.txt
307c1e1bd7b333714c8e730f1230075c
9ac5be97352a6a6bac61f4d50f17e89a796e9ebb
120037 F20101112_AABCXD ko_b_Page_093.jp2
1f50242b6afdff8b7fcd3083de85d8b6
b82b8a39b57e7e77548cb043e279aa40876d9a12
2278 F20101112_AABDBT ko_b_Page_116.txt
852431609f4210283dd98cca9f7269b2
4f0fbcef03275e40851e9fc6d25e07b88a3e96a5
112927 F20101112_AABELY ko_b_Page_020.jp2
e7f0829becae83b185208c28769e3c76
943b3d3fdb210dca66cb73b0b3663fdd4c824aad
2131 F20101112_AABFIR ko_b_Page_061.txt
faa10c6e5eab77a17355be6ad578a7d5
df3522cf5621fdf60f2a885f439be218c1b86cd6
F20101112_AABCXE ko_b_Page_077.tif
6ecfa0c819bc22c5204cb0c23c68d878
616fdeeb3df5309b2b611113308cccb513288e55
119509 F20101112_AABDBU ko_b_Page_049.jp2
bf22fcaf8e104181c8d599e503de1fcf
f0fd33e16b8d0a76131c49245e9ff867588cc98c
119961 F20101112_AABELZ ko_b_Page_022.jp2
f9bba508e74c24322b5db0168be31c69
f69171ce201b43ed10b1509b2637275c096aaff1
1807 F20101112_AABFIS ko_b_Page_062.txt
2ce34ce789d61a53d3c4cfe730967d66
7ed2724a3b23a9ce64ccc89cea1998efe97b8bb7
54277 F20101112_AABCXF ko_b_Page_104.pro
6926cc9908d117e09202cd5165019e89
27c8675dca178ee933ff715648ec9330b8c989d4
108126 F20101112_AABDBV ko_b_Page_227.jp2
378b868d912cfd1fde2e2fed204b45be
d203ab058397bdfceb7d1011b7d741c918c4b1c2
2239 F20101112_AABFIT ko_b_Page_064.txt
a1705b7e52d37dfdee1d49c66642b6cd
ca761e354dccbaa1e14babf019b49838078abb7b
6973 F20101112_AABCXG ko_b_Page_163thm.jpg
a659b5f5925a2d574e403970044eb7ac
43a17cae256443a48a20a347b2ffc31041a062fc
26270 F20101112_AABDBW ko_b_Page_174.QC.jpg
997dbbfe175bfef1c6e3ba73172c1356
1130f06591e05676731f69a8ff160239ab4b2f96
214315 F20101112_AABDUA ko_b_Page_214.jp2
94d9b4af07187292c40369b74724ee2d
6d070e48dab10cd7d65e35d3956576d0aa114693
2064 F20101112_AABFIU ko_b_Page_067.txt
385bb4b67002613a275f4e964e71de3b
c2cadfb5ff9172dacbd4fdf863d78de10935a4f1
3615 F20101112_AABCXH ko_b_Page_210thm.jpg
0e17a7dbb2f31f82bf0d3213295e6323
5cbffaa86c0166e30ee2f57896aebf679281e3a3
54126 F20101112_AABDBX ko_b_Page_164.pro
a85ad4e91fca9a58306ab5595a1cd998
baf6ef3ff74747c53cc06422a6999c650a4afaad
79613 F20101112_AABDUB ko_b_Page_136.jpg
d1383f46b6859585b96dc231953a2f22
2d416395dd20fe20acba78a3ebf8642422a639e3
2110 F20101112_AABFIV ko_b_Page_068.txt
6f46501dd97f1f03d9d976b7a6b7658f
2a994c2ec8cebecdc88e3a1880755be9b5edc5ee
78410 F20101112_AABCXI ko_b_Page_129.jpg
b3407c47734d54a7251021a78d9e1f3a
f2b90374663678bf6e78823fd71004f991d85770
115230 F20101112_AABDBY ko_b_Page_034.jp2
9469fa961029a22c967666cecfa0c1ff
059867eb7015e8d4ef8554ced562d5c71c2d8a0c
83353 F20101112_AABDUC ko_b_Page_307.jpg
152661a67de7043593710a65cf88d85e
bc65cf588877a282e21ea7f9a7b56bdcabcbf389
2091 F20101112_AABFIW ko_b_Page_069.txt
af16a16841c2dcdca317a8a6a9dd3dc4
090666b3cab4119c3d61071e8848c77f0418eb1d
114376 F20101112_AABCXJ ko_b_Page_180.jp2
91f1cbe99a5551319296aa7c7be8b352
dc5424f8d53e7bf14a715130613a3878fd162249
534 F20101112_AABDBZ ko_b_Page_293.txt
ec12de6178340f6726f3a695cb7bcf76
298a7a080f5e076cb127b9c9dfb39edb64cc8814
26444 F20101112_AABDUD ko_b_Page_184.QC.jpg
f54871774debfb7bfb46f62eb8523577
b0de08d22cd72bc5fab7bad2deb26c82fc096aae
2118 F20101112_AABFIX ko_b_Page_070.txt
768a3b3b74cd8130bacaebd2c4cbef1a
b6addcac32fa7420941dc3124321cd37e3ffc1ad
7727 F20101112_AABCXK ko_b_Page_264.QC.jpg
5c0b69e73eb8f0a87e800121533b2cba
ef8ce5473f684277570a36ab47e9299cb58d597a
506 F20101112_AABDUE ko_b_Page_016.txt
f9efd2e7649451103548897f08dc3ca1
07b50f4b12b05b37961e64374a352187fbc8d1bb
1966 F20101112_AABFIY ko_b_Page_073.txt
3914d3364eac330114dce39da8b5e64b
1cd32e606188a004b37159fdca63da79d2adb20c
345 F20101112_AABCXL ko_b_Page_114.txt
243a56f458d7d3de65540dd0b2419f22
44e1d7c98af739dffdde233ad2127f1747426038
3699 F20101112_AABDUF ko_b_Page_197thm.jpg
4768ab9d5e6cc1bf11684e6a925d9d94
f2cb53b44ac24c0e15370abfa91d34808b5db945
2265 F20101112_AABFIZ ko_b_Page_074.txt
91ceb44c5e72e4c9f81a6a0cb8aa692b
889b45285378dc63b30525409c5d12be5d80abcc
118236 F20101112_AABCXM ko_b_Page_173.jp2
8626635e58a912aec45d6c9a9681e8db
991442ea2198aadf1f083796245921b7327239b8
F20101112_AABDUG ko_b_Page_105.tif
3da347559649a95d8ae705432ae8bc88
52f4a7488ec453d4ba61067df1852afd79b00323
26345 F20101112_AABCXN ko_b_Page_132.QC.jpg
a74fed27929b2ce8bd9a65dcebfa1222
a54337be9fb853acf45063a681e7b65e5f27a8f9
2116 F20101112_AABDUH ko_b_Page_031.txt
7b259e0b9406075d2b0a847a64d8987d
569bd475ef89995c5cc76e049f4a08d8de5e12b3
108738 F20101112_AABERA ko_b_Page_246.jp2
ff2b6dc9e2e45ccc53db0d2751faa98d
5f809e57962541d1f5c2e417123c9086501e102e
25627 F20101112_AABCXO ko_b_Page_090.QC.jpg
326d4bd467dfb0d62ba1961ed7f75eb3
3088e87be630355a6d80e3ce95dd7be9f4b3752b
F20101112_AABDUI ko_b_Page_267.tif
c1aabcbc0fe70ce932dba65b9b88fd2b
8df4768b1b2a862695515642b2398da13246f990
122653 F20101112_AABERB ko_b_Page_247.jp2
ccebd19c69a53bc67199395177b20cbf
d75c74b9df2473e288ca28416f25273d9f75d2bf
F20101112_AABCXP ko_b_Page_054.tif
a488a7cf474805fdbef91587c0bf6966
10c01801b34867576276f65319d363972b9f8e9d
2161 F20101112_AABDUJ ko_b_Page_155.txt
03e8ff7ace761b8fd07f55d131f0e991
5bb82968dc39f82900eab615032bf3546e677c03
110036 F20101112_AABERC ko_b_Page_248.jp2
bee87b5a31de0af72da05060adf797dd
a0950e613c5aee5e1b50e9a50d78e6db2e16ddeb
26069 F20101112_AABCXQ ko_b_Page_014.pro
a93c61f09223ee40e83e3b8900e5fe8e
5f80b089c9ade4c3015f93a96f9ab3369b54d4d8
104574 F20101112_AABDUK ko_b_Page_024.jp2
cf225dcb412c718cbd6aba10bef301b7
8f6fadd7653a6fe48a56420acfbf402a87a07870
116755 F20101112_AABERD ko_b_Page_249.jp2
b2cccdba8f20cdbcb35ca483242e0e59
403429f0f6e6a2e09e18c937c780ee748e0d6666
97828 F20101112_AABCXR ko_b_Page_310.jp2
e1d27f1aadd5142c770624ad607e3383
52f09070c182891d66941431052f434442d7135a
1465 F20101112_AABDUL ko_b_Page_099.txt
4446bef0255873a758fd09eb018fd88e
d6e83f7c7c79d6351527553f2a324d5b34b7e0a2
111070 F20101112_AABERE ko_b_Page_250.jp2
2dde0e6ce1ebdf5fc4cdf9cfc2c6bd3b
3895151f0b3bcab70acc8d6abd7b3759b6073bf4
11137 F20101112_AABDHA ko_b_Page_225.QC.jpg
ded51524cc870315c8e6153f5f5a0008
c93bbdc1ea8ba25e4c4ac6c95f46b3544a2eafd7
F20101112_AABCXS ko_b_Page_125.tif
4600c3ca1054468a3d50414f008e9ad4
100260921132b77d2f4b0d8f8c3e3b2b544e67a3
118666 F20101112_AABDUM ko_b_Page_119.jp2
f69c2ee6f95f7ef876b42fa610013730
e2ca49990908c0757e010dbc8f0d3170c77b7768
118042 F20101112_AABERF ko_b_Page_251.jp2
01f293a5c6764cb854950f15f5ac151a
8c9a4cb319dc95cd94287fcdd513f08937e6c97c
6606 F20101112_AABDHB ko_b_Page_221thm.jpg
18406a2699002690e3a4cea415caf7e6
e1427c5cff7daea2032dcb69342de99acc015296
115471 F20101112_AABCXT ko_b_Page_205.jp2
8a49d81c21c7f71bb7061c77e71b520a
55f49463f96fb6bb0fb24270c0898600cd2db1a6
F20101112_AABDUN ko_b_Page_283.tif
f463585484ca5b013907aea828515d2a
2337016b83cdd3f3e7eff4b7abe2c59ad2c94fbb
144620 F20101112_AABERG ko_b_Page_253.jp2
6b5f137807a97873bab2d90f4981e149
718bc4c7791c09dc8ac4df1c98296e9f6f36034d
11171 F20101112_AABDHC ko_b_Page_212.QC.jpg
03150ea6c96dcb48b8522982eaa4a2ad
6c100e2d15bd03f9d428bb0494f0c22f8bd3b736
F20101112_AABCXU ko_b_Page_262.tif
ec63ef5f26a44627dc4ea659d58721dc
9529e5bc2e015bca6c23460476a08e23f0115bb5
2540 F20101112_AABFOA ko_b_Page_284.txt
3a2eaa570970f2bb27bc04c97647d025
5e34da64920ba1ac9fa6da73bd7d1f34b96f6ba9
24651 F20101112_AABDUO ko_b_Page_123.QC.jpg
c827c71fa183fe9855600508f8273519
b1b32503c60c337c221f89a55be92973adac2c86
90603 F20101112_AABERH ko_b_Page_254.jp2
9bfff84e48a75e83654189c67d1f4ec8
aa61184b3b89ba0874dbdbb1b8b0546d017f1e9c
76799 F20101112_AABDHD ko_b_Page_179.jpg
52906267c772e1fac8e898aae017db22
f1caa0fbc7e46ee13a4971e32284a6c277448abc
55764 F20101112_AABCXV ko_b_Page_105.pro
8889f5fa29b9fc3ccc83f1a76f6c98ee
d7f23fc06cc2d69ffd102f353ab9821c928c5200
2399 F20101112_AABFOB ko_b_Page_287.txt
a9390c659602aa6c0fbf984118889508
b46dd6f81533a4a771fd952bae332ee2433aff5c
F20101112_AABDUP ko_b_Page_299.tif
c9dc9f09191912afb2c843f86715a4e5
2f221851f7d2c2f3c7c9e11afa5c6b734ab6bac7
116845 F20101112_AABERI ko_b_Page_255.jp2
ffc61594473ff40b9608fb8e18894a00
3562c217bff98b6fdda492a0b18304bf8ece80fc
13747 F20101112_AABDHE ko_b_Page_025.QC.jpg
ca7e400b9c1960cb2d9e43efe4517e93
32870e5a7851b263f2233af1748a07cccfec576d
1658 F20101112_AABCXW ko_b_Page_003.pro
287b62ea0c729fa000073f1422ffc9a4
9a1d93f9a16761ece11bb8402942cb3f3a141168
2468 F20101112_AABFOC ko_b_Page_288.txt
2222c3bb0cedd60aa50029a418d89b4b
e4f0d6f1d491c36668b6c838883cb13aa7141d12
15874 F20101112_AABDUQ ko_b_Page_218.QC.jpg
ddffb8de51935af6551070ed8a19db08
5bfe93589c3d08079056ab2f01e32f4b3e8433be
7838 F20101112_AABERJ ko_b_Page_257.jp2
fd863d5640aebf7fd9179690cfaeba1a
80683d733f8d9641e3b5b68937b33f29d7f40758
67330 F20101112_AABDHF ko_b_Page_115.jpg
846e4cd8a2ac39c886c57fcd29dc8e43
f22c480a50c92cf3604591c9a49a5cf5613609da
6684 F20101112_AABCXX ko_b_Page_068thm.jpg
1a79acf1bf13eb7dc7348ffd0c0a67c7
5e1b49f3b3b02d1dfcb19aca27170c761c263b75
2522 F20101112_AABFOD ko_b_Page_290.txt
811397aab9442d043ded2b6d67f53d1f
7d78ecae0a36c4237f82e55268003f67ad477563
F20101112_AABDUR ko_b_Page_256.tif
1bec2c56e4913c695f52d1f99668b8e8
1284271eb8e029d16ac30ad8564862c4342d505d
1051962 F20101112_AABERK ko_b_Page_258.jp2
a11177fe1e5e7564c6778663682fd8d6
71b52523a06f853237f186309b19a1af9db68429
F20101112_AABDHG ko_b_Page_275.tif
7df01c85409e7617cd39910e5b57ffa9
8521d9c899b6fa1ba491fcd3434f54727cbb4e2d
F20101112_AABCXY ko_b_Page_058.tif
e00eaa75028b760019c3be4b90354b71
aea9f22a9f2a4d17c2e3d54f703280372634dbf1
897 F20101112_AABFOE ko_b_Page_292.txt
e005fb50fa7129204b6cb619f5db37f8
3f714e9295c135451c90088773fb5e9b4ef7ffdc
14266 F20101112_AABDUS ko_b_Page_109.QC.jpg
0a0ce22303dd41f098adb59c4f212a00
8c6545c10d0b956d03cd12fd53599df06086be3d
6788 F20101112_AABERL ko_b_Page_259.jp2
93d9fa64601c215ee8b2165045ca5c7f
8ed10b529f8bb37767682faf8c208c30b27dfeb4
78801 F20101112_AABDHH ko_b_Page_119.jpg
2735edecd15fa0451c28e41161fb6ec5
3252e3f02baf95e253e9bd084a6e26e56c2a80a9
1458 F20101112_AABCXZ ko_b_Page_112.txt
f5f410356bbc22a52c9e2c64d1e46eae
afaffd722d47a98d68a9f0a2a4055fedd7ba3ed7
F20101112_AABFOF ko_b_Page_295.txt
c0e39ad13ed1c3b219bb1e470b942ce2
7c7bd0d202df7d6341f45a76cdd9361eb1f7956f
26712 F20101112_AABDUT ko_b_Page_181.QC.jpg
f97a5ad599b887e9741434abfc5ba082
011b0be96ea45a2978d5c71c989d90ba097d1348
1051972 F20101112_AABERM ko_b_Page_260.jp2
2b02a07cf67d87c2d09eb4fbf7716224
943b0e87bc96ddc8f5776e236e6142935613e7bf
47577 F20101112_AABDHI ko_b_Page_194.pro
f3e6d5323c5ff1a03e3bdf2b1357170b
12396449918385993baaa2dd45f0cc5a2723d8fd
2575 F20101112_AABFOG ko_b_Page_297.txt
e6a1382d6fb04c48ceba103b22d3a301
c927ac2f3769cb67f16630a687ca71e8a5365e11
2172 F20101112_AABDUU ko_b_Page_028.txt
cb4d5a92470d5cbb95380aa92f3b3072
a33b5b7c808e4e4e6d8f416f44967acfe84cecc7
9671 F20101112_AABERN ko_b_Page_261.jp2
e0b8d07cd308e6a7349940725d74dcf5
0e02d6bd0e6323309e7005e21482343a3105faca
52612 F20101112_AABDHJ ko_b_Page_135.pro
bd89033ce29f49e9b9fc1be1b15327c0
4189c47b4b682a1038b724660e6f84260e6961be
9828 F20101112_AABEEC ko_b_Page_002.jpg
3876806beccc37ccc7c480f3225f5f64
2033a1b4b27be9a26af6d86b8887230a7cdc3ee8
102 F20101112_AABFOH ko_b_Page_298.txt
ad09b74fc21b93d53619b7148ab40080
4db01c119ce01a48ec515d1f57386f36daa24e11
13716 F20101112_AABDUV ko_b_Page_222.QC.jpg
bdd8911f0074886d55f71bd678962da9
5c96fad695ed2756d24c9beb23b44228237ff06e
1051950 F20101112_AABERO ko_b_Page_262.jp2
1f360e938c704498abd421399b27f140
92d209e8a9e2a44bb4cad54e59a9bdb07aec9327
81621 F20101112_AABEED ko_b_Page_006.jpg
f26e3b85a5e498eb8bd67e09015b9d7e
aa68b70b2eacd95508425ee093e8ea0be70a6d1b
3423 F20101112_AABFOI ko_b_Page_299.txt
b057c21f86a0e1a8ce07beb320ae37a4
07ee6b276cfcf58f784726065255963db3b59998
121096 F20101112_AABDUW ko_b_Page_132.jp2
031295250e9ceafdb998b539b1735475
0fe6a0067a903bd3d4e1001eebdee293156f9abe
338332 F20101112_AABERP ko_b_Page_264.jp2
84b512c4c139772cdbe3df6b68899502
08e861709c0f54711f5c5b7f69ac937bc8a400e5
1051947 F20101112_AABDHK ko_b_Page_276.jp2
61517a8856ff55c49bb30efb582cef7a
199eba53818fac6edf4abdcb528faf1fff9dfe40
74227 F20101112_AABEEE ko_b_Page_009.jpg
1ab9669aba2b86b31e4141aefbf463ee
9716f0b3419d1bec2586a474024d0a6fb94e1142
2484 F20101112_AABFOJ ko_b_Page_300.txt
a92706410b21f5fbaaf7c9a0f1b21230
b9cca4e4ee96815d9505855ef61c81d27e00b3c6
F20101112_AABERQ ko_b_Page_265.jp2
8d0e98ce277195af250274bde2571da3
9733d6bcc3132a605b13bf0636929e5e1475bf6b
F20101112_AABDHL ko_b_Page_245.txt
b9cbaaef68939dc169c325a395e7930d
940b27f9276f0e61f41051b9fc669f3b1d69b423
85439 F20101112_AABEEF ko_b_Page_010.jpg
9263edea4476e43eb88b5cbe0c6656e8
405b59bb44d84d4adde5add8cf76ff4db720d32c
92 F20101112_AABFOK ko_b_Page_302.txt
92d0faf60938bc09b911461af2206b7c
0461fb1952c963b1bded2dc9c3a8fc30ff31b41d
F20101112_AABDUX ko_b_Page_013.tif
aac0b3561851e73fc21e9b9bb8218866
d7eb70327967bda2841ea9c34bd8eb130e6522cb
108859 F20101112_AABERR ko_b_Page_266.jp2
5fb33da516801b50f7ba41baf42af699
2fbf897e0fedef52a118b7f7e53c3e4649a2d4d4
F20101112_AABDHM ko_b_Page_011.jp2
b12c9f98382bb078a0055597052a849f
c315346b08dbe85064994e14a99b795d3d699fe5
2761 F20101112_AABFOL ko_b_Page_303.txt
25377ecd18700a2e890df56ea4fee858
73dba9c72455dc2703b8f1d9934b9333284f0f93
421 F20101112_AABDUY ko_b_Page_005.txt
19dda900bb4683a7cad630ef24663d61
72f52a3b41374603586b23328692c1f5acd4cba9
53111 F20101112_AABFBA ko_b_Page_059.pro
a4a300b1687440ff413da114f2dd5c7a
9a3e4b5ebde80fa44561c6048a8ef5c72de3e0d6
105851 F20101112_AABERS ko_b_Page_268.jp2
3564c05d2ddf010b9a3b69664ceb4c61
e727701c09b09e05d366edafc8b62748388f5c29
24438 F20101112_AABDHN ko_b_Page_071.QC.jpg
363a10886c0131ed0824d2c82bc74ce0
e547cdb13aaebb1a4bde0f579a360bfe46f4fae9
73532 F20101112_AABEEG ko_b_Page_012.jpg
c54f2d6f71b631f3d7c61810cea00004
062d4928290a785edb7e1f987e60e02c76a78fbe
2077 F20101112_AABFOM ko_b_Page_305.txt
e8a4d90c1c9ec86b2f50a48f0a4bbaa0
77eede9268e5c567bcc77947ee70d1f7e7b3cb66
16628 F20101112_AABDUZ ko_b_Page_264.pro
0daa16c4a7842a3277fea0a134c671d5
4510c65454299a99d0d107ce4c22fbe0c9f38449
53199 F20101112_AABFBB ko_b_Page_061.pro
9f0520a433ce79628fb93c92bc3c2428
820f8da057961f6ddd8bcded5344f447e8bcebcc
3549 F20101112_AABDHO ko_b_Page_229thm.jpg
7d27f4f02815bf67e5393ba86f0a5313
7c8ba2d5b696e621b0ad21a6a0d51b2a5548c271
64250 F20101112_AABEEH ko_b_Page_013.jpg
3f152088693b6ee93dbb8e5a48ca6d78
ee4cd0cf04a08fcc9849415671e83193cd2eff15
2321 F20101112_AABFON ko_b_Page_307.txt
4eea2ac8a91cde194009af413cf14747
78f3aa627a0abad060d0e121e2b5844ee57b3127
93494 F20101112_AABERT ko_b_Page_270.jp2
ffae99388284f3eaf0f152ee8855c0a4
b6f81c076e75781df8b837a4ff2695e786ce9071
62940 F20101112_AABDHP ko_b_Page_187.jpg
5f12c1854caa74b4b1069bb87c03ab6f
6167632f41ffba25a162a8c55705abe86128b970
46408 F20101112_AABEEI ko_b_Page_014.jpg
01b7c29109520bc55dc0b9697318c6ce
9cdfba0e1d660a51be1c7730ff3b60c27d032e25
2463 F20101112_AABFOO ko_b_Page_308.txt
5b5aa0e7a57c388f894c04f57963c787
8d47eb4664a1323152d48c561a2c1415e584c9f2
45266 F20101112_AABFBC ko_b_Page_062.pro
804dbbe04379a8b90df1b380f7b8d0da
678fbf89bb3c159b56ccc331e72294affad396cd
6830 F20101112_AABERU ko_b_Page_278.jp2
af56dbac7d8210cd4c86d8e013244d90
53b99bc5949b8d2b4364a965064489c439b54f65
54308 F20101112_AABDHQ ko_b_Page_044.pro
691f76076fb366e8d524ea9153a08d50
fdbf15df913011ed587a8e97a8462dd1d793577a
40366 F20101112_AABEEJ ko_b_Page_015.jpg
a06cbf54c1facf60e24bd6fd357156b7
7ed8a4399807a2155d73e1196edb6476cf2e2880
56407 F20101112_AABFBD ko_b_Page_064.pro
5ddcf5e2fef1f43d0fab487560e21f4b
7f9f1f81e139274c97c9e4b759a382a9bb7cfc74
1051983 F20101112_AABERV ko_b_Page_283.jp2
b68c1401a59dfe0015ca429bd9030de8
9a298821ef5fbe7cef4253312a4c8ee35035639a
52644 F20101112_AABDHR ko_b_Page_026.pro
87621256c82a64f7e6be19815fdb3b47
28859e5c613fedf38ccc9c1751b3b4f674b895f6
77360 F20101112_AABEEK ko_b_Page_018.jpg
4b03d18ebf80599c25598162d34df5e5
c3b5c97dc94d00ef0c6fcf4e25a0e5f7722076d7
1758 F20101112_AABFOP ko_b_Page_310.txt
1cffe717b02157e4a6e8e1f2bb59c1e5
f2e59e45837dcbb5748f5b64cef58f3e884451f8
52019 F20101112_AABFBE ko_b_Page_065.pro
d36916bd0eddc42f26854dc6c5e063e2
ede22059cf0842ff322f98a20245e4375e39c99d
1051979 F20101112_AABERW ko_b_Page_286.jp2
5ed5c89ed5f91e0ad46daba300e5f89b
a6ab3118df34ab8d39c058a1e507233e66e9b53e
F20101112_AABDHS ko_b_Page_036.tif
aeb8e42203ba259e2baba3a59301db74
82b63a08b0420df458e31501fc837a5e38fac780
69093 F20101112_AABEEL ko_b_Page_024.jpg
3d73a4dfca1acb89d57f23b84f8902c5
f57fc19fdbb4d735d0fbd24cc8902b90e5785c0e
349 F20101112_AABFOQ ko_b_Page_312.txt
99317aaed7d1bd54301e5983150997df
b12d69561364d2da2d7fcf2028fea21438026865
51824 F20101112_AABFBF ko_b_Page_067.pro
b2d9e0add1c731b1ac67f6ad6cff3842
c5ce238041c0d835d030a723ad7d10c506ecfbca
1051946 F20101112_AABERX ko_b_Page_288.jp2
faa6bb5aabca3815128518bd3a5dbf32
352d041eb611eb74f4e396d6921eca719c5a2de1
F20101112_AABDHT ko_b_Page_034.tif
8a58f7c777ea7d5f532756f9e1959b17
d1300c7cffcba1a67977213bd74106521147f808
75632 F20101112_AABEEM ko_b_Page_026.jpg
299c41906935e1cd62e9e76b076cdc84
fbd26adbcc10e9a7c80bb8e0976700a585daf3ce
3900286 F20101112_AABFOR ko_b.pdf
a59eb7568cb104eea1da84715230e0cd
533294e2f04fcba54e9f1c33605a083146883bbb
53521 F20101112_AABFBG ko_b_Page_068.pro
1d37d3ae6183139c9c0b6bb28c803cd3
9fd32a6aa158da15f8d0f6a01b1489a10005d5bd
1051931 F20101112_AABERY ko_b_Page_289.jp2
1a5158000ecb837b6726feeb7e42be2d
9c654cf9679d5b3e0e6e1e0b6e72271805496b58
111797 F20101112_AABDHU ko_b_Page_133.jp2
aaf9171f3e73dfa47ce84cd251609bb4
0740b3aa9f85857ca7ffe42bcf4ae4d83325f31e
80185 F20101112_AABEEN ko_b_Page_029.jpg
79627766b057fc76bcb430473c671530
d04ce0b29b9fd478aebddacf49d7132483375695
3181 F20101112_AABFOS ko_b_Page_002.QC.jpg
3fe759fe3b2d90f16574687bd43d18d6
034868cab205ced07889fb73cc4021cebd7a6159
52720 F20101112_AABFBH ko_b_Page_070.pro
f70de1bc7bc134cb1f2b35ffe586ef1a
4ea809774b9be69500a7fdeea01b2ccbbb1c16bc
1051975 F20101112_AABERZ ko_b_Page_290.jp2
934974689d882d87d221b5d5615894e2
61e3fc86af2283b3d1223ed3d8d97f4e0c8a91a8
7104 F20101112_AABDHV ko_b_Page_044thm.jpg
bb0dd873d3aee0a0801788c1df8d275e
20b2b584b5de7c7635a8524ce454404fa8b721c1
70118 F20101112_AABEEO ko_b_Page_030.jpg
2227b5f5636b309be61b751f2a968691
f1ae4d7ee5cf9162e355355ef7589fb4f133879d
1311 F20101112_AABFOT ko_b_Page_002thm.jpg
327f0e25ad9a835ade109334ac22e2b4
32026396bd5b05fa48d182ff6323d13652506537
53894 F20101112_AABFBI ko_b_Page_072.pro
9564fb5f727f2ad26bd5c5a5ec984234
403cd0f0d453a895aa94d6a3fdea22578c15af3b
F20101112_AABDHW ko_b_Page_251.tif
5b31ad6245283177d1ed50a856cf9136
242132b3fe7cbee6aef02648995d6748d5b99f50
74220 F20101112_AABEEP ko_b_Page_032.jpg
b11ad417e3c296311c9e9d0f9e4e9700
ba9d361221fc149c2ea69d3d8cb143f16306365f
21901 F20101112_AABFOU ko_b_Page_004.QC.jpg
6bef9693bba3e686cac71c51f790d8cf
13fe9bdd598075d9542173d17b9dbeb6dadfc308
57838 F20101112_AABFBJ ko_b_Page_074.pro
f0babae6d66c22d42826fa4a33d89d05
c81b2585504b5d7a9b7850336bfd717f5177b7b9
F20101112_AABDHX ko_b_Page_204.tif
781ba427ce58c5e253cb1fcba085099e
fc3f38a5a7a248e194442a2b746a91a29df08dd6
74305 F20101112_AABEEQ ko_b_Page_034.jpg
f4448c8869e8f8a3363fc81a4d894f0a
7f75e4dac1bec2b721edb84e543995c3a9f28320
6189 F20101112_AABFOV ko_b_Page_004thm.jpg
f51e99faf56564563dc3174a8f0f12cf
1493409b7fb634110ab60ce306162a2bc897b318
55839 F20101112_AABFBK ko_b_Page_077.pro
aafd758e59f98e70306d59eba5dc0169
81ebe52cbeabdbd411830f7b6f058cf860221c59
F20101112_AABDHY ko_b_Page_167.tif
989c2266975e2c7f62e8ba49fc3da853
1ddb445ee2ffda1975ed67cc19bdb36692f08849
81116 F20101112_AABEER ko_b_Page_037.jpg
fcb2d4ffe1425cf4a63d8567c61ab981
c54f0317213662542794671481d224d0d1412577
6945 F20101112_AABFOW ko_b_Page_005.QC.jpg
fbecffddd77e89bfbaac998233c8a123
cfac5c214161aaa510d6d4a92128b5345619f176
53928 F20101112_AABFBL ko_b_Page_078.pro
5e7ebb910a7ade11f050d72cb0066037
bda07f5bd6ffc9fe349f1e89dbe2d3024a2720ae
478 F20101112_AABDHZ ko_b_Page_001.txt
6668cef6345797cca804ce00dc090b94
96c2212ea8f48a43afd2fdab9f4fe74e1851b147
80841 F20101112_AABEES ko_b_Page_038.jpg
4113e7b8018651218e5ba943a9af0ac4
8952ab4a80dee31d3c745f0876bf90117cf2c2d1
2369 F20101112_AABFOX ko_b_Page_005thm.jpg
f2b3bacaa630e1512909584358cb4294
6af3ebd54d0f50daed497a3d483bb585f95a776f
52919 F20101112_AABFBM ko_b_Page_079.pro
4cda3f0d5de15f91663764ff49d9a8d8
2449a86271570d14f13355875b06c67bbe51886d
80593 F20101112_AABEET ko_b_Page_039.jpg
f6a6bc6996d415bd1f89449925eef4d6
3dfff43cd15e6732532db24531934135467e3066
28602 F20101112_AABFOY ko_b_Page_007.QC.jpg
60c110fa5241a908e7cec6fedb95d0e6
d60bef1fc1c76e59a2947eac2e91f67ad7e97793
41013 F20101112_AABFBN ko_b_Page_080.pro
0b10c898791ae469a95ddd0a63cc3e06
72713bbd9ee0a1ba6f00da351dc1af05950ab083
77912 F20101112_AABEEU ko_b_Page_041.jpg
676bca5f3014ae1d904bd5241a4e27d6
a3f2e2a4233191def7f074e3bce0c28153c5c554
6843 F20101112_AABFOZ ko_b_Page_007thm.jpg
ec0e524394f2b854f667910a41593b71
eb0899f3a30205468378cdd6a05864557047fec9
54885 F20101112_AABFBO ko_b_Page_081.pro
6a599977e54235318de790814e8e63a4
957df39aa4ad0f152a938f310451fe5e1cd07129
72580 F20101112_AABEEV ko_b_Page_042.jpg
e3aa0086bb00c086e4020fd0f6d34b46
139073a575ccb426599e2135dd30b8aa03919960
52274 F20101112_AABFBP ko_b_Page_082.pro
44b312c307892f80c5ab8ba1aec4dff7
20a027c7f6091d4b8b65cb920a534eae64ce0079
79356 F20101112_AABEEW ko_b_Page_043.jpg
63ec09fa5d49162bbbad9a018100cac3
229200b5312aa02a5df44e63696312ad7bd6b256
F20101112_AABEXA ko_b_Page_202.tif
4bf8a59a811a2748badaa8e6cea12569
04741ef21e0a58a22a060d3ecb7e5832dc21fa33
52685 F20101112_AABFBQ ko_b_Page_083.pro
e59b7f50f561bfeac37b67477a40dbba
9eb91f182a912fc4ea93b27c31f317b71adaf99b
78752 F20101112_AABEEX ko_b_Page_044.jpg
12e119178d328cf2a98ae5fafb8db55d
bfc4d0ce5a94102abfab55224ea93447c1dd7bf1
F20101112_AABEXB ko_b_Page_203.tif
79bc65aff069b6a093c7776c5a106341
89db88f7d4f43788b059dfa13cff33d753f18a90
51471 F20101112_AABFBR ko_b_Page_084.pro
d9990c0a7d50fe414f724fb0a5d0605c
1c353691bcf75fd69c4caf181d390904ab3a8bee
81402 F20101112_AABEEY ko_b_Page_045.jpg
af5ab0e64f5f86480105be6461b89a6c
194c8017914cdbb898c27a0b19efb4ce4d79830f
F20101112_AABEXC ko_b_Page_205.tif
6c36cffd2cdf637f1dd08e667afec0eb
22c7011b3069890375819ffe4e0299f039d9006c
56299 F20101112_AABFBS ko_b_Page_085.pro
cb4a53063948f4342a57c9e8e39ca578
5ae7fe980139a970b165fd2ff84c9fb7c581292a
77635 F20101112_AABEEZ ko_b_Page_046.jpg
0a12cdc7f51c0de6c92af0c679c8f061
485ca90af7642007b39cf54b068cfb01393f90e5
F20101112_AABEXD ko_b_Page_206.tif
f7e1778a6b4a11882d164bc38f363280
73fa000e02c02611956513de577dde28fed57f12
50307 F20101112_AABFBT ko_b_Page_088.pro
655ed8e185f4e46666d1a62fc444904f
a2f32b85653abe5164755abb9f7a9d00a580d267
F20101112_AABEXE ko_b_Page_207.tif
ca3ca5ebdefb619f6688fa57767be377
c15100d343d221107aa28e1610404fc89ff64ef9
55671 F20101112_AABFBU ko_b_Page_090.pro
0126daba9edc3b29b46c1173ae263ed3
a2633031315ad76b27eb490f5a7d8c6caf0870c3
7432 F20101112_AABDNA ko_b_Page_164thm.jpg
d3ae5291213741a79563d6bd2bfa5528
e35fed8695289535d427b41dd26194295fcf3b7b
F20101112_AABEXF ko_b_Page_208.tif
a9439968b8ae62128df9993464625c7c
d07cee2cce2888e9236b7529a6a15671efb2adb5
51590 F20101112_AABFBV ko_b_Page_092.pro
992a3bd20998e0d5a124419df04c89cd
0b8485569b5d5e78fc846ff82ba1ee1075083e3c
24289 F20101112_AABDNB ko_b_Page_246.QC.jpg
79c1f98da3d73f0f74a2403d795fb081
a0da4ce4e22ae13ac6409d805d150e590a2181d2
F20101112_AABEXG ko_b_Page_210.tif
963b17d8c93e660ed1c59f5b7c7eda62
aa48b127a2fe109beade0e3dfc333eba1b99b90a
56620 F20101112_AABFBW ko_b_Page_093.pro
221a82037d4f3089e9ebbe557e44ebc4
887fdeb89b95800a532c01032e52520ee5734417
117935 F20101112_AABDNC ko_b_Page_018.jp2
2b6df8bc7f30ddbe136f0e6e7a9f3326
ce20837b3213d3848ccc2f73a5d7515a4d9199bc
24702 F20101112_AABFUA ko_b_Page_107.QC.jpg
93320e1e188cd13636e06e4ce95a7121
c8763771d5025b86a22b11212b97e1ca974a5741
F20101112_AABEXH ko_b_Page_211.tif
34601ff0d8bd1dc3f095ea4bc931bc18
3b5f10f86b01836e792a8aaf9f5437ba5b7fb4bc
43354 F20101112_AABFBX ko_b_Page_094.pro
46e83474aeb34b92498ea04216a5aa32
c9481e25570e8c7b0c7f306223a6959cce4b07e5
21999 F20101112_AABDND ko_b_Page_204.QC.jpg
3766d12de7a631ed7621d42d614abcf2
1442680ab734be8c22cbc2633223359310d66776
6766 F20101112_AABFUB ko_b_Page_107thm.jpg
fb1c541cf38be0dd974eb6846cd524ab
c1f89b77674c599e4b761e0d2fd71635ea0741d6
F20101112_AABEXI ko_b_Page_212.tif
6a25b3e182cdc932e2fc941d38a732d3
217da5c2c4957fceeb2bae906b4b5800e84ea6b8
59725 F20101112_AABFBY ko_b_Page_095.pro
78a778505646aa411dcfc2da2a1ecf6f
e2fd606cdd3dba73e8920f27b7d27b799857eaf1
79414 F20101112_AABDNE ko_b_Page_036.jpg
0365309d808683863635538015ae20ba
1050c7405c49bfa8db40aad9f03fb88d12a34fc0
19904 F20101112_AABFUC ko_b_Page_108.QC.jpg
b0d24142a8c79a8f19864e5c98132163
e397861c48666558a719343ddb86dc6a6ba05357
F20101112_AABEXJ ko_b_Page_213.tif
983daaebfb13ac2caca8a8a817e5ae65
3355fcd200fd3a1cfd92e537b1c1a157c76f1c6c
54962 F20101112_AABFBZ ko_b_Page_096.pro
561de88ddec6d709f5a8ba118d821e1c
cc9e80642c27bc15f7419f6af84331904f49291c
6825 F20101112_AABDNF ko_b_Page_179thm.jpg
90d0aa11ce82cf1f2803bd1bc771639f
7791766d954de5ad2c10143ff532f6a24725ac37
5773 F20101112_AABFUD ko_b_Page_108thm.jpg
3cf9fbb582c25c6c0eb0a870081c856e
c686255ab7c8179e493072f617749de9768e129a
F20101112_AABEXK ko_b_Page_215.tif
f7c632ff1d03e4e68d9a9b08a20c74cf
61e67cf9d97fe77c1745250d26f07ba057995681
34490 F20101112_AABDNG ko_b_Page_273.pro
abddd0e7230d1fbf95ca8217e2e14fa6
7827935f72b8569cc3a1a6fa8d6fee4f5e73039e
4332 F20101112_AABFUE ko_b_Page_109thm.jpg
d24c9efaefa0046aacd159fb93bb2316
8934dd2aff42d68c31ad8c657acd000886d2be4f
F20101112_AABEXL ko_b_Page_217.tif
7ed0bf3c5ad1d960ff5daf66918dfaf5
aff34edc1f8492f213f8f1cc999a058b4e73a6df
117895 F20101112_AABDNH ko_b_Page_021.jp2
3df7134a845b6aab82f3a143b27c71ab
f27cfef528ec45f9bf61d792eebc98d0197cadc9
11015 F20101112_AABEKA ko_b_Page_259.jpg
2fe02994c8c12f6473c7f80bb57b57a0
84009640dd9ba79afc561293b561a9e9b2cb13c1
5415 F20101112_AABFUF ko_b_Page_110thm.jpg
ecd3ff6d947f7a6294b15367a1d9518a
dae32e266d457ca774ecd8195655b10e71c93ca9
F20101112_AABEXM ko_b_Page_218.tif
336d67cad461efe109f3de35995ce93a
46408848b7a0881a59586196400b7be48512bd7e
97336 F20101112_AABDNI ko_b_Page_011.jpg
538091a038ca96e3b6541a14b44bbf2b
948ee20376e6ebd5fb6ba84e3d1dbc30ceaee9e2
108555 F20101112_AABEKB ko_b_Page_260.jpg
0a2d6ca6b3eb5eaf8e685245d0c7ba53
14096c4df49584431895fbbb87aa907cda8470fe
20950 F20101112_AABFUG ko_b_Page_111.QC.jpg
82cbe5532c0058a48333d73e64d2b58c
39c9b88614748a712dad875c555a73039563d0a5
F20101112_AABEXN ko_b_Page_220.tif
2ef691cb07ac19e206c0b43b71d41dd5
bc1b4d7a4b6bf3536b55baff44ff8e19b99b6177
1051935 F20101112_AABDNJ ko_b_Page_282.jp2
6b84846488493fbdd89553386a71b12d
64dbe8ede43540867249b0ba55b0b24d6a5cdca5
12951 F20101112_AABEKC ko_b_Page_261.jpg
08ad716d012c70447382858999fd7074
27f2d065d6af96f0507302dc178b7ffcd0b8a30e
5737 F20101112_AABFUH ko_b_Page_111thm.jpg
265a4592c4417a45e9fcde90a2f7f1e6
b5bbdf9205fc2a54242625c93d29f04985525786
F20101112_AABEXO ko_b_Page_221.tif
7e5d270fe425fb9934968f72b1661d6f
5047839a89a8a56c81a6e1406600f9759d64663f
F20101112_AABDNK ko_b_Page_100.tif
78d1a808b16f27cc1ae4d5b8c4dd9ed4
508c715a242d7f2957ebdbb0460e7a537d2a0855
109764 F20101112_AABEKD ko_b_Page_263.jpg
e34b1f1416158fa72b5d3145c03b7ef3
0cd664e4c68112a43f0ad434894974f0ac4092ea
17172 F20101112_AABFUI ko_b_Page_112.QC.jpg
0bfb7754fcf356d4b0ae6cb8eaba336b
fed6323b371147ae51758e8eba44099247cc1b2b
F20101112_AABEXP ko_b_Page_222.tif
08ae1899b4a1a9fb96452e6a006e38b1
427d4abec68d930e0d7978214df7adf23c718d2f
6534 F20101112_AABDNL ko_b_Page_035thm.jpg
a0fe5fb6259366b93e8896b1255124b7
e437e2355b1d1ef228675ba085ac0ad4535a029f
29808 F20101112_AABEKE ko_b_Page_264.jpg
2628293c71a9f4181e2d8ea422c1d390
24a06f31c5f038475ec8be69db764ffc222496ee
F20101112_AABDAA ko_b_Page_093.tif
e837ce71fc51b700bccbdbdc6bc78ccc
8842364a52d8d38d9aeeb42371d9e65bb9a53c3a
6587 F20101112_AABFUJ ko_b_Page_114.QC.jpg
270060dd2ebe8bb448d7e1d81f9be935
2eb2ceb829d8a9c50d22495cb63c3ae0a6477edd
F20101112_AABEXQ ko_b_Page_223.tif
e9a72038ca33d0123f30a2344e29607d
64cf07d243fc423a17f8f24193fc3ae1f965e952
F20101112_AABDNM ko_b_Page_177.tif
148efeb59f9872209d794ee6b24ce495
7aa89436b0d8711fb9c6d67b4416f15571cf890d
80840 F20101112_AABEKF ko_b_Page_265.jpg
bf37f804ce05c492715f451ca016b543
d7d04828f44a04f4514bb88016c4baeac65ebe80
2202 F20101112_AABDAB ko_b_Page_157.txt
669d2b6aaf8d360389fd75fff587fd98
f2e88b5582541b438b8d2a264966a48d9e3db9cd
21922 F20101112_AABFUK ko_b_Page_115.QC.jpg
d04d2567f9059f13b4ac821e993cf0df
c7e30224714b244bcbad320f44d650720b06db54
F20101112_AABEXR ko_b_Page_224.tif
e61a67a7d61ce80fa922e34fe2bb8838
0699e5f1e38e97913d4ee16cebc2d32544a1c94d
52697 F20101112_AABDNN ko_b_Page_306.jpg
650a21cdc38a50d246a36a7a74cb08da
d9a1637ac14dc90edb8cc60a7ffa35d4cf6ca23c
70145 F20101112_AABEKG ko_b_Page_266.jpg
a71967364dc08baa1aa2cc362109a570
34463152f6f8287d7f2380e8750789942ed57cac
73333 F20101112_AABDAC ko_b_Page_060.jpg
3044dffdcb344dc3a13ebf9a7bad5bda
8a7664e24ebb60fe19ed90f571261dbf70ead2b0
6227 F20101112_AABFUL ko_b_Page_115thm.jpg
2c9d422b6d7ccf2090bb62ff339eb272
1f15bdf5b1ccb539fa3b71d4fa72a42006b6ed91
F20101112_AABEXS ko_b_Page_225.tif
87faeb76d25a02ade0b3e2b9cd2c6bf5
ea0a530e2e460292d18f38014039911adfa5ee61
116651 F20101112_AABDNO ko_b_Page_052.jp2
726d6700a62fa7ac1c5883dd9164f21f
9d49fbc759fe73a9b86563600aee21978384ce29
63945 F20101112_AABEKH ko_b_Page_267.jpg
3730358322d1b5d612cd2d449fdbef2b
fe2b3265572e2c144eb9a89a1d7ca363f52e161c
51070 F20101112_AABFHA ko_b_Page_305.pro
b1f68afe471364f0dba7a6304e117c81
d5e8b92fa0f201f247693ca3375968994373b6a3
7045 F20101112_AABFUM ko_b_Page_116thm.jpg
a78a70fa85925eaf430c256ce8d2b6bb
fdd59abd654e98510a4091c04c2de507e1762f5e
F20101112_AABEXT ko_b_Page_226.tif
de424298782513be7ee83a71c1e66248
e37ceb4c0dc0fa3e4d692c6a384cbc79006b4bad
6549 F20101112_AABDNP ko_b_Page_186thm.jpg
05ab6e6be08df6e23952b87805c09765
188848ce0900056160b92cfdb910c180135dec18
66576 F20101112_AABEKI ko_b_Page_269.jpg
e132a6534eff05d161e288c3ae647c07
bda823f70965801dd9c5aa2989e3edf2ebbc0883
34080 F20101112_AABFHB ko_b_Page_306.pro
517b2e125f90b6d0fe444757866862f5
356157a0d1b2a55e8e09efdc0d72a19a6c1e1e51
111171 F20101112_AABDAD ko_b_Page_145.jp2
5130a803d69c4d7f6d1b1b5841458e0a
1a25818549742deeb29354c08e0f573bbd6e2f8d
6721 F20101112_AABFUN ko_b_Page_117thm.jpg
be44626c6e9ac7f8f8693ff61ddb324c
030d8b1964ee13b276b19fe6f08110517df84e14
F20101112_AABEXU ko_b_Page_228.tif
3ed4547fee6ec82a94a73b8fdede7f74
f16a4c6b6d4826cda57b8e8159e96b4d05acb910
63660 F20101112_AABEKJ ko_b_Page_270.jpg
b6d4c6c927b25810f302370c1a220c75
333a8a50e5b2431e7e805c67de98144516b0ba3d
61733 F20101112_AABFHC ko_b_Page_308.pro
52c07a362af120832e45f01c822f39f0
eab9efacf06626286a4a73bde8491c2b209475c3
58904 F20101112_AABDAE ko_b_Page_296.pro
b0d017c885f4fcd3abeb0bc88f1f937c
5560028d65db598fa54b9edc29a71cafedc97629
6977 F20101112_AABFUO ko_b_Page_119thm.jpg
1733918a7a7a7afe2bdf482bdc3d25cd
68d31aa0cd490ff18abfcd5af42453083d55ae6b
F20101112_AABEXV ko_b_Page_229.tif
d9e760706774f64ebf9b577750c42c4d
16fc7bf1b69a0158616234e0d95e5674d65eba28
144928 F20101112_AABDNQ ko_b_Page_309.jp2
5fddc941b7a82d72df744d16fe38a71f
8ce5f3bc135931286acc4b91049253ee7490c0de
67669 F20101112_AABEKK ko_b_Page_273.jpg
4364daaedec2dabba555cc8c68795b11
247aee607670d287a4f60d5b3391144babd19dff
68345 F20101112_AABFHD ko_b_Page_309.pro
fef91a985a6b54280ac4d690b0b08aaa
e7fbd4f65c455205f31076e755b7fa27367f8913
75883 F20101112_AABDAF ko_b_Page_078.jpg
da7b730fbf0f6b4784e7bab1eee89f3c
b0cd72bb557d2ae03d61a9c6c9b50d98b508515e
26523 F20101112_AABFUP ko_b_Page_122.QC.jpg
67e40924e5707de0a9226170559fd54b
4b923bb38eaa831a4530837cb365c3ab60c5920c
F20101112_AABEXW ko_b_Page_230.tif
0d267c7b4ac85e9df99384dcd5f86701
c587580c246b4709baf1eb2e76158cd2473c9ef6
F20101112_AABDNR ko_b_Page_049.tif
d11f941b1daf683b78c2dce80b01e770
62963265df7aea80c9ef69bfa67ade1b339ae739
81135 F20101112_AABEKL ko_b_Page_277.jpg
cd749a241e0d7ea2a6bd389d505617a4
a6c805bc13b1b48352903d7017d2489138473045
43392 F20101112_AABFHE ko_b_Page_310.pro
0d4a5217e6325b231eafd9707aea61fb
f8d850dbedfc6d0dfb8ffc25919a27481da06749
7005 F20101112_AABDAG ko_b_Page_096thm.jpg
22359f52abfab387df2367a9c2e588f3
cfd6fa515c777a8203cfa3e868a30429454e81f5
7245 F20101112_AABFUQ ko_b_Page_122thm.jpg
d1a371635429e8fd80b447b60bb4ec8f
68a4f8fa1d369cabd5d1f65b351cc6a6ae4f0b4e
F20101112_AABEXX ko_b_Page_231.tif
7d6956637867a62093a16bc1e7e0f0a2
b0a843e6889aecd97caaa76d0149615fb23f39f7
1974 F20101112_AABDNS ko_b_Page_054.txt
c33bd7fb1d737f32bfda2189b676b71a
93b8ba5e31c17e8def850e8402c20c1d6221cd6b
56015 F20101112_AABFHF ko_b_Page_311.pro
de454a4ce9c24985a7823cb000e45a19
1f6fd62e7779fd9918d94ed41a3d94856f7a7e1d
25978 F20101112_AABDAH ko_b_Page_241.QC.jpg
b73609eedb030bf487d21c0f34a4129d
485f0ce0b3b62e5b8d0538f0dcfc748f59a78c99
26378 F20101112_AABFUR ko_b_Page_126.QC.jpg
b8e61315519b93212020d58ff1f744e8
6e3c4ea6a5f742e3647891c937c24a3263409990
F20101112_AABEXY ko_b_Page_233.tif
d9d622a9ad26c6539f7dd690e3c03c40
dd1f862bd674837cde6cd6b41edf6684fb6c4cb5
113466 F20101112_AABDNT ko_b_Page_159.jp2
6f57cf67e76c5eac1ba37f1a04d3d232
9d3e868c5728a1d018dbb62b11a4271e279e8a55
92623 F20101112_AABEKM ko_b_Page_279.jpg
af41514d0c88be17eedd3ea0af2c5eb7
0f8f7b2c730ebe4aac155e338a72345ca3956f7d
8679 F20101112_AABFHG ko_b_Page_312.pro
328bc00356c77dddaa06ce899e346109
3dc4607aae7ab4162ab0d0b1894ae382e6d34c12
105185 F20101112_AABDAI ko_b_Page_106.jp2
be1256149b9d5ef44ff87a0ce1ae5b6b
8534f55c78c9b7504110029f24a1575cc9a025d2
24273 F20101112_AABFUS ko_b_Page_127.QC.jpg
9e54348748716e17a8eafa7471d749a3
d82cc3089cbe27994edaaa9029570ea65c533eaf
15623 F20101112_AABDNU ko_b_Page_220.QC.jpg
dc8f7ee6c48b517205282786dc1a0a12
032b95d8102453ec6ed4ca0a35235f6f5cb748b9
88580 F20101112_AABEKN ko_b_Page_280.jpg
6c7e1d27c726bdbf44efeab5ebd6ede0
b61a07ace923f2d952a49d5f648670d08f08b492
91 F20101112_AABFHH ko_b_Page_002.txt
1f6771370a4c9c3ed7a7a41195723330
5aada1157c31b21b3c5d8bda4bb9e435f0c6c020
116105 F20101112_AABDAJ ko_b_Page_063.jp2
55a385519d9ac50a0ce79e23cac3ae8c
6c21ff8d32e347ccd1fe7de0707bbe52d5e689e1
6868 F20101112_AABFUT ko_b_Page_127thm.jpg
610ae0cf251e9523beaccabe5c993247
06788b65ce96a4e493b45d42fa149fb09c4c1945
F20101112_AABEXZ ko_b_Page_235.tif
2feaf0beb7bab890a3b6e6dd2668e781
ad05e85cb15be10830df1f0e830009d0b3fe6356
54446 F20101112_AABDNV ko_b_Page_112.jpg
28f0bbd69d0159fae34c1454e4c6e4a1
b17ecec6e7c4032aab22273d198517ce2241d4ee
114177 F20101112_AABEKO ko_b_Page_281.jpg
c7900c4fcfb3cf1a6df1c38325aa5b5a
552cf6eeab16a7ec527f79f9c99bcf7eeef11310
6797 F20101112_AABDAK ko_b_Page_075thm.jpg
add5f8d52df07180928ad94b92d26386
98c6982ab21ce9bdc917e89ef59466c6306bd89e
26209 F20101112_AABFUU ko_b_Page_128.QC.jpg
9307d59560b7e43a19c39e946e2a8cc5
0980861e5b3c537dbcda6f97e7d65a6244b20d11
2092 F20101112_AABDNW ko_b_Page_188.txt
d77bfb35786cacec900943266b6127ea
8bedad83e2daa2e0fd02c772718183042293c48a
116418 F20101112_AABEKP ko_b_Page_282.jpg
eba7e72fe6cc42585df45d2a48b6fabd
4362f1ced764256545f03d3590b36a21704fa415
118 F20101112_AABFHI ko_b_Page_003.txt
c59f3c55ed9ef877b7ac9f911b001a1b
c3e75afbb6f3bf253c1b07ea115069134bedd5c3
24041 F20101112_AABDAL ko_b_Page_089.QC.jpg
7aa631f2ddffdc63c1c3f57252aaf720
f528d5f9aa7f74e1ad13062da3e68e6e1bc99748
215148 F20101112_AABDNX ko_b_Page_215.jp2
d976ee343c30f7da87123518d6b4c524
d59d621d6231520971a0c1c6b6dac6b4cb975370
120862 F20101112_AABEKQ ko_b_Page_283.jpg
5cb1f2d2aa53e753d737fd90f73aee4b
8cb6c14b84a1e1a6b360e88d257a3f74626ad106
3261 F20101112_AABFHJ ko_b_Page_006.txt
9832c511a5f0df1496656d159abcfa31
070f01722b06c48358c42b2282fe380f0400afbe
5455 F20101112_AABDAM ko_b_Page_206thm.jpg
619af08d5b3c131da22802ea740882be
104a743708c0192a9c89da173fd3468191e2c57f
6922 F20101112_AABFUV ko_b_Page_128thm.jpg
18b289f279c9beb2dc21aaa80e9168e3
52b56c05872e823d414dabe0076e590348458130
57111 F20101112_AABDNY ko_b_Page_265.pro
670797954549799ca4665da23eca2301
3e2ca21323f355158bc9ad0184f94f04fc7085c5
85712 F20101112_AABEKR ko_b_Page_284.jpg
2556fd688c5b598aaa60f742ac20f8bd
6eb575214355a478513f9ddc78c828f646ce169e
1780 F20101112_AABFHK ko_b_Page_009.txt
693235e616777f7d22e7be620f50ce02
6a009eef75a49f38cc9a742ba5cc7f500519c263
F20101112_AABDAN ko_b_Page_291.jp2
d79ac0bac9f78bd474ee84d5dbb6cac3
d9f16ff14845cc6f96dc8c0f8cac1df83405ad82
26381 F20101112_AABFUW ko_b_Page_129.QC.jpg
775eda3b8c6b7ee28f7aad77f6eb94d3
5ae0707cc66214fa3d85473a54e582dc50bd8afd
26212 F20101112_AABDNZ ko_b_Page_162.QC.jpg
aa93445bb7d46ff54745f22867d3d82e
53caaebd81d52a373dd9aa7a58ad21667346392e
86533 F20101112_AABEKS ko_b_Page_286.jpg
8025619056c574e2fa05845ff0a0236a
0444c8ef18269cf5bb2b5b51967916dff3d5c0a1
2762 F20101112_AABFHL ko_b_Page_011.txt
494c8a7a273ffdee17dfaa21ee4bdd4b
d4447d011100ed69cb2be913513e5ee482ae6109
112672 F20101112_AABDAO ko_b_Page_151.jp2
5e1e8a1d5f701fe8e93093d2a3609563
93c3048a603f45d32bb9de47c6a0c9fa872427c0
26804 F20101112_AABFUX ko_b_Page_130.QC.jpg
86e463f02ba17668ba127a7c46efab81
af667d91f71c3002a5d28f6f7923f80aa50906d8
89015 F20101112_AABEKT ko_b_Page_287.jpg
45ce9d4fe4458173eaf0aaa2d608713b
ca17d7827c189feb7ad9838dc8ed2feb6589f1aa
F20101112_AABFHM ko_b_Page_012.txt
8c8bad61333eb71d1f0012602aea5f54
ff786a59d30c4455c19018da8d42618f71b08734
6636 F20101112_AABDAP ko_b_Page_054thm.jpg
5f909f00b78a3ce28433d261d9b6d788
c69f682a91a2da5347766262abfb0ca98cea66f6
7421 F20101112_AABFUY ko_b_Page_130thm.jpg
5839c93b6ec3f792ccd58e51c0c674ad
ccb9b4d45237272e6d3f7796251124be1a085149
90846 F20101112_AABEKU ko_b_Page_288.jpg
d7bef86471f7137d47445a3776b796c6
49cf79e71bf8e797e6ae06e25a128185dfd969f2
1728 F20101112_AABFHN ko_b_Page_013.txt
98e1d933af7a717c43342ca4a548367e
a9e71445faad83222acbce19afc624430b00835e
1419 F20101112_AABDAQ ko_b_Page_003thm.jpg
ff180df7601711320c4938490a990420
b23ba01c29f3fe2231c092e66c8a9acfd4c34f9a
7000 F20101112_AABFUZ ko_b_Page_132thm.jpg
12e74b48552132b1faceba45fed0a1dc
1f2ba3a1daf7695075fb9ff8bbaa87a392591945
93901 F20101112_AABEKV ko_b_Page_289.jpg
8dadc50d468b80f65ebea8b4b08d3468
35feb22667a4405bc39a81ab5d061ebd22b4bf19
1127 F20101112_AABFHO ko_b_Page_014.txt
a166bbac78e810ffe236fec4c0ad3b91
0d02f741bec6044d7085b5afe125fddfc7fac13e
24254 F20101112_AABDAR ko_b_Page_061.QC.jpg
cf3772b907693c374b646fdc85aaf975
d0c16a8433a4509eb91e4b06958f3c72024595ef
94983 F20101112_AABEKW ko_b_Page_290.jpg
25f49fd078fd4806686f4ca5dc07ecfe
37a0eadffd3d7efb17f422fdbdf30b8e153b2280
1877 F20101112_AABFHP ko_b_Page_017.txt
97787d8962123dd909dc26546b80564b
7554eae7550be82dfe0cb6f9dfdbbc6062048b5d
2084 F20101112_AABDAS ko_b_Page_079.txt
1a5b27a86919ab3a4bd46f0c29c73621
f30dd043b9df8fc58bdac41e05f2064da4bc8aeb
89962 F20101112_AABEKX ko_b_Page_291.jpg
5181f30395cd79ee9a322afa63f2fbf8
358d1ba136edbe2087bdf3eabb7549f117238ae8
2152 F20101112_AABFHQ ko_b_Page_018.txt
dc77d48576abb885133d2ab819c4f3b4
8ad5ae289e9d1ac20351bf411afce6de80c46061
57623 F20101112_AABDAT ko_b_Page_130.pro
59b54f50736e965d469bca75b7d5545d
c32075b249bc77846001379ddf184f21b62eb9b2
14902 F20101112_AABEKY ko_b_Page_293.jpg
030650e7792363c9e379b2e296981cf7
0b8554765edc57df1f759eb75e4a6f1ff7e56822
660 F20101112_AABFHR ko_b_Page_019.txt
1670a1347d34d69f0c04962293ba1f20
6664c2c97b1e251211b59ef45af069632be79649
78825 F20101112_AABDAU ko_b_Page_121.jpg
a11ba2c0ff72caa3f0f71f01b14cfb2c
c2af117c516a977d7bc38f7e514956c5f95b7443
11837 F20101112_AABEKZ ko_b_Page_294.jpg
47c9588b1c03e3aa7701da292a2796a7
02405d0ace7f49b245f37a3b51231276cf9d7140
2182 F20101112_AABFHS ko_b_Page_020.txt
4f6ead393e3b70f4dfb1c605c2102fd9
956f2fc1f87e88d8346cfc8ae8adee94637e262e
2126 F20101112_AABDAV ko_b_Page_072.txt
cd36cb4975539f8b08dbbe01b1055484
0eaac7a9d3f10c3247ae0efd4ca8262cdfde64b5
2155 F20101112_AABFHT ko_b_Page_021.txt
17f3f032d00c6a0082490286cce31ef8
5af454774ae765449088c048add5808c0233516a
83496 F20101112_AABDAW ko_b_Page_226.jpg
17b443def37ad93ea64d2054b843165c
f5fb1ee15012a8523bb619c566247c53ff25cf88
2051 F20101112_AABDTA ko_b_Page_023.txt
bf7ec51680fa28d01bbf4b4414c379a5
a63c41a2904c72a14d28650cd59a9607ec5d00cb
2217 F20101112_AABFHU ko_b_Page_022.txt
af78584ca91f6ad09ad1523017844f62
7230bc06e9617eede9f6982d35412736510c41dc
40255 F20101112_AABDAX ko_b_Page_256.jpg
6f7c462aea0e64a9175e6660b4919bc9
e6e759474af3906aaae301609f89102067da4fb1
4593 F20101112_AABDTB ko_b_Page_195thm.jpg
65d6d83d4a918d1b8bf585bb5ab8a367
d0ad1c821e9d7400f1269d7316f4bcd216291781
1898 F20101112_AABFHV ko_b_Page_024.txt
5f462f450ffe36e745d89b55511a1935
e9a32c50a5f52f3bcbf155108db6f3d18a1a54b1
5032 F20101112_AABDAY ko_b_Page_234thm.jpg
4cbc5c8f9bce3ed5e0acafcb0c738cbe
5f3b288690f129e861f2f100c75d6784a436337e
55085 F20101112_AABDTC ko_b_Page_040.pro
fe3bb583c69606ff0d836ceea3aa6587
ae60e5039bcf4e5553cc9141fa1543d7dceb56eb
1104 F20101112_AABFHW ko_b_Page_025.txt
acb49933d6038966828577d2f6fce9f4
0fa49f1c7ebaae981b86be71dae1403048863124
24910 F20101112_AABDAZ ko_b_Page_001.jpg
32f3859fc271ae5ccf4255573ffecf88
7166f079512738231d7f52700240412c1e0e55a9
55249 F20101112_AABDTD ko_b_Page_107.pro
089290e21c0fee774e494a14f34ac070
2129add527692fe269ee39a22d2fdd5b8b95fee2
2171 F20101112_AABFHX ko_b_Page_026.txt
a36f3a2c16f7833e58ecfa8648660f21
558f0f435c1f3773cb17005de506e77db1a8f800
90957 F20101112_AABDTE ko_b_Page_094.jp2
9682eeb10261ef9a9964499cfdc69186
57effdc6de6a34c6cd6e572d04658fdbe6370121
F20101112_AABFHY ko_b_Page_027.txt
ecdee1c3be7296087f27c199945cbfa6
a942ba201f1a16170a707156b31a54b985910489
115400 F20101112_AABDTF ko_b_Page_185.jp2
9114979879287cf7ef92ca23603d8e0b
189f94fd634e24c1a761fb9fcc77c69c25365b65
2218 F20101112_AABFHZ ko_b_Page_029.txt
c9746be6857cb0887655caef515cd989
2d306b87ae834040f278aac4b93e1b21c6337ae8
53562 F20101112_AABDTG ko_b_Page_055.pro
b90b38515229595eb03a06fb3dbc3e09
d9380c0632a83fd2e224b28593239b0689e1e9f9
22085 F20101112_AABDTH ko_b_Page_114.jp2
53bb08c24945062a6bae5c160adca1de
85ffc4d7a1bac16b4dfda95798f5efdf47a6add2
84041 F20101112_AABEQA ko_b_Page_200.jp2
c940b37a0bb69e4a51e3e695cc70af56
1f1a4c803edbbe48298ad90acdd30812f39b16a1
112547 F20101112_AABCWO ko_b_Page_089.jp2
50deafd75e15f092f978026ef50e3427
2a56c1112a92bbda1b36bd03f2906c9a72da33df
23285 F20101112_AABDTI ko_b_Page_158.QC.jpg
5def6ea2fbaf0d38e7397e438d06eaef
3333b53a081e92ac93a1db6be25cb6dc228138fe
76424 F20101112_AABEQB ko_b_Page_201.jp2
ca1c9af645f3898efb09532f80861646
f12252846fe109991157435d0917314da26482fb
2380 F20101112_AABCWP ko_b_Page_268.txt
60941a135b058dd49e6e3a9dacb0fb65
09bb60527cd5b4653bdf80ed870fbcaceac5641d
74256 F20101112_AABDTJ ko_b_Page_167.jpg
1128fc3d26ae39e63acaf274f89be6fb
443a861f941f98f8687c32d2cf3c7ce59f8c4629
108876 F20101112_AABEQC ko_b_Page_202.jp2
c69803a7d26a456ec7ce2371b0c24de0
44615237042443e23376a65db5e09dfaa6df1278
78220 F20101112_AABCWQ ko_b_Page_251.jpg
21e3e6d502f4a26407ebec20f7591722
4707c2da035d9a75f1d14531798441afafebb770
50315 F20101112_AABDTK ko_b_Page_224.jpg
703851e984c336c41b0b0d674c7b6a0f
b3df8dcb6425fb4672c46c53126f1dde3ed8d19d
94882 F20101112_AABEQD ko_b_Page_206.jp2
37c594440e6bb02b56f3cf9d2a9fcf5e
3fcf5ab2f316c21bc1983860c4153f5dfe2f0db7
1051945 F20101112_AABCWR ko_b_Page_274.jp2
03ea08999ba7e15d2038c9c06383decd
ead71185ea4a94cb5593b0df22f296000038ae6a
58432 F20101112_AABDTL ko_b_Page_199.pro
ff1c05979013b233bb3a791e39b94c82
c03888aeebda1767148e88717a0359ac5f9a4745
84194 F20101112_AABEQE ko_b_Page_207.jp2
d939826cb133bb7d5a26e6d41e4c81a4
ed907c09b65d936402879753e286fa6d853fa363
25219 F20101112_AABDGA ko_b_Page_180.QC.jpg
e9278a419fc3e93879c2f9fed9a96ace
596be23c237ced8302789cc217bc26886ab71876
4673 F20101112_AABCWS ko_b_Page_014thm.jpg
9ee5fad6e3d850ebd874ec9ea8f06ada
7c7eb443c6ebd0182dcaad337e66328c4301d178
F20101112_AABDTM ko_b_Page_073.tif
e71ceab1708a0aaa08492cdc2087da55
22c67ba005ad04f7fc62340d1d470a7787af7005
67328 F20101112_AABEQF ko_b_Page_209.jp2
c5daa18641ee9f4d53d74585b0191cbb
271f9359cd6b282581477050972264eaff603801
77067 F20101112_AABDGB ko_b_Page_163.jpg
64aad28df7dfb62a2186e8782e7b3af0
23105cf6155a48693089e871f864fa4b53158483
1396 F20101112_AABCWT ko_b_Page_278thm.jpg
935a630dc8fc82f1e378a27ac4d3a917
da8c06815684c393e4694c94835c7da59b3a7895
F20101112_AABDTN ko_b_Page_082.tif
2d9bd14a9f305d50682b8a914bab8448
e96cd2f7662e6eda355360882d0258aa0bc73e4c
452752 F20101112_AABEQG ko_b_Page_210.jp2
e477b4ba62ccf4ed77994d592a528714
99e91bbb18a1b82222215d4b80f246dd6d0a8338
59664 F20101112_AABDGC ko_b_Page_233.jpg
5edfbf9b7a28bfc88eaaaca751fdcbc7
2375d2c01129e47a9d982f2bfdbe777c804520b1
47725 F20101112_AABCWU ko_b_Page_206.pro
7b9fd5aa75ea43ac8b04afc68b3b5048
46f640d495fa5ee53b8636690843c02f5baabd2f
1231 F20101112_AABFNA ko_b_Page_238.txt
f7a536960bd098cba99a1f76a27a6b10
5458403209ba9f600c6739dba9b3e427c58d5c7d
F20101112_AABDTO ko_b_Page_117.tif
13c8a6ae21f8462cb4a3f7c14e1b699e
83fcd2f70da8c193cf53b7eb48c985ce8c8fa5cc
616954 F20101112_AABEQH ko_b_Page_211.jp2
7f51e2dac6acf991fd025e2ec77a7484
9c1c999b2989c4bf9c345019c705b2a1237aa980
F20101112_AABDGD ko_b_Page_265.tif
3e80ab71750c759ce17ce579e5146f9c
67e8b658013eee7180c1923f64dcec4ba385aded
92613 F20101112_AABCWV ko_b_Page_301.jpg
2b0ee33d97477227eaabc4232fed5551
d121e1c01f5841465f9aa7ef8dd71b08e95fbbe4
2041 F20101112_AABFNB ko_b_Page_239.txt
446ed99685a9642983adf0a7b6682c2b
107301c74f6c21c75a56117c56b942fa3687e2d9
84115 F20101112_AABDTP ko_b_Page_274.jpg
b4fd5f4f0a5e87c5e48876eec37d6c22
05f6bf630ec50ce5df4399db69a358f72ea521ab
528880 F20101112_AABEQI ko_b_Page_216.jp2
ed632aa438b8a153662adb913bfb8ff5
5668759a7f24865a1c63a6b86733d7ab696f5242
2272 F20101112_AABDGE ko_b_Page_202.txt
a5eae4b0544cfae7a01cb11ec2ccfaf3
2464521ba477480f8d13bbe33f1082e33b04821b
21166 F20101112_AABCWW ko_b_Page_017.QC.jpg
c7ac942e8e6dd6fedd9dfe766116789d
bba0933b7c1e14305595afd97f505b38b5a15121
2214 F20101112_AABFNC ko_b_Page_240.txt
e11a4bca29463df1dd7f20aedf45cb02
9e21a549c643995894fb88cbc9e97f7c74fe4e12
55428 F20101112_AABDTQ ko_b_Page_066.pro
bf2d0f4874ebf73133ecea324f7cd1cb
d395321c068a58c26fea337f6c8822fa8531d7f5
73225 F20101112_AABEQJ ko_b_Page_217.jp2
bae93a2b3c5e953d26b3c4d30e134e85
a5ba4c6adc7d3dd737ef2516ba16c50cfdc90ad6
6917 F20101112_AABDGF ko_b_Page_105thm.jpg
9c8ab8c4cae706a4aaa36ec769c2bd06
9498e564ed234db70184e693915d67ba51624bbf
78665 F20101112_AABCWX ko_b_Page_028.jpg
6fe1fcb6ab35c114d494e5a81b064853
f8467399a1dd8a082fa5562f225784ac32361641
2186 F20101112_AABFND ko_b_Page_241.txt
c126820425e55e2293f72a3870e711f8
064612e343c4f9a1493dc8ce85a78e38b19a5559
118313 F20101112_AABDTR ko_b_Page_046.jp2
7fb32837bf879e79220de2165507e372
0f29781be75d6b44e823d0c46468b7d4dad21ca9
71849 F20101112_AABEQK ko_b_Page_218.jp2
7a61d530f4b584bd1b8bc303b6feab93
7cba5aae8d70b3f1d244aca3ff7b911c6d96b79c
F20101112_AABDGG ko_b_Page_304.tif
f5f3446063343fae561c39f76817f383
3dbc5fc9da45efd9afabbdb6390587af8d0af744
15099 F20101112_AABCWY ko_b_Page_113.QC.jpg
cce37c0cd4e2796ff2e6f0fc56c508db
dd7e36e7b9ce8e7c6e7827b5a420d71a9ef7c9e7
2162 F20101112_AABFNE ko_b_Page_243.txt
0a2254481cc97886e086afab611b3fd8
587b5bf947e7984bb6fe84a22d1800bc3e3ea8dc
58121 F20101112_AABDTS ko_b_Page_307.pro
7a85bd8780d2b6fc67fac939beeacd85
ff9bc34cb1ef6736f3f6a4cbcd9ef136771af598
125669 F20101112_AABEQL ko_b_Page_221.jp2
56efd4390e89812a1812c48f2c9c407e
53199cc90238b53c40f716627b385f2af0555f0f
122388 F20101112_AABDGH ko_b_Page_136.jp2
95c590e062e1896588efde984494ee2f
f5fe6a2cacc3b89b3658db0799e222fd81716289
73237 F20101112_AABCWZ ko_b_Page_056.jpg
dce0de73f5b59fe0eee38b13a6334c2d
568f87f2ba2985131de515835aa252f8786b23b6
2031 F20101112_AABEDA ko_b_Page_089.txt
06d70c88e30436eec4d8b3ce4434e77c
814c80cabee4f42a7aecd11a0116b36e88c08548
2146 F20101112_AABFNF ko_b_Page_244.txt
a61f692858cdccb5b881020623f1dfea
9da4fd56a760643a6a16ea44e59a04a4d241bfe6
16217 F20101112_AABDTT ko_b_Page_217.QC.jpg
8fae1c1fe8d24762c74b7b35f4c5aecd
afecf715c6436e7c7b4cf06ac49464afbf861b99
62237 F20101112_AABEQM ko_b_Page_222.jp2
baa0402063ef020af08a4923fd0ea87a
32195592cd6048e8a250608cbfd4071e5d0f51d6
F20101112_AABDGI ko_b_Page_136.tif
a317505a58db9c8e26f90e64b81e3dbc
587814e17187b123e5e7da9c7078b2743b7361b6
77185 F20101112_AABEDB ko_b_Page_139.jpg
18d3051a4421290b3fe193e0d419592b
35b687356b2966824f70ae3c7db9132327d501f1
2007 F20101112_AABFNG ko_b_Page_246.txt
a8fdf88db81852b17a98bdaa272dd428
24589a5dcc9a6c49ded2db52906e89241bddaee3
F20101112_AABDTU ko_b_Page_183.tif
687bd279fea9da02fbdca28f116b2ad4
8dc15f4fbcbb08f83af30ea778403e325c8f4702
68532 F20101112_AABEQN ko_b_Page_224.jp2
dff07fa8103389440c5e9e385f50ed2a
20eb0473cf12526d0cb7485539f968137a59f7c5
6787 F20101112_AABEDC ko_b_Page_153thm.jpg
abfea5b584fa744d788f46b173d3ff71
a072cd4594447724377f1815974392d679967576
2005 F20101112_AABFNH ko_b_Page_250.txt
e5381f6fb054c2f17c3bf3d198fd41ad
f634a8049e3294fd52254f2a081ced261b46da6f
74407 F20101112_AABDTV ko_b_Page_151.jpg
f338420400bd976360c4a939144d40db
d31c7cf9ffa840a1292fb60c7d0dcb35c762fe3b
46136 F20101112_AABEQO ko_b_Page_225.jp2
39fb7337e564ad7cd58919da6b5af197
471268a71ea84138707237e237e01e5245a0d05a
F20101112_AABDGJ ko_b_Page_176.tif
1b8aef0ec6d0243caf1fb8014f64a693
237b66d467f124a2c368503b635507a2c79d57ec
79357 F20101112_AABEDD ko_b_Page_022.jpg
f32310361138118f50f30197a292a68c
20a1da83513d9acfb8eb7cd2067296349d261bf9
F20101112_AABFNI ko_b_Page_251.txt
31745e947bc5f76cf4f40d330532f349
43d0ba6257dffef92736977950975fb41bd08c2c
119492 F20101112_AABEQP ko_b_Page_226.jp2
3c4e10b5159fa6d4cddd60e62055acd2
2c854f9c91339c8d75079c644a9256e3416b1026
56147 F20101112_AABDGK ko_b_Page_168.pro
be0110a8465bde24e364a49390be1db6
53cba3923ec23cc5e5ee1dbc8c55a0aac299e5a3
68520 F20101112_AABEDE ko_b_Page_011.pro
7506fdf869fbb8a877019622f516f2de
7983605328e85b860d77ccd9b7e0dd8edfdae7e1
F20101112_AABFNJ ko_b_Page_252.txt
02bb3291d5cf517ab0a83e65b8f95d51
b88b8bd7a2f586d4609fe651a5c52f5dd011eb86
120259 F20101112_AABDTW ko_b_Page_122.jp2
27f8ca2c7192418f17cb0f3d7c8f6acd
7643b25cbe25cb817509f6c3ab3ba117b6ba48a5
434209 F20101112_AABEQQ ko_b_Page_229.jp2
3cfc426b00bf15aa3f5acfe14a77a19d
3df7e3f6bb4fd9ecf4889f1349a330d7406c2d06
77598 F20101112_AABDGL ko_b_Page_125.jpg
d52912a684ed39415952e740e0327157
8a8b6b6f8f892516399e09234e97fe911d2895c0
2376 F20101112_AABFNK ko_b_Page_255.txt
4a4a4040ffa912b469e895a489fea01a
c8e7e1990a5ec78ddc79f1ef4e46b321e6db36f7
56324 F20101112_AABDTX ko_b_Page_132.pro
0d4c57cfff42eaadd7694826d4776bf0
704c96c718567b13b30607343fcce21f6e2ac9ef
21014 F20101112_AABEQR ko_b_Page_230.jp2
35f0b016b3cef5b883877422eb355254
9ac7c7e49278ae96872f914bdf0d221b4e9d612b
2228 F20101112_AABDGM ko_b_Page_039.txt
22109670b5c32908bf33f60b09f42108
29d41257ad543686a4886d9e52f7f0595b411ca7
6800 F20101112_AABEDF ko_b_Page_064thm.jpg
f69472ad24259685f48f35b58c464428
47d30d072c203de58d24a4112478bab040b79980
89 F20101112_AABFNL ko_b_Page_257.txt
43e55f80499de840068954a5dd1e75f3
bb247aede3764c2df650e89322eef50afee0fcda
73168 F20101112_AABDTY ko_b_Page_035.jpg
d4102c177f8ec6927af8feab76954cb0
65e0120632d6fcaf4c30b6361cab6d0e716854ef
42615 F20101112_AABFAA ko_b_Page_013.pro
e1c3dbc084ebc16b67077b95056e6f1d
839e4041fb289257761af591937ab7cb99a4937f
71965 F20101112_AABDGN ko_b_Page_144.jp2
185bc8b6aa8ae42955f91a75ac114944
d28c8b0d7a4cbfa9f0835449856c8fcfa0ce6a32
698 F20101112_AABEDG ko_b_Page_216.txt
ed77d663f4faf7fc2482ed3b60fadfa3
30ed9ef0b416227a1125e096f706fda337ce3101
67 F20101112_AABFNM ko_b_Page_259.txt
10e0706f4ffc219fc8926ddb2640a950
66b60af9493fdc74f06b2c49e512d776e4fe3ab9
23758 F20101112_AABDTZ ko_b_Page_056.QC.jpg
db3d5faa74c8d9215b8112afb98e9ae5
7310947d1c87e0ae376c0c8f11288bc4bae5cf96
84455 F20101112_AABEQS ko_b_Page_233.jp2
f277ad84ef3c869e4897ccea1ce7c9d0
95178a6ed8cd7bb646248fb84fe5ddaea352358a
59061 F20101112_AABDGO ko_b_Page_143.pro
36f226b8980b336c1baa578bf77523d7
9a0ea0f2416ab1b826999ab515b23223252e1609
9720 F20101112_AABEDH ko_b_Page_019.QC.jpg
6a4fa5a2b35a790efc20eb87e1b79897
eb7d63c7bcfc25df567654e0eda96dd3b59606ab
3154 F20101112_AABFNN ko_b_Page_260.txt
6f08bda3b52d4b087cdcde9a96dbdf49
2a210852e07d07cdf4fefbf9b9af152630f3ff8d
22498 F20101112_AABFAB ko_b_Page_015.pro
a240c343063b3c7b0ae431dc84b76132
5f7d61bf9c779e1c1e91d93fdded64b0faa2f1d5
78883 F20101112_AABEQT ko_b_Page_235.jp2
2c58a9faf94e9fc2b7b14fd3aa2cf564
314214a380b0d7f032ce2133928a3c4a9ce301db
F20101112_AABDGP ko_b_Page_142.tif
76d6ff62489cec3b58f392a7eb553ff3
e99a7100b3cdc9ebbc2ba5dc7b208318e1de067d
45456 F20101112_AABEDI ko_b_Page_004.pro
5f39dc961677d16bb150433126ce5071
c8d35c19ba0728c4aa8a2919a4eee40565f5363e
11377 F20101112_AABFAC ko_b_Page_016.pro
02f5e4318dceeb5f87af8c416f90c536
21c624543dbae1cfa22e194030a830be50d7eadc
47264 F20101112_AABEQU ko_b_Page_236.jp2
e4b47432aea45f7203e2a98f2c01984c
bc70a7acf91e7c641f8321fafd9d6ab0c9b5da8c
76652 F20101112_AABDGQ ko_b_Page_134.jpg
477988bc3f0549b15067d3b655d6b164
3baa514e86ef5e3283ceba68e800a69b79960d51
14391 F20101112_AABEDJ ko_b_Page_292.pro
9e81866c18b4279ecd1bd293782b4dc0
f1f189c57c32ee7e88fde2650a1d90cf9e2e6896
112 F20101112_AABFNO ko_b_Page_261.txt
978d2273aa29b366fe763e5e6baab713
a3f95cb09021fe64d32f6a756866386ada0b6205
43423 F20101112_AABFAD ko_b_Page_017.pro
4f8a754639fea1f0ebe8450e7802eef9
d9c7a99279fd70ac1adfb43b480bed61007702c8
49819 F20101112_AABEQV ko_b_Page_237.jp2
42ecf6a29cec3353ceadc8de937566ef
9157be7205b89c45f8a689f62794d18db572b626
59904 F20101112_AABDGR ko_b_Page_200.jpg
8234f65464f2a518b648cd5423c84795
c0f24775053444a7d8fd41dccac45509fba76d1c
45132 F20101112_AABEDK ko_b_Page_267.pro
8295aea589f663dab356ff1bb55cdda6
4b074b05914cf16280a1f4ca2080ea169075052f
3367 F20101112_AABFNP ko_b_Page_263.txt
bb4be3d5d64410f25e3ba5d37972bfa5
da8b63211b788b3ada23228b3c48e6e88a0de6f3
52749 F20101112_AABFAE ko_b_Page_020.pro
03d527fc8c5743d8bae142b143126ab2
1b01f52d630b11a21db0996b2413094456757c27
56676 F20101112_AABEQW ko_b_Page_238.jp2
7ef20f2551ce60ee8e45fc798b012e58
81eb6e410a47a723a3b1a9616b9ae9905cd4cdb8
23842 F20101112_AABDGS ko_b_Page_084.QC.jpg
74ec8d69c0c933acac480994f8ee93ac
4a9256f948f06634ab3e561a09ece67f74151220
25117 F20101112_AABEDL ko_b_Page_274.QC.jpg
db6f58dc07247a343a39bf51ad517bd2
6403b96d1359ad546019f04f135739e3ea23d8f4
652 F20101112_AABFNQ ko_b_Page_264.txt
bf5ae5afe475df4ae4a663cd49691463
5ffce68aeb44785882aa479e0cff3a1944b6323c
53945 F20101112_AABFAF ko_b_Page_021.pro
fe52488d6db8a2e23632381e69f4b355
5e5273b530f024aeef2a8c007f9669c513afcfd4
121310 F20101112_AABEQX ko_b_Page_242.jp2
c498a73990ea944dc8110c5783b025b4
e48d9070c2c580d84a35e432f12ce6e2f90018e6
7014 F20101112_AABDGT ko_b_Page_142thm.jpg
1f6b9ce7304994ff13dabf356fce1606
112e81e974306e532d68e0e9a4e4dd2704399573
2215 F20101112_AABEDM ko_b_Page_066.txt
7b146f5ea72aa702b8f9a342a1c956f8
506304a59f80bc2bb231cfcf262b075295306347
2356 F20101112_AABFNR ko_b_Page_265.txt
243364c0e4bfde5338ca57eabe8591fa
c02655b01bc9cba5d9288a0fefc103a6c36545a3
50896 F20101112_AABFAG ko_b_Page_023.pro
90171ec7b680ce71e314fb8ed06ba277
34e7308259322c4f9d4dc5e0b610dc4b9a954732
116243 F20101112_AABEQY ko_b_Page_244.jp2
95d1c7a0136de058c6dd6c27b9db5c20
402a27817cbd669749cd17495f61a366cf2ed8a6
74136 F20101112_AABDGU ko_b_Page_202.jpg
e3c8b2ef71a2e5c6126e712ba8bf0243
f3b6649a1a64b06a917027df83ce5b622f9995b7
121707 F20101112_AABEDN ko_b_Page_037.jp2
50e8cdb722c1817ec88b0c3d88a2645e
1550aaf99cb1511720de1f552fbdfb6585202569
2067 F20101112_AABFNS ko_b_Page_266.txt
9359b01a696e5f1546e2fa008703d4e3
104b7e7059cfec858441d8403b0d168c990a0aa5
26631 F20101112_AABFAH ko_b_Page_025.pro
5e54454ebe8cb3e89858985b8c6ea654
7a77686c56eb44a88d7f451eced7da06a59acfa6
115935 F20101112_AABEQZ ko_b_Page_245.jp2
f50912b258bcbe4eee37fad9f4129f2c
d1859cd0cb1457064e06bc6a9e4cc1d911856671
53756 F20101112_AABDGV ko_b_Page_123.pro
eba4cef92b8eafd892e798a1b4d8d56d
6d27a8bda93f65278c54458434da208e3553b2af
1901 F20101112_AABEDO ko_b_Page_111.txt
8d80fa5cdfcb6f29116b69b8eb4176f5
512b5917b6d5548ae0c32c405299beefd1ef92c0
1866 F20101112_AABFNT ko_b_Page_267.txt
abe0bce5e29c47cba700c392c732ef96
211a589c1c6d6b4d9d8f875edfa6acfbf90360c7
53294 F20101112_AABFAI ko_b_Page_027.pro
573313358ce5691fcc4ec74d9382ee92
70b1006a2ff4d9295851eda3262ce6218a6481b5
25552 F20101112_AABDGW ko_b_Page_245.QC.jpg
1cfc4be19ba3c79773b92f0349652d5a
e694580b17910bd360d5480b9a5947e3cadc78fd
53864 F20101112_AABEDP ko_b_Page_087.pro
2983b1f0049c5367d4de2920373935f5
1986d3e3ad65c44f34379280b05c24f973626f09
217 F20101112_AABFNU ko_b_Page_271.txt
bdb1515a39a6bd0171c188fc840b54f4
b4afeb58d3580d09df755bec191e8d50f24c363c
55488 F20101112_AABFAJ ko_b_Page_028.pro
59b6111a66d3d4d23222381cad481b81
77f214b23b3bd683c95c562ca6357afae1627d57
51648 F20101112_AABDGX ko_b_Page_204.pro
2ddafa11292081e024654c568eabc02f
5d067c04f180c62335de0b8486bc05631d31ac44
10270 F20101112_AABDZA ko_b_Page_275.jp2
e39644509cdcde48e37ead83762e70d4
d0729cd9e6b801927e8deffbda9e67770ade21f3
2089 F20101112_AABEDQ ko_b_Page_145.txt
cf871abaf77a2029b51711e8b80609d5
ee2490c10f6a3908f4d620d09c7318b936efb76c
1493 F20101112_AABFNV ko_b_Page_274.txt
15f4e22438bd89276632347d4808194c
94a766e9183fcafa217dd7be220a59b41ac3f421
56680 F20101112_AABFAK ko_b_Page_029.pro
68f86df94416e6012ac5cc1e014aa755
1db573fd90b976bb58fb38972d85afb83c14d504
78725 F20101112_AABDGY ko_b_Page_033.jpg
9126c72c28fdd2894ff46180b88ebdc2
1b7fb13835128d17721dc55f8c5dee32a9dc3af4
F20101112_AABDZB ko_b_Page_309.tif
b04e996e34ae1f050a2f0210fc92dd90
b27e72554dbd3dd101b8db3e8ed191a662501706
73143 F20101112_AABEDR ko_b_Page_067.jpg
ff72b9285b52de1c1ec2b4e6c0d27d73
fee971ee3e9725de7a4f3a62368982594992b179
1603 F20101112_AABFNW ko_b_Page_276.txt
256f582097bd99990ccae08311221721
abe39f4fda0914550d9393457345a3acb2773199
49188 F20101112_AABFAL ko_b_Page_030.pro
bb2d995f7a6f1abd443ebc256780c4f2
01036335c6dcd113b0b79da325010ba690e218dc
2142 F20101112_AABDGZ ko_b_Page_179.txt
fb31f7866ac679030845ef30643e5610
75cc1343625ed73b95bbebf7eade3d7289566c0d
F20101112_AABDZC ko_b_Page_134.txt
76218226ea7fcae2f54e1d133ffd0842
27a0f1d2d674ef5c754fdf2771ab82bf143b47d0
2047 F20101112_AABEDS ko_b_Page_127.txt
ddfea143278f099a62ded4ecf201d93f
2793df00ecdd33809c35996b468bb570a462292f
2982 F20101112_AABFNX ko_b_Page_279.txt
52eb0a322c76168a9a002d211785a660
504dc8a13d48d645f7d97702899d897ac3a2f0c7
53325 F20101112_AABFAM ko_b_Page_032.pro
c67c924eb795df93a91f110bde7671cb
56251265c51402a4cb1715ed908fb881a60aedc0
25629 F20101112_AABDZD ko_b_Page_205.QC.jpg
8e504878b9a77c66b2230bf36c7be991
6b03c68207f16d2145517dfc7ea62e4b9b5e92f6
51563 F20101112_AABEDT ko_b_Page_060.pro
79cf2e45218feb45e837ce5f49b8e7c5
bd0b1f72433255efa38b5805cc48d3d65bf04163
2177 F20101112_AABFNY ko_b_Page_280.txt
97aaf8244711d7ff2992e9ddb0731cd3
9599d6d05900bb0a7df6067c3a8e7f6e20816e21
56822 F20101112_AABFAN ko_b_Page_036.pro
42596e0b9f94b251a78539af99a218ec
30d4bd40a86b8ff9f197466df491980e837c53f9
120674 F20101112_AABDZE ko_b_Page_178.jp2
b9b822ea539b5aaa5b2f0e17387bee41
4362c11881538a5c7ea0b10512e7c0f0641974a9
25437 F20101112_AABEDU ko_b_Page_221.QC.jpg
8a0021d9c88480283ba9033e8e0e92f6
114992d15983f1a97f384ef79418fa324d4522dd
3509 F20101112_AABFNZ ko_b_Page_283.txt
a3eb00811cbe24f8f6d3e3c82eb44f13
100c032550e59c3584697c7bba22a948f31f7477
57189 F20101112_AABFAO ko_b_Page_038.pro
d84a4f1440dcae913d680196a7c61c76
52a0f6839b4cd347ae44143552fdf394e17be6b5
122602 F20101112_AABDZF ko_b_Page_039.jp2
7d590972a8f94dd276cb9660614d6c72
6645a318cddda13a9a3e2032574cd4d6c4befdc1
7059 F20101112_AABEDV ko_b_Page_085thm.jpg
9275358a0000e97c32dccc5c242c1c73
5da876814aeead3b6275e5c6ae2b00fd13f90c23
56964 F20101112_AABFAP ko_b_Page_039.pro
3582c25ba64285aa7c25bc554d9162cd
8b2b237f3550801155ce93dbd67cf5f3873997d0
2033 F20101112_AABDZG ko_b_Page_042.txt
1b240af7f3a35e643534cb40b6739f6f
129cfe7a32ee6542824a84229afadd575f581ed6
1129 F20101112_AABEDW ko_b_Page_256.txt
3f77a3d97477968405ef06ba998a1922
4cddef20e73400974e7397129640bab5c0504d23
F20101112_AABEWA ko_b_Page_152.tif
35ab6931b3c4ed94ad91500c0482bc27
1df3fd851a6e70f7bbe34fced6ba7e7e019b5334
54435 F20101112_AABFAQ ko_b_Page_041.pro
b1f44c5c75c2c3e2c072e07e8b129fc6
5fe3fa0e04e7add5577536152da23a0128a2a0cd
83 F20101112_AABDZH ko_b_Page_285.txt
8589a45f83c2b7ac798970798476f94b
d6d6c875164a929198a8084726c8af2cb164f529
F20101112_AABEDX ko_b_Page_103.tif
6acd91faa1b0852cb82b1f41b4461892
6b39d00e4ef31592ccfbd0aa709c4717e551974a
F20101112_AABEWB ko_b_Page_153.tif
526254e98c90968a1dcc354001407061
a10d56febbab0b4e31f0931b06214a482b9d74da
57924 F20101112_AABFAR ko_b_Page_045.pro
15936baa18941bf08db7af76987087ab
205eeda123385c4ff90a0210dee73b200d61c098
25187 F20101112_AABDZI ko_b_Page_001.jp2
7cfe95b31c8a3c4002bad2dfbc4db83b
cb44a20b4bca71e16def704cd0b5330e2bfa46d7
8723 F20101112_AABEDY ko_b_Page_215.QC.jpg
beb51584a4477c946f82551bcdf7c9b1
4b0e9ae49d49449c2924dd15a6043a36d050ed55
F20101112_AABEWC ko_b_Page_155.tif
8dc5d8b85232f5f436c0c78de3181955
e65980dbb98c0bcdd484b27437353db404f69971
54998 F20101112_AABFAS ko_b_Page_046.pro
a63be74720bbef536f607260d7d30252
50d67f23a9cb6691de5a72c0bd08e9f1e43a016e
50933 F20101112_AABDZJ ko_b_Page_042.pro
19242a19835eb197e7a265744d6e5067
0d10ac6d2bf4dfa159f333429aeb263893d29375
453562 F20101112_AABEDZ UFE0019320_00001.xml FULL
36f729f098721a98ebaf001f6070f7bc
300ab3769abc5dec73c0ad886cf3af270dff4de2
F20101112_AABEWD ko_b_Page_157.tif
229b66b298ddffc4f15ea624bbcc6719
b61b6eb0d808ffb9c9d1f68539c738f98608b557
F20101112_AABFAT ko_b_Page_047.pro
b3e57dd780322429e37496f922592b14
b80617ac6653080eb88a531e49efd91a1b285541
110688 F20101112_AABDZK ko_b_Page_084.jp2
4511ffee7d45b9fe081ab146ea1ade85
f347d443c7bd33cb7d9d75a6218105194c3740ef
F20101112_AABEWE ko_b_Page_158.tif
a74ba4e75947197b799e109092313801
4d1409b530909d2b087008d720f32dee61f44e61
54115 F20101112_AABFAU ko_b_Page_050.pro
e07906a074f624b7d24f27b9a6038cf8
411b7416e55e68ed24e7ae8b28fe151180269a6d
25774 F20101112_AABDMA ko_b_Page_077.QC.jpg
2d2834a8129ce72254006f286d6c6689
759ab17276f6f124cf69df53fd0d7b187d42776a
7458 F20101112_AABDZL ko_b_Page_001.QC.jpg
981c8c130c033a789d54e05f9c13f2d7
42fd4938cf779a03e63629a9cc6e1253176f2b3c
F20101112_AABEWF ko_b_Page_161.tif
c6379ca02b397b3404799e0679433a6c
e1db62760856ee4f653c9f16a7542c2ef315c268
53541 F20101112_AABFAV ko_b_Page_051.pro
261ba803b2c1f4a86f648cffc86cd13b
c8b62eb1931e9deaa4ff7f7b83e7b72c2ab1620b
F20101112_AABDMB ko_b_Page_261.pro
2ce0800c8f04cc5a37cb1225e2502ebb
b2f1ceb7d88c6a0fdf3c0751b93f8399cb88dd44
1996 F20101112_AABDZM ko_b_Page_058.txt
ab05acc25f90eeb1e16bcddff7ba417c
8d099c770d76461af05d3d8400512acb7e5d67ce
F20101112_AABEWG ko_b_Page_162.tif
173922c2bcccf91bcf5cf32f783cef88
19933e42114c3beb290b3934ab16ee1af73b24ed
54113 F20101112_AABFAW ko_b_Page_052.pro
a59a5b245d77b7d4404e30c074002f04
52c54a19c0dc79415abcd0ed3de4c40f83d15b58
F20101112_AABDMC ko_b_Page_121thm.jpg
68bf4a441bf38d686d50208db6278c47
f960c937652969901fcd6e827e49f458f2f20361
56152 F20101112_AABDZN ko_b_Page_232.pro
4ccd033d60874f47df88e1c1ea7d2fdb
ecdd4736f99c7b3380ff1f84c28bdd70d3783e5d
6570 F20101112_AABFTA ko_b_Page_089thm.jpg
562da66dfe950d910091b81a25e294be
322405a3871a0da60f2184ec4e9a482cdc9fbeee
F20101112_AABEWH ko_b_Page_166.tif
e11261076ad6d352866e6184c6ca14a1
18a340678943397c45ac7ac4a77c81e81241c82b
54253 F20101112_AABFAX ko_b_Page_053.pro
e4fc2db3531687de1b0a30cf2f24e895
f9248c17ad6e520aab60f7191640bcc89b58c802
78181 F20101112_AABDMD ko_b_Page_099.jp2
3510c8a46493b2b1d0bee745ebc9dea9
d071033718eb3a07915ef70429f8fba30af8e92b
F20101112_AABDZO ko_b_Page_181.tif
54a0b552c12d00fc6f0de354e198f8b8
ba73a7b889970f49a602e5c96b6d6ac909969251
6763 F20101112_AABFTB ko_b_Page_090thm.jpg
d2c232c2597817a4335037216b66d3bc
52966d927c213e0328d3439cd9b08aea4f80dda2
F20101112_AABEWI ko_b_Page_169.tif
d30eeef7d398b5a05420826701e145ef
d0be12f8499189ae102cebbc753d7432ef7d533e
51018 F20101112_AABFAY ko_b_Page_056.pro
17fdc146a8dcb2d7b40d43d123c921ff
19b33d3d132680486dd79f6769c1e84983164468
3387 F20101112_AABDME ko_b_Page_281.txt
3caad4e37b6f8ab5da7851dd93d2f5ff
199a496e0dadf1b09f09e9394ffbff635ac56cb3
72436 F20101112_AABDZP ko_b_Page_268.jpg
774e138eb12b6f6ce9170f6f422ccec2
c30fb3337cc55104891ee3628d9d0fe81771e227
23515 F20101112_AABFTC ko_b_Page_091.QC.jpg
62cdfc58d651ce1cfbe6cb841fd252e2
5d5fa0e3d3f7cdc0a5c8367c354c5bf93fd04485
F20101112_AABEWJ ko_b_Page_170.tif
d9d083a0c50e3a01854a3058c0156d86
d810f1612f2b70e9af7a53c8d6a3809e71fc7349
54034 F20101112_AABFAZ ko_b_Page_057.pro
55b061dd44a0f432758d225548ad069a
e4696c536d1a461dec359462ff8f9a7fc970e434
3016 F20101112_AABDMF ko_b_Page_296.txt
0fa3d6059788d6c736a3d417a65266d0
40c7d3102b6a6aee9eede8c69a5cd64eb086a6c9
98461 F20101112_AABDZQ ko_b_Page_262.jpg
b1ed724b9a5715f01571f4a577b23dd9
db13ed2880c90c94662c1513fee82ef3c0bd4adf
23391 F20101112_AABFTD ko_b_Page_092.QC.jpg
ee5fc9ef42695bdd78264146ca6d733d
fe77eaf9c523dd2dafb38b35a5a4cfd437e1521d
F20101112_AABEWK ko_b_Page_174.tif
c13cff25b3d6f9d7034de7a49c0c7239
e3681772a6967ee894f4d743a21acb70dec29551
6968 F20101112_AABDMG ko_b_Page_021thm.jpg
6c3a0047b916a2fd26cf165cc7bce6b2
c98437a0bef26a292f9a9593f2cbb248778b9f18
7037 F20101112_AABDZR ko_b_Page_172thm.jpg
b6fad2f1295516672cdad1b9c2362030
dfbfe0afaea26803f8de67a9ee6c9dcf4d5edc46
25919 F20101112_AABFTE ko_b_Page_093.QC.jpg
8c37207db49393da6379c88ec1d81fc7
e921c48f64a0414038177630472e902faa4940b0
F20101112_AABEWL ko_b_Page_178.tif
9fbae50c4762677c7fd4158ece0487b8
4226c895f1a6caff528048d56aeeb58c04738d8b
109584 F20101112_AABDMH ko_b_Page_092.jp2
9a4c6091bf31116fced9ffc5092e3c42
b369726173b746bb44c8a954d184c73a96766e1e
24359 F20101112_AABEJA ko_b_Page_215.jpg
f7755486611c911aa9dee5899d2e01bd
03d1b7bac782be78e3b3fd6097bba9897eafdab6
24185 F20101112_AABDZS ko_b_Page_203.QC.jpg
b93055a8c097231fcd0a1f7516466098
f40490869aba05d8801846bc7d3921da1f929217
6967 F20101112_AABFTF ko_b_Page_093thm.jpg
7bdab47a146df461123e9d4871a98a04
4dd05ca30da4642dce3fa57aaea2159c74fc0385
F20101112_AABEWM ko_b_Page_182.tif
ee8825330bdf7a81ecdc7de6f3ebf448
38171ad3e76804904248d131c3bde895f73197e0
6517 F20101112_AABDMI ko_b_Page_266thm.jpg
18d271576a0a37b43c0083d72e3d9245
631884e13115dc8021939b49964fd0145fb8a8ca
51045 F20101112_AABEJB ko_b_Page_218.jpg
6b51cf06cf675fb6aa04fd2217ef5aa7
1179a59cc6324ee178d7dfea97344c44448e1597
2048 F20101112_AABDZT ko_b_Page_248.txt
d925763dc8786a6fc43e4a415a8de197
b87312c62e2f9154faf3bcac68ab609c9adad028
19459 F20101112_AABFTG ko_b_Page_094.QC.jpg
e281c665dad891f804ce4ac5133df78d
587aa54676427c5dd47bd2ac9337515e4bc0b163
F20101112_AABEWN ko_b_Page_184.tif
83df801e8acf9271df986f41e80d2a69
38657b59eadbefa176378bc9897fbc51c934ef4f
919 F20101112_AABDMJ ko_b_Page_015.txt
7024569dafcb070a3948e08e99539d79
a76eccc9cd0f1f022236d594c4102abbd09094b2
84250 F20101112_AABEJC ko_b_Page_219.jpg
04d2acb92d70505744e22d7f0cbd2795
07fd03d21d285513c38d1b0b87d1caac3aac2941
34391 F20101112_AABDZU ko_b_Page_217.pro
af02491e76e84e5a9a9971a692260372
d2956bfd0819c1e4d01cac5c049f6279c376a8a0
5816 F20101112_AABFTH ko_b_Page_094thm.jpg
fa1ac60403d2995c978eaa562a477f1f
853ba5e222bbee8bbbc62f6e2ec71f80c3000a6d
F20101112_AABEWO ko_b_Page_185.tif
78748c1e57b69ea82fd4eb6332a17117
91df946e6a3b37cf5d7727066877a48cce8b891c
83564 F20101112_AABDMK ko_b_Page_048.jpg
3f55d1b98c12450e9b6ddd0323e85339
8749f525481791c3d3be068c15390be64d4c7e33
53508 F20101112_AABEJD ko_b_Page_220.jpg
c2f35734dede3a9d837a774019afbf92
a090494829f7f38f24f07e72679e056fbcbfb566
7585 F20101112_AABDZV ko_b_Page_299thm.jpg
6f42fea82abd09f09b98e23b44b2c638
0c7a1bff0f7efb4a2a3f8ab27861fd6834b48e5c
26718 F20101112_AABFTI ko_b_Page_095.QC.jpg
07329f6739540c6d95067a4955ff35e5
0afe3d31be56a31df47f96c5e5b206ba7ee16931
F20101112_AABEWP ko_b_Page_186.tif
786fa77be354aa411d3ea466890183fa
8fcf7684d9ec25c0e45179f0a7d9ca6457911e3c
23929 F20101112_AABDML ko_b_Page_250.QC.jpg
806afcaabf8a9a8880aa764aa3f41dae
47129fbd95e775799de4e142de5e86726118b807
86997 F20101112_AABEJE ko_b_Page_221.jpg
e4358616a5c8b037932d40ff943ca958
123a3ce8398a6f1eb158cba77af31fe0fd4f033d
2211 F20101112_AABDZW ko_b_Page_168.txt
56afc587e2e42fa3eb297ee0cea6848e
d7764da81ff85fdbcf716adbe9b8de5101e68c68
7085 F20101112_AABFTJ ko_b_Page_095thm.jpg
7607e882d6ab9403abb818e642eeff69
d3b6adfed37eef836b60aaf7dc759740df291868
F20101112_AABEWQ ko_b_Page_189.tif
2abe2559b644d11ff6852d726933ca3d
27990eccc787d2a1e91b7b7c899ace040ffdbb46
5247 F20101112_AABDMM ko_b_Page_190thm.jpg
199645677ac3d3623a8b76bbf023a938
498a639c1223fecad6b512de19decbced39b7c29
71936 F20101112_AABEJF ko_b_Page_223.jpg
535adc1ea1196f9eb87b0d4f83394848
5148e8c9976d820f6e3f306398c03ca8fcbd83d1
120215 F20101112_AABDZX ko_b_Page_311.jp2
afe96a40242414f3c3c9a05a9ea84824
44e4a606f2b80694ce972851ef7c1cdf3de3a8aa
25202 F20101112_AABFTK ko_b_Page_097.QC.jpg
3ac4abbb92012f41df5072a2f93c55a0
39e0062e7f35e84f1c974c542d1bf5006b658675
F20101112_AABEWR ko_b_Page_191.tif
4176c380c13b86be7cd14b22a5d9ac72
c104e45b24cad4133bdd8b03d1389913bf1cdcaf
2283 F20101112_AABDMN ko_b_Page_130.txt
0b80bff708a2b5b45aa4cb682294fb63
d0ae96e4a1039be90e37fbc4accd2e83e9f79b38
35706 F20101112_AABEJG ko_b_Page_225.jpg
6d871bf77b2f490a9dfb0fb58466d2b9
feb0b825fd03d42dfa31bcc994e50947812a5799
2479 F20101112_AABDZY ko_b_Page_048.txt
a552ae7b88bd215fdf010ea1f8c3695f
d162f564ace34ea761fd0422540d52b6dd0b1ff9
20980 F20101112_AABFTL ko_b_Page_098.QC.jpg
8f4aec947b2355e5b189d1db19e25d4f
f6792f3cf5550b45e770f528fcfc6b35f6c4c1f7
F20101112_AABEWS ko_b_Page_192.tif
53aa040c69af2289e59a511cca023e3b
7cd305529b85a68db8dcfc60bfb449704db135c0
129161 F20101112_AABDMO ko_b_Page_048.jp2
2967f3ebbeb1de21d6318c4cf0fd3be0
e3ca26eac89c11752c14ba8170e5a9d157f9a871
45869 F20101112_AABEJH ko_b_Page_228.jpg
245b69b3c515706661b4ddc1b869e9a2
f3410771539dc5bf79e0fd9eb514c2fd68b28584
12437 F20101112_AABDZZ ko_b_Page_298.jpg
0c33f50eff1f6d44f3511c6df781526e
5098a9f99393119e90191dfabaca8c2a3751c1c4
86398 F20101112_AABFGA ko_b_Page_258.pro
d55922a0eedb5132b8e0e7ab607e91dc
dad66c58e5588693587c6e3540a834990c4c20e2
17696 F20101112_AABFTM ko_b_Page_099.QC.jpg
9de48c28bc614760d2d3080b1d9209e4
150c8d4735cbe739be024be28c26d592e10d81cd
F20101112_AABEWT ko_b_Page_193.tif
7c0aa4864d57019fd137aad3a49de730
9dd4e8e531d039c3386a78009373c9aa95fcf72f
20639 F20101112_AABEJI ko_b_Page_231.jpg
486e1067f49b0dccac8d354d636f762d
8defee6695fbaaa8c88b1c70dd7693bc10470922
1369 F20101112_AABFGB ko_b_Page_259.pro
eff7763e15302c2115e78059b7e42e01
c6339b8ac37c2467046000caa6fb4b908943a815
5152 F20101112_AABFTN ko_b_Page_099thm.jpg
a6b9c08d6378445a6f74de50fcde1eb4
2a1803ff8fd5a12a51a801a72eaaee31671ed18a
F20101112_AABEWU ko_b_Page_195.tif
f9e01ec85f6732d816bafa1ef311c6ed
afedb882c2cddf90c85eb6326f49ae0adcda0fdd
F20101112_AABDMP ko_b_Page_079.tif
8f239695090926021f856513b8a07a5a
774a95a70db163ae22f26cfb6a8b51e5bcedab9b
72511 F20101112_AABEJJ ko_b_Page_232.jpg
ce9d893ee75a1dcbdd4db1d29180a061
c187b4abd2eb5fc7bd1d3e4425a7d08e6818df3b
77781 F20101112_AABFGC ko_b_Page_260.pro
4d644fdd0df570fddd5aded9cafa27ea
cd4d10aba3924d66f57f0ff3a1a5da9d0d74622b
18874 F20101112_AABFTO ko_b_Page_100.QC.jpg
b3acc9acb469b5135c7377d17e661eb3
c391da9108f92b6c5054b98880fdb0ff2ab3d26f
F20101112_AABEWV ko_b_Page_196.tif
def5c365eb22f94af5008540a4b34219
aa548e8a176a50575a82644012f089be0540f156
2234 F20101112_AABDMQ ko_b_Page_178.txt
9f0515fe3b5f1ce522ebf2cbc3ef6341
d4f7244360ac6338d5dcc4fd6827b869069b4124
58174 F20101112_AABEJK ko_b_Page_235.jpg
47ba153908bf6d750fba933cfa073155
68ad924ffb17cd56f697f5df31fcdb44e17d32a3
76357 F20101112_AABFGD ko_b_Page_262.pro
c3531445992fb099b22e62f010169486
248eb5cf3b8d5a6290cce46498d4a02fb95fa226
5560 F20101112_AABFTP ko_b_Page_100thm.jpg
0aa322d25f63e47c6eeebdcb59e57d20
302fe050f3e4451a67c70cf422cab513b8a50f8c
F20101112_AABEWW ko_b_Page_197.tif
f0e87260d1e25e1ff6a651c521209fd7
e28c68a428a0592fd575d072d9fe0338987967b2
F20101112_AABDMR ko_b_Page_042.tif
eed42ae1b88e40838fcdfce781d978ea
4abb03f8def76f57a3486a13522f973a7019b8b8
85741 F20101112_AABFGE ko_b_Page_263.pro
ca71797b1c07ac0adf055e1a06953c85
4346edf72bcee1ec22270ccc6b320f9775e0a9b3
18516 F20101112_AABFTQ ko_b_Page_101.QC.jpg
d1011b29a8ec6a979189c87b82a91596
55fe86f1f47107588d89608836060690556eb2af
F20101112_AABEWX ko_b_Page_198.tif
5344d9501c20a304006a2cb9fcbb25c4
56ea2e832440279d6041bcc62ea1954cfc009388
F20101112_AABDMS ko_b_Page_128.txt
af3fb39c134887e60104d960fd37dfc1
7cee91fc158eef8efedf302cdb15579702224116
43035 F20101112_AABEJL ko_b_Page_238.jpg
02b106b277d540f2cf6c5f5bd53237bc
39ada64c03a37c541364cb32fa20e3573e4b2eee
53368 F20101112_AABFGF ko_b_Page_268.pro
6756c9035e8e2c986b8aaff5a61a6cdc
4b97cfe0df44e587c07a22d0a3f673a66aef0b89
15111 F20101112_AABFTR ko_b_Page_102.QC.jpg
c7281c001d48036aabb35964640707b4
bbf128a11f3e78532a31b56c828124f45a00b294
F20101112_AABDMT ko_b_Page_128.tif
2fa3add18c3865d416aea03aed43b543
9fe581c247db2eef62a1961f6f513fe6e601dfec
77566 F20101112_AABEJM ko_b_Page_240.jpg
dac7d6e07903e375d3ebe0b63e9b1d71
10505cd3a7eacee231836fa64987938cc81f5b9d
45991 F20101112_AABFGG ko_b_Page_269.pro
486c83740bbcb41e2aca0b0b185675b8
993254af2fd282ad9fb4cab1ce6dbe84c5fff229
4563 F20101112_AABFTS ko_b_Page_102thm.jpg
b6a9eacd806313f9b3ab1ae42a3c01e8
625b8616f9444a66971632ace5f20dd029e675c9
F20101112_AABEWY ko_b_Page_199.tif
36d3a8223e9393b528b04523155d8c47
5bd60acc5c7eadc263824506db1dea6d550e9b96
107663 F20101112_AABDMU ko_b_Page_186.jp2
60119313e967abec6cf90ad4a46630f4
22c9a2656297cad2bfdcc846a73a55daf3121253
77919 F20101112_AABEJN ko_b_Page_241.jpg
58dae4d5e8b1557c83473cdb43dc77d1
0b3eb42c50aac2876cab6d97c4e2846e1f32c263
25921 F20101112_AABFTT ko_b_Page_103.QC.jpg
f8b32711983c3b73bc331606349eb79c
1abd18d582e221aadb8e0d44ccc8b17e520e4421
F20101112_AABEWZ ko_b_Page_201.tif
8e514b05e5db5f1abb9cabed479c112a
4b21e3c7551be1109dc31feb1205ed01ecd0dcf2
57954 F20101112_AABDMV ko_b_Page_234.jpg
def446cb1944f6a32b23f252c818c302
f8199a8a9ad88969e82e9b9e25ece2f72c7d0642
79263 F20101112_AABEJO ko_b_Page_242.jpg
4262400effc17b882798815e033ad43c
0290614093e315cdd6c7c3cafaec9dc1bc829b1e
4681 F20101112_AABFGH ko_b_Page_271.pro
0a93f2314c845f9c4973e71b32a8c397
b6ee792abc146593e4f8c10328e1e00bf9637111
79591 F20101112_AABDMW ko_b_Page_311.jpg
f585726132c01c475a1a26eb03a7395a
09ef9437692a763b6002b6f0c0d3afe31e4e17b9
77248 F20101112_AABEJP ko_b_Page_245.jpg
5eb02780937dcfcd36f3f455e7ef4e8f
70d011e46d888e32ffe1f3710e4f0ce7a3434062
2227 F20101112_AABFGI ko_b_Page_275.pro
597542434f616d5eab914a2aaba2956f
f8bbc0ff146cd60362d84d05d1707b1b928d7256
F20101112_AABFTU ko_b_Page_103thm.jpg
19e1aabef868ae0496d2c79d0e6b723a
c3ed6fc4acd12a446ae13d377c0d05eb8bcc33d8
3323 F20101112_AABDMX ko_b_Page_003.QC.jpg
f77d97f87822cb2aec1a35b85af3af78
4f0be5c03e20cabfbddd4e2afc1d59d1d2f37006
80544 F20101112_AABEJQ ko_b_Page_247.jpg
9227f83177eec785c5aa7f07e8a18a1d
c5716455f6d1f511f4ca047441f1bc15ec628c6d
37902 F20101112_AABFGJ ko_b_Page_276.pro
64c752e1e6ae56b2aa6bdfc7f711e34b
9e75b1caa0fae915c0c546a95fb9afd2d3e76d2d
25934 F20101112_AABFTV ko_b_Page_104.QC.jpg
d0d7ec75f3a4775751b1756ea098d367
7b2350b4f8f3264c8a62c9170e10af70e32ec6e1
7321 F20101112_AABDMY ko_b_Page_011thm.jpg
f185d0ad2e778b508d2bd916495cbd28
5bb63d98ccf8ada9e9ce8a226f49d53ce5da2cca
72757 F20101112_AABEJR ko_b_Page_248.jpg
b1361d3433a893fb5d816c328c61e7c4
386746e1ad7d9e18804e869bdf6635ee44da14ce
51979 F20101112_AABFGK ko_b_Page_280.pro
4a1c537f1f32cf814fe9a6d6b122062e
0d7bfe5cfcbd2334ff09ee64a818f9318de566e3
7018 F20101112_AABFTW ko_b_Page_104thm.jpg
ee43a281bdb4d6c7044560b6273f69ba
189eb20e4db335852323cc1672feaefdb6eb03f5
23434 F20101112_AABDMZ ko_b_Page_239.QC.jpg
20c3012cef1b30e79c95ba8153184e71
d2daea9150aafef4f43024afeecfbf60082a97bb
77059 F20101112_AABEJS ko_b_Page_249.jpg
5d105e4a6c9ce09449cbe3d95403788a
f2de28694e72bc0c0e74ac78db5fad715ca129d0
72276 F20101112_AABFGL ko_b_Page_283.pro
b2c203a34c634446072895d4a073e291
96cfb38b58c4cafd3e7601abdb634c0cd81cd54d
26115 F20101112_AABFTX ko_b_Page_105.QC.jpg
1c411108b6c066a2525c50c7535e9733
72eb38fced0b6ce735e4bea989a5f60d9e582cbc
73418 F20101112_AABEJT ko_b_Page_250.jpg
0789f4b0ce1d64854c8e77ee919748ca
7d2914720a7604d048111858ccc8d615d9f7a3f3
62922 F20101112_AABFGM ko_b_Page_284.pro
ccb379e59b889f07f54322f846096fec
951f3ea9bdca6a665cdfce8aa1545d80bc873f16
22999 F20101112_AABFTY ko_b_Page_106.QC.jpg
70accf491b772057ea0e1fc8e092abd8
8fa762016b44e4756e1be7e205d8fcd2f2ab63a6
79718 F20101112_AABEJU ko_b_Page_252.jpg
bf6afd51539b82f88557c4567c00ef28
04abb95d8d00ef13db74884bfb0bf2177a09ecc4
1629 F20101112_AABFGN ko_b_Page_285.pro
53472612e2376e5322928e49ac5b3dc9
7d7774ba71675275cb8a018c11027eaa476a0fd8
6479 F20101112_AABFTZ ko_b_Page_106thm.jpg
5594c222f10621d876180735f54c604c
607c68592b3700026bae6d4557928bf2c28028dc
94667 F20101112_AABEJV ko_b_Page_253.jpg
1a31efcd6ef50b0413cb74d6675f8274
87ca6a8a9c8b1e8c49e62bf79ae7eb24e68610c8
55716 F20101112_AABFGO ko_b_Page_287.pro
047580501b238794235c7efdbef23ade
623f05b826e3e005a93b7527938bc4186bc11a02
65217 F20101112_AABEJW ko_b_Page_254.jpg
d5fb37e0931764a4bdc6ac61f94174b7
d697119c261feb7f17a3734c1582f392d20099c4
55438 F20101112_AABFGP ko_b_Page_289.pro
02b0303810f5e5859a37a228fde0d28b
a41ad06ccff7b9df059596b46be84fe77772bc65
82150 F20101112_AABEJX ko_b_Page_255.jpg
44b12d9d240c11464b6bed37fd6ef9c1
ab367a37d7260aebf6f45b29f9b6c28b7a364429
53498 F20101112_AABFGQ ko_b_Page_290.pro
5b82d82e5b44fe2eb149839a9d646a56
850fe1d38ac186294d91ccd81d199cc39e9cb95f
11812 F20101112_AABEJY ko_b_Page_257.jpg
8d65538e2f1c247850174b7964c38617
c7d0b1b59f74ec49f9a0968e9c828170c099f545
67126 F20101112_AABFGR ko_b_Page_291.pro
dc4315bb34a6b13ed4464f78177c953c
293feeb16d99787bae1919c9936a66821c52d5b7
112057 F20101112_AABEJZ ko_b_Page_258.jpg
58f7acae579fdc877b4586fcfb207905
e7f89bf23d02ab995e015000ee2f4eafaae5ef1a
75497 F20101112_AABFGS ko_b_Page_295.pro
809a4777a22655f579dcd983acf72345
eb331c04f309b97a9b3ddfa35631364a1c4e6be2
61082 F20101112_AABFGT ko_b_Page_297.pro
0e51d4397d3f4735c1e71f7c80c9979e
3a90990e95dd391813af4ea119cf9b98cc9f2e48
69447 F20101112_AABDSA ko_b_Page_281.pro
b520d23fbabcd070c5770133319e8a56
0f12e1248e9cf2f9257979ca1c8930b32c4c6211
1967 F20101112_AABFGU ko_b_Page_298.pro
f2389d796587bee365e6031dbacd94eb
9bfef30f276b3d9998213b1ecbabc14a87167674
121825 F20101112_AABDSB ko_b_Page_029.jp2
6bbd373b18e55995098ca0499e232583
639b13acf2730c7f543d9c2352e880cd67ee576e
79915 F20101112_AABFGV ko_b_Page_299.pro
cd6c98e361ec958934982efd08b9eb05
cdfbf8c8cc4e489fa37581a05df8b51c7f8ce1fc
2478 F20101112_AABDSC ko_b_Page_189.txt
6328553e488d1246aa7995f670aa52e8
f96945dd8cbf359d0e03f690f6fd1f8861963916
51131 F20101112_AABFGW ko_b_Page_300.pro
7e82124dce90b07089721e600b263f56
70ae6e67f65def342874e8ccc6e2908be7f1726c
6896 F20101112_AABFZA ko_b_Page_231.QC.jpg
44e7c114014f821090e274e059d0bb84
9bc00b68fc6a1accf29cf03f38363e9f2a7cd87f
118290 F20101112_AABDSD ko_b_Page_118.jp2
c00ca8d46804d9bebfa70c28ba9199d6
f6623186c5e3e92f01f5efe1c947355eaf671c22
67418 F20101112_AABFGX ko_b_Page_301.pro
80d454233bfdb7fde98544749275153b
bfe8b36faca7ae6db27e9dc029ac2587cdb1e115
6046 F20101112_AABFZB ko_b_Page_232thm.jpg
b9c895e553c113e87fbbdb902fe292da
88ea5b9296c788bcf58bb024474f6f648ce43a14
6880 F20101112_AABDSE ko_b_Page_097thm.jpg
2aeded8a53de13437ec9138193c3737a
84c3b4c1f5d92b7a799299b4cb02f4ace5d00488
1811 F20101112_AABFGY ko_b_Page_302.pro
1fae031ec395f33619e67d52dafe6008
7b27c68de546d3c43e25f127f70cc0b7de3da7ef
5105 F20101112_AABFZC ko_b_Page_233thm.jpg
a8e68edfad3def9b6fdc1d961ef446fe
3daf4aaa40d061054f6d67dd81d5e02d83f357e8
25291 F20101112_AABDSF ko_b_Page_096.QC.jpg
b35c837f6f78bf09048a46907d815a2e
ec0cdaf89f2d9a75da9588700361392f8dcc4dc4
52107 F20101112_AABFGZ ko_b_Page_303.pro
ef75b4ffa31ce6461323644285fcd48b
d4b19ac02c608351415cb2d25643f46b076f7980
17731 F20101112_AABFZD ko_b_Page_234.QC.jpg
6f104f7e754ea804767b5b200749f568
23f58c8efcd28f853b4bc7f7ebaf5aea23f1e9fc
F20101112_AABDSG ko_b_Page_080.tif
f8167029d6c725272b7f6b5f771be6aa
3a43038aedc24e62e2e4c44baab5dab8fb633388
17607 F20101112_AABFZE ko_b_Page_235.QC.jpg
1d2290a88de5380c3d71808d7d86f146
c0832a584a8dd1746a7f64f267bd63c983a74623
75706 F20101112_AABDSH ko_b_Page_199.jpg
a286f08d32f6d128b52bbb01ceb2239e
07b630ee68b8a018c0b9a892134a28ae43e9a9d2
116798 F20101112_AABEPA ko_b_Page_165.jp2
844f000ff529a7d220fcbde140a24cb8
28440f24f2f93d306c9a1f46ad2af3f7856b7ae3
4892 F20101112_AABFZF ko_b_Page_235thm.jpg
7a5740a8312a86e75a04b257431a12d7
4858ba4d65b644b69df28d8f6a31a1b39dd2798f
F20101112_AABDSI ko_b_Page_194.txt
1e6ebe3bc795b677b4e48d517d2e7c2b
5ddeeda595d670c828150610ee40ff5f9e912981
111518 F20101112_AABEPB ko_b_Page_166.jp2
c6f1a83f3002d6ef2bec5623554ede71
1ce69e1006c13fe627148f9b89fcef596106cc49
11299 F20101112_AABFZG ko_b_Page_236.QC.jpg
90932428dea63e4c1a7f5996ab6ff5a2
cdadd3f2de162cf7c22c5d8164bc1e7157632d30
18400 F20101112_AABDSJ ko_b_Page_310.QC.jpg
bcefb0e43faedb72cdad69bb650db92d
13a7f9719947661c81f9aca370760b72b9877d4a
111958 F20101112_AABEPC ko_b_Page_167.jp2
59cff2e8817363e751d1b40edaa0df3e
257bea8895c6ee36bd4f433d051a8e3847400c8d
3579 F20101112_AABFZH ko_b_Page_237thm.jpg
466c3bb961d6a2eb0c4619cfceac20ed
c3ad91d2401db92d3062518f8201f1cc37acc539
F20101112_AABDSK ko_b_Page_238.tif
a28946570c2cc467624f33e6774d74fe
b0d19eee74ec7374e7e040de6cd1e79998637c54
120432 F20101112_AABEPD ko_b_Page_168.jp2
d8849de9aa8a7759b58c98970c5bc39e
f45a3ba3cf1ee8f130abcb1bc7f9023d0e135eb8
13568 F20101112_AABFZI ko_b_Page_238.QC.jpg
6436b585c1cb34c753cc276848675054
dd6f792947ffc50a45a29be61137841e308cff18
6793 F20101112_AABDSL ko_b_Page_123thm.jpg
b9333a9e2ca3f6d1381a04522d95797a
4c3a04843e73131890da92c18f04493a6bd3c433
116023 F20101112_AABEPE ko_b_Page_170.jp2
f544fc66dfd8cc0e7325e47fe0518f05
b870aa806a9df6ad81d10b5990d40023e84e6099
29273 F20101112_AABDFA ko_b_Page_296.QC.jpg
f8c366ce337a9fc6e51b6e41146a2ce2
9826ac1894031cb02836d4f5afb6d7da08584e9c
3845 F20101112_AABFZJ ko_b_Page_238thm.jpg
69281d46f744be92b66f467bb2577541
86a4cceeace61fa9d115a8041fa59f10beece668
F20101112_AABDSM ko_b_Page_219.tif
10beca5658ca29fe6a868a21e32ca9c9
ed01dbb40674cd9f984bc54601207e0b4dce50f4
119049 F20101112_AABEPF ko_b_Page_171.jp2
3fd960ef518b53e8d6b0089da2ceb7f9
f4e04767ae09fa47f88f05b17a85037ca161388e
18769 F20101112_AABDFB ko_b_Page_254.QC.jpg
3adf73d3447f634d877fbda8c3306153
2e6cc8d4d6d4f39514330e03f91b6aafa7d6a9c3
6527 F20101112_AABFZK ko_b_Page_239thm.jpg
91152e04fec8c499be0d4b82d6122346
29dc56ad12cc8df0fdf33f124f0042ef0de48bcb
35807 F20101112_AABDSN ko_b_Page_218.pro
39de0b784513c9ff6f2c2b2a0517ce23
c78eb31ef7149dd33adc21c826ba2b8b7b268107
115785 F20101112_AABEPG ko_b_Page_172.jp2
41476ed8a6032937e851cfdc1235b6f4
86caffc438d559c16b2ffd16ec6174b2088d9f1c
74001 F20101112_AABDFC ko_b_Page_082.jpg
99a783ab398e794a5ccc96c1968251b7
3e136981d54dc42d2cd774d40f07d1c135c6c450
F20101112_AABFZL ko_b_Page_240.QC.jpg
59a306c47977a92308b840845150a026
0446d8012bb8f2d1541f28000b23404361b3ec7e
2411 F20101112_AABFMA ko_b_Page_204.txt
1c2147976e16cd0948fda652b78821f2
0a064ccb22fcd43df0f072287216af1bccea77ae
1051912 F20101112_AABDSO ko_b_Page_273.jp2
08a52215c684ec07669f1f5584d4a9ef
cada5c4e7ad010ff17a819ebbabd311d62c12764
120289 F20101112_AABEPH ko_b_Page_175.jp2
f5c73eb5e236ff7a1cd3dedbf0e3f48b
13ad97e1ce772198d420f1f094cf7fb2908917fa
49350 F20101112_AABDFD ko_b_Page_054.pro
39d5fd0aabdb0a1ba529a86dc3a77ead
82014058e80783ffc04a0c23a7433eb71e96197e
7032 F20101112_AABFZM ko_b_Page_240thm.jpg
061bc440a3d8b10ed126b74886615f45
b5526395e083b59ed70d493e640daffa3b9a5de2
2507 F20101112_AABFMB ko_b_Page_205.txt
0c7a6435753eab5343f4b60d7e548ade
60c802c04fff04558dbac8d960d57d07e1c1cb4e
6757 F20101112_AABDSP ko_b_Page_028thm.jpg
bf95be700dddb45dc187473c69e19047
005b3b4be1a6cb126a8f75c3d196f5df7ab875eb
114045 F20101112_AABEPI ko_b_Page_176.jp2
f0960f41e1ed4c49636c2af8663bd9f8
ce2b0ea32d5751082c129da968037a4a8d1eb090
56098 F20101112_AABDFE ko_b_Page_157.pro
d1aee6b99f3d779ba8218f67d798e46b
08d8f0be858964538fa51d1a076a36f603f0d4c7
7068 F20101112_AABFZN ko_b_Page_241thm.jpg
ef8c36493c9c4619697297e57bec5edf
9f8d12f88c6737a5c6346efe4c92c9d7133cb361
1731 F20101112_AABFMC ko_b_Page_207.txt
03ff91177dfc0c82e748fe0f01f3031f
5d788b7fff933bf9b5f84d4bdc2ed6b04df101a9
7667 F20101112_AABDSQ ko_b_Page_008thm.jpg
3f495f59bbae9464debd4ca38654d891
316e64e13caa26c3e9dca3a2e5e74ca35858b2b0
115495 F20101112_AABEPJ ko_b_Page_177.jp2
d72ba4fa83b96974e832c6f80b0d977c
327a0fbbe93c129f8f0be0d37d7bf51e3f53e599
118448 F20101112_AABDFF ko_b_Page_007.jpg
821a8533970cbb4c73e6a465ce7b34a4
3212848e331575ec4f9341cc441f5a4332cba196
26469 F20101112_AABFZO ko_b_Page_242.QC.jpg
06a4db6443c80ee7a7482dca260546e0
07f910f56fca75795322f477470c3d02afa9b533
F20101112_AABFMD ko_b_Page_208.txt
ce53784e0c60ca32f725ea05d99b1f71
260a80978c6ecf7f6ac798035f9652b719341d25
94614 F20101112_AABDSR ko_b_Page_192.jp2
2f02286211891d73080a433a62b2d22a
6f717e14b0a49ff1c07101cc52b5b97bb23086e1
115758 F20101112_AABEPK ko_b_Page_179.jp2
0f540fc51e211d1b55ec71f531d69d71
3d3f2d5b7d79b55e9650a00b106bcab332481149
F20101112_AABDFG ko_b_Page_171.tif
f8d2326c6b4c52502c92d44229a1c391
b899b1100b248273d5f7c4263717ea6a733de465
7073 F20101112_AABFZP ko_b_Page_242thm.jpg
1d882c28aefd757bac47fd7f209ded0f
88d6b0f9a13d3a17e3b9b28ddede47b4e3864314
1327 F20101112_AABFME ko_b_Page_209.txt
ad43dc135aaae77ad46c6774812f32a2
d8f9762e091fbf3aeae33d14ef8cd20f283cc516
26025 F20101112_AABECA ko_b_Page_265.QC.jpg
f6d336dddffae8ead778883b1ebe6f51
67938ed01a5c8c687be6266ecf8c0c9ae9fcb0e7
27069 F20101112_AABDSS ko_b_Page_136.QC.jpg
28b48d38e9449ce8dd335937da7b042d
461c56091a6cb28dab23ed6465f7c52f36ce25dd
119149 F20101112_AABEPL ko_b_Page_181.jp2
8b67e2fdca4fffa20cfe6a6148e0d67c
1dcfd9997e96bd9aa424cfea3d164dc148f81f9a
F20101112_AABDFH ko_b_Page_007.tif
65e1951a6bf80d71e266fa7293ece78d
d902ca1a9aad1d759e9f2555513073d24cea33a3
25898 F20101112_AABFZQ ko_b_Page_243.QC.jpg
0acaf29e0f46f1acdb88de1e41d33afa
aa1579930790fa1a27f42d6e2c9cefbc9c99c7cf
720 F20101112_AABFMF ko_b_Page_210.txt
686ddb9bd60768ddb9148fda5167878f
f8fb2713e05b7816e35347de3dba3221a2f411cb
F20101112_AABECB ko_b_Page_111.tif
103c08e89cec39e6f5e4fd0ec63c66be
ca139f15c4c576508bae07047c3b532c8943d2cc
5244 F20101112_AABDST ko_b_Page_101thm.jpg
be304fb0dd83d9ca5287a6379d0c07c8
414cdfa04bd6c8e292129509d94eece0ebfb2ca3
113596 F20101112_AABEPM ko_b_Page_182.jp2
7280cfed9b77d6a00823f82609957d52
efa0072719f9d9724b740770e7ad5a3a2f9da12b
26260 F20101112_AABFZR ko_b_Page_244.QC.jpg
cd51a5fde568ee24ffc6de60c616f4ea
958227e1dfa83c59558501febaeb07f98df48989
665 F20101112_AABFMG ko_b_Page_211.txt
ad5e082dc90f1d3ca640b3eac180bed4
66ad3659e52ed47f38aba0f8f9383056abbc7c8e
63908 F20101112_AABECC ko_b_Page_286.pro
dd393267abd7063356eca37b7fab0e0c
e283a4f7b1b638a6751edcd9e7a3df1d8e5768dd
42766 F20101112_AABDSU ko_b_Page_211.jpg
ff57402b4a8e7f20a746be1a9c08f749
14a23b08ae23ff890b4d53a0a77e0a1dd0d1acc1
116846 F20101112_AABEPN ko_b_Page_183.jp2
6897a3003f1dc98bfe99fd5601a7cfdb
a435049b3bb7a8a34fbaad538a0a5b9e20388beb
7196 F20101112_AABDFI ko_b_Page_180thm.jpg
103b95062b1aec04f5fa0162e5684111
7dc6bb911c17ee46fa338a71b3c2ea46fca20365
6745 F20101112_AABFZS ko_b_Page_245thm.jpg
58bbb37eb3f75c07fcd424bcadbc7688
1cab66dfde09ed161efdf5077b130c316a6fb6dc
656 F20101112_AABFMH ko_b_Page_212.txt
343c7cbe39d14646328bad52e91e2e7c
2d7ce33d3913b01476735fa508ec4029b424c889
F20101112_AABECD ko_b_Page_312thm.jpg
cdda9e77350ad5d73e6733d8c3fdf932
2ef85ac923baf1ec95eb583f666587c135b645ba
118802 F20101112_AABEPO ko_b_Page_184.jp2
e34d0cbda626a2f2faf1b4affd332cb6
4946a6100746d1b9c078d71489af600ca9e975cd
25530 F20101112_AABDFJ ko_b_Page_131.QC.jpg
1f4945dc03a46362dfc9852f25146c73
6f08a56d4654924864d8b822ce86e6f36dc68622
23920 F20101112_AABFZT ko_b_Page_248.QC.jpg
203f29f5fffc5af48951c4f75e41be70
b14ce30957799960fed238e56b655dc935b4835d
406 F20101112_AABFMI ko_b_Page_213.txt
7b036707b2c7a25d3db1b30535d68831
1fc150f1ba8f7a5fc22746ff543cbc5d6071ed53
116 F20101112_AABDSV ko_b_Page_275.txt
2fc39b4786b8d10a136c0b031c0450f4
97a2ad665707387962850f42fd2524b571536f1c
92549 F20101112_AABEPP ko_b_Page_187.jp2
c43f099cf31753aa86c03230bbd0bcf2
a1d55b862b6ac6e560feb7f0c03da98ee37f4867
2130 F20101112_AABDFK ko_b_Page_304.txt
e6093f052eb74bb6320a88cf9abbdf97
507ef7bfb5414cfd808b6886d6350236416cf2ed
6666 F20101112_AABFZU ko_b_Page_248thm.jpg
26965aa4b42da423953cb3ff149fbe35
d08b56c7caf9f715a62a9f6c607fd5af909c620d
408 F20101112_AABFMJ ko_b_Page_214.txt
6aefd521e87440c9e5c925ffab3b437e
8d61b814e4c75cc761249dd45e12f23a99c8a3a6
121034 F20101112_AABECE ko_b_Page_219.jp2
a0ad23b148798d2471453090f0de65dd
808aa7917fb7317605a1826bf8a3b8e688b17e38
2230 F20101112_AABDSW ko_b_Page_140.txt
e1f83efc8ddfc7e5f306b7ebd4ec5e9a
d8a03e9f208ab91becb025cf4806bf8bb05cfed3
97883 F20101112_AABEPQ ko_b_Page_188.jp2
06c3fc395675d18299326bf417ad9d78
8947733bad5fa377c84740a48eedd9be310fe887
6590 F20101112_AABDFL ko_b_Page_061thm.jpg
b184be036c41df2042dd0fd1ebe98ead
eab6ebc36efd8b0b7cae795ead13022107f69711
6727 F20101112_AABFZV ko_b_Page_249thm.jpg
90fb869e3e221ffccf068ab026e73e3c
908bbed52acd4d3e7cc0feb8e52d345c1271966d
415 F20101112_AABFMK ko_b_Page_215.txt
ac95f8f9d7b3646b81de68bdf0a3da3a
61f1ff98ab1c3864fd95fc7683ba7e4b6bde367b
2208 F20101112_AABECF ko_b_Page_142.txt
009941b75321c65648c84a6051846db4
5998b8c62f9ed98fffb0485fd7332c08f26f77a8
25989 F20101112_AABDSX ko_b_Page_120.QC.jpg
efd90de649733ea03c29521c749b0c09
ad9b0c834143952109c2248502312f8d5a76cc14
72305 F20101112_AABDFM ko_b_Page_282.pro
d163ab46b883ca1dde70447e698657d4
b9ba3c4e5ee70c2003aed6534e114bb777aca2c4
6796 F20101112_AABFZW ko_b_Page_250thm.jpg
b00c1fbd3982c485d358180f026c7e26
c41ab7e0ec086df9272742d8ce42878818e43574
2139 F20101112_AABFML ko_b_Page_217.txt
f6821379b34b16a44d98f63a6e0664bd
1f07f4a79ea98eb4a06e402d23c66b7b8bee9f37
1395 F20101112_AABDSY ko_b_Page_278.pro
84be45bd6d512bc320f0ddc36e910ad0
0d395b8f73e12d0e783ce81ab3798e4f362efc28
98154 F20101112_AABEPR ko_b_Page_190.jp2
f99a382a90dc27b189c3682c98a7625e
488d63ba343f9865be536afd686b0f295768b881
14747 F20101112_AABDFN ko_b_Page_191.QC.jpg
09df13e97d70b742502d96f515f80703
4dad5ef46d4d184bfa4c98121272d75546d448b7
1942 F20101112_AABECG ko_b_Page_196.txt
dc6aa12244cccfe0cb76d0b645251138
e67b450c1810f6b589ec9ffd8c9b2d7a5859d3b6
26073 F20101112_AABFZX ko_b_Page_251.QC.jpg
8d5a43abcc57fbe244e71649e1c73f54
93c42168c0ff3dad523d145dc13db7e7d1a15b7b
2793 F20101112_AABFMM ko_b_Page_219.txt
52725eaccc0abb4c9004ae3d8b1fbed6
ad4d32767b4eec04605c9c5b092cf61e96d7eeca
32238 F20101112_AABDSZ ko_b_Page_112.pro
3bb8d7300a432595fc0e6f6c291ccbc8
dd27d9f1e6977acff3b5ac5626166549b67482a7
78386 F20101112_AABEPS ko_b_Page_191.jp2
52168e6438b0d31cc07f1c37d3befc99
8bb6f534bacb81822006de968ad3d3f988d08047
12473 F20101112_AABDFO ko_b_Page_272.jpg
0917736e6be7dbd04da76c941d6ad63b
8a7b75d7ee892557f61b1c12bfc35b235e0c6be3
F20101112_AABECH ko_b_Page_052.txt
05e7f84b859fb3f54b4a57284d290f6e
c43b04ad5ce5120255ce5715819de82b1f5601a9
6928 F20101112_AABFZY ko_b_Page_251thm.jpg
acbfd9f12a29792a4bb473e7a9d2ab83
4fc7a0b411424ff7af5fb4b9025d6f2b3f17fdfb
113074 F20101112_AABEPT ko_b_Page_193.jp2
172abeb42e6db2d8baa7e44cafcfd4b3
582602100371f5c4556cb060ec6206eb5d551b0d
117800 F20101112_AABDFP ko_b_Page_057.jp2
813ead7393e9c2646f91fd402199da32
2857e7bfdc07668051a186dd0c5f6f03a3bd00e7
75931 F20101112_AABECI ko_b_Page_193.jpg
0d6f9f41a7507fdffaf82789ae323f68
82039325f3e02f8fc74b7a5008344b3d261c1189
7186 F20101112_AABFZZ ko_b_Page_252thm.jpg
7e4cc7343594c354704e0e6857e17706
046be8c8a102d44d10891a7e1876fd764eef4da1
1560 F20101112_AABFMN ko_b_Page_220.txt
d09a881f4c3fdbea0845650e5748d866
7d89ee5873e2a8fcb001786eecef48c2c40faac2
91430 F20101112_AABEPU ko_b_Page_194.jp2
d0e5207cc3b991a3aeafe4fb582a16f2
a068fb892b280290026305d4d42ab9eda0c91675
115259 F20101112_AABDFQ ko_b_Page_139.jp2
635156102853e9f825d3787c5e011929
ce933fbc06d3ef30bc12680627476d1cd1817793
25683 F20101112_AABECJ ko_b_Page_134.QC.jpg
a31b4bf0f3dcd8a52a51fcc42afca8a8
4c23f4142989f6136e9d00c2293e630f3f5561f1
2840 F20101112_AABFMO ko_b_Page_221.txt
9c775c00c9dd9d8e42a643d45f5a0e2b
d03558ad158cf93e7641fe43fc39011a0dc0259d
79463 F20101112_AABEPV ko_b_Page_195.jp2
9de2972ca258dadcebdfe24e5ff803f9
a624e91c3c68aed57e96ea8b363dab116c9d7aab
1051976 F20101112_AABDFR ko_b_Page_284.jp2
aae557fe171e859db018e5a38ac0271a
a3a02030303391540d8a863479fcd2c124357ab1
6750 F20101112_AABECK ko_b_Page_183thm.jpg
374cca753bd60181f1394bb388a60a7f
0346dd360ecf177e223e5a2b0340438dbad0036b
1429 F20101112_AABFMP ko_b_Page_222.txt
a4dfeb2deb98cc324df8eb3f30d12a3b
67543359f03e7f22e6a5ac8a0bea12c271142e85
94427 F20101112_AABEPW ko_b_Page_196.jp2
0d3ff91b7ff9dc4551835c6e0d44ff68
1fc6847433c1678d4e1c31e41ad7bef007bf7cda
115093 F20101112_AABDFS ko_b_Page_117.jp2
5382f2802fb3c902717981dff893584d
1400c05b99e2ed33c7e9fdef57b9243cf1e854ce
26562 F20101112_AABECL ko_b_Page_173.QC.jpg
593ee9d495c751ed20b3a0d74458e21f
9de80fc173dab82fcfdc7a29e070e5c4e6c94c4f
1473 F20101112_AABFMQ ko_b_Page_224.txt
0f79266ccd78b1370c87f1be507e1a37
84883039f0cfaeabaa922f467861cc7122d7aa19
50641 F20101112_AABEPX ko_b_Page_197.jp2
226d93e5c4beb57c5faa2d01ad570c79
7eed9dc40c1e074640824996cbce43def289da51
F20101112_AABDFT ko_b_Page_180.tif
4aa242a61f7d219242b4f0cfd89d6b95
e86e306713aed928ddf94c1f297fc71abe5c78ec
2803 F20101112_AABECM ko_b_Page_301.txt
d503a93c98d5dfc721fd4ff21f99fc12
ae523411a3e4778e02515ee45c2f5a732e5c9b3b
1024 F20101112_AABFMR ko_b_Page_225.txt
6ff6472965170de6b67b570aa85fadc5
10eb3deece420374c0466bd2075c56548a96dfd6
92501 F20101112_AABEPY ko_b_Page_198.jp2
6cc4a6c4776ce618baf72d73dbf377c5
e46f06986e1aac93e547165df9efd152dd33bc8d
23522 F20101112_AABDFU ko_b_Page_186.QC.jpg
11dd2cd01d6f853d8e9a0990a9be1dd8
5affffbed2d91f7fd1e162bdc81f0b65370b368e
6532 F20101112_AABECN ko_b_Page_158thm.jpg
2f3ea9cc1a0f1e358dc8d6554560377b
a0bfec114f5d0ce93b8c2a65b6b9c7033d41e19a
2736 F20101112_AABFMS ko_b_Page_226.txt
e549c2ae3d00c9fc36a1da874bca0fb0
c4c674464dc547cf58ced424224519d7b0b2d32b
111673 F20101112_AABEPZ ko_b_Page_199.jp2
64c26b7333483d391118c5cdb888e461
b1761fedc80ef56c19c984dbbe7ff465dae37de0
6777 F20101112_AABDFV ko_b_Page_244thm.jpg
23e2d0fcb1b1df7dcb6eb73f711f4b21
430445549afb69b407b2f2ebe6b12c45b2291a81
25201 F20101112_AABECO ko_b_Page_078.QC.jpg
3b8b476a983dfd1b7a85d246877c00df
2c3c5313292ea0f2c97532b27701e6064dd709c2
2362 F20101112_AABFMT ko_b_Page_227.txt
3e0f36d4aa13ac75c80e31be9e3858a2
f25bd9d0b0e164c363562c8d017ffc176b8a0595
F20101112_AABDFW ko_b_Page_185.txt
1b5bdcba70c4cca34ff98a327e1af7ee
8c2c8a573b96f5b8393e111d162bb5caada16c9a
57092 F20101112_AABECP ko_b_Page_100.jpg
2c2ee184cde13969d27ea609d836ed9b
5faa135ed5356c2c455671154f5ef002fbf4b802
1290 F20101112_AABFMU ko_b_Page_228.txt
950459a82ff85e568b227a5affa1a82f
c639cbfff83ace46c25e5b648f74841ad89763dd
F20101112_AABDFX ko_b_Page_232.tif
36d128c50bc276b735e7f0ade6a931a9
dac4c77f14ef50bb559e32beb4ccc5f2b42ef2bf
26620 F20101112_AABDYA ko_b_Page_292.jpg
d3abcb02aaf51a1b8ecca21b128f0f22
930b44107e5a135fb57b755f6d9514c993c3c4a7
117912 F20101112_AABECQ ko_b_Page_156.jp2
13e3968ab6d60f36f99bc27e8bf66b17
feab0bd1c63c3da966a4a72612ba5bfdd821cdc8
536 F20101112_AABFMV ko_b_Page_229.txt
77dcb67efc5c85d39fc4dde18f1bd9c5
681a1c2423e4ab0a377fa2a2bbe7ab7384cce581
1608 F20101112_AABDFY ko_b_Page_195.txt
e689b805b6bd947383ad238e92680a79
dd0144e5919494558c32be9fe32b02e8ac7464c2
24659 F20101112_AABDYB ko_b_Page_151.QC.jpg
bfe1f95d0153492ab28ad91e54596cc0
61ef8cb1d10400b246fabfccf233cafc32e2e916
F20101112_AABECR ko_b_Page_017.tif
d4c0853ae1c744f14c69759323cdec58
49f28b992efee8c85be56c0d69a7f6981970cdff
240 F20101112_AABFMW ko_b_Page_230.txt
8209f7c82e846ac180979e312530aec6
3ba78a101b9b625ddeed5f59020ce1b40bffb5b9
60854 F20101112_AABDFZ ko_b_Page_228.jp2
f32bda5bdb8e91741b19862d9dc29f1b
e4299789a2c23c32576f1e8361ea8e29378e1363
77743 F20101112_AABDYC ko_b_Page_243.jpg
8820da6a65d410fa605bbcb8d2b71301
c147bb3bd055c06da1e980a0d19f929bc19a1545
2039 F20101112_AABECS ko_b_Page_092.txt
02cd3f1e7a0f01d51fe157eadf9e1230
5290b4f13f2faf358cb4ba007cea5a90a2c3eaf7
1699 F20101112_AABFMX ko_b_Page_234.txt
cdf309ebbae337b00f8a11d93e9b4b83
200ad4fbb8f4764368ce8b7db13a0aa156d6a31a
2079 F20101112_AABDYD ko_b_Page_159.txt
caff91b0207aeadc37a61602232a0489
ff2fb06783d7a7ef4a46fc823799eb1296aec626
F20101112_AABECT ko_b_Page_026.tif
91b5a2df440d9c30d994fd18012148bd
b1d395327ad28c321761c5d5eacfdf54ab6b12c4
1776 F20101112_AABFMY ko_b_Page_235.txt
f1b08c6e4f0ffdf6c9ff0f5d1a52605f
a6bd988173f7f33731ec0ff73f31c0c1575958ae
103 F20101112_AABDYE ko_b_Page_272.txt
6de4f3b5249e1bd70695ff435afac619
36048731f996cb08a4ccc51fc26b2f56d624a90c
15719 F20101112_AABECU ko_b_Page_271.jpg
a3192b3904421f1cfa55a822b64c7572
5ed8886412685646c8b96b78fe41b1f46a97615a
1086 F20101112_AABFMZ ko_b_Page_237.txt
2ea6486c2f7577f3adeab621a697198a
c2429a9c8baff061af4f47e0e5d10631eedce5ce
13914 F20101112_AABDYF ko_b_Page_015.QC.jpg
77963777b754def6b2a273ce9e0566a6
66a9d3e702d9171d6c240b182e307ef2e3783ed0
117346 F20101112_AABECV ko_b_Page_169.jp2
84d064cf69270f19e6a0976cb40304ee
f4a48bd539947cc6d0a4e378cd282e5d55836ac3
26943 F20101112_AABDYG ko_b_Page_284.QC.jpg
3ea34885512725f2d2dab10a49747319
4f6337e1c3b02049fe9193b9d890f48f5952179c
78633 F20101112_AABECW ko_b_Page_132.jpg
02bc9c319c85cc6b6c7f4171610b4cc5
74b9ce706b0cfb9a4e123a7ab3780eddb131396a
F20101112_AABEVA ko_b_Page_106.tif
4519a062083837f2f2051b394addab72
a4e0d26ef49200fecef4526e0b311b3bf6327270
57835 F20101112_AABDYH ko_b_Page_193.pro
338abae7dc7d42f5b570aa4c9dec1fcb
7f487752fa28a25a4577dbca90632a446c8b7320
F20101112_AABECX ko_b_Page_287.jp2
dc4ad1bc2db4c6fc5b1a43e5786322e8
04e339bc610f79eb3875cdb798d04f4746751411
F20101112_AABEVB ko_b_Page_107.tif
72af12a9109e6c2ef5d747b7224a6c1a
578415ea0ea317bc5195537c5d9c9608b25289c4
52688 F20101112_AABDYI ko_b_Page_101.jpg
5f7f3bf5f894e2bd47b74d01e99f64d3
11f28bb991840c2aa764aa41bf1069b0c04e20eb
2819 F20101112_AABECY ko_b_Page_231thm.jpg
53e515885d2858b9e0f55324938e4508
c476672a8a79de4148869e8a91c6347313949159
F20101112_AABEVC ko_b_Page_108.tif
0fd0bb75c72b1d84993d7b41713e6ed9
408b0e3910dd993b7884844ca77fc107318667e4
6924 F20101112_AABDYJ ko_b_Page_076thm.jpg
f15448df8f4d51d77ba8dbdc673a7e84
1bdc643b4294f031a0401598695144785ea50b65
21910 F20101112_AABECZ ko_b_Page_305.QC.jpg
82dddf0fad0b150bbc1791336bbcb145
5a36c26213e9e04cc4b23dfb900d1f6ab450d8b6
F20101112_AABEVD ko_b_Page_109.tif
9285ac32563270eb9508be52dc7408ed
47544f18420d6e10fc27466a096d1d422de5a55a
80388 F20101112_AABDYK ko_b_Page_148.jpg
56490335b3257c2b45ba5cb3e7d4ccac
32a121161b39444b88660bc3d164b81015d5999b
F20101112_AABEVE ko_b_Page_110.tif
13545eba9a1590ef45c5a70f5bf2eb0d
715699456141cc223c4e84c8445a20ad578a2ea4
26813 F20101112_AABDLA ko_b_Page_300.QC.jpg
fbc9305366cc2d654c2f2bfcf90c839b
39f6d30e1acdd723bd141f0225406416ebc344a1
2006 F20101112_AABDYL ko_b_Page_270.txt
5017f693ad5b85db8c27733c90863c04
ce1acf0c2ef4135fb935236835d6993fb3d69027
F20101112_AABEVF ko_b_Page_114.tif
611b7b13f0cb5af10a194fd83e2942b9
ef38f7b4fa92d7cd268e9a712f5d26a2a684c802
6155 F20101112_AABDLB ko_b_Page_226thm.jpg
91c2e5dab4fdd3bee9982f90524b2bf6
b3274263620a8026f663d2bdbb0b401abfaddf16
11089 F20101112_AABDYM ko_b_Page_278.jpg
fc549d16d3fe6b0a9eed4c917e93d3c1
013f39a754de53d0739ac2d21a944d1714dafed7
F20101112_AABEVG ko_b_Page_115.tif
eedd4a5164e60176ee34b360e2278800
8272fa7627d66e3e9a9401b0abfb50865c76a490
6599 F20101112_AABDLC ko_b_Page_286thm.jpg
5f6578ff23164c68d493f78b80d521da
c421a2d8422b45753daa32a6efaea1e1204af180
2275 F20101112_AABDYN ko_b_Page_001thm.jpg
1407cfd5dc0ad24bd8e1e9d5dde948aa
a8d3be66ad4ea65262d9bfe89ed8c2de1adefce2
24939 F20101112_AABFSA ko_b_Page_064.QC.jpg
570c3b3be89bd6e3f4b5843e4fc0d10b
75268432d7cb5fedd9fd25b3bd23322bacaa5de3
F20101112_AABEVH ko_b_Page_116.tif
f3be96330b2dcb00c7c9cd5fe2ceef60
235646c1ff79ccc50c41622e285891eaffdf77ae
26682 F20101112_AABDLD ko_b_Page_146.QC.jpg
74e2fafcc9dfd12e241b2f53964c1c88
0805c3ed56e5619aefcbb80bf3ba57b1689fb267
8801 F20101112_AABDYO ko_b_Page_230.QC.jpg
6c0ca847929171d0859a02ecfe007a7c
2566eb8135057d6941878dc044fdd7b32e8cc96e
6598 F20101112_AABFSB ko_b_Page_065thm.jpg
53e373219b8cd2a8139d1dde3a7f6426
6ff55d3042d78703eb3fe293dedfc725416cfbf1
F20101112_AABEVI ko_b_Page_118.tif
9ff980c846a80fb0f5e07a80c2c87449
c9c6fe2cf1895e5a20e937a0716b576e5a9ff643
2011 F20101112_AABDLE ko_b_Page_071.txt
315a4d7cec880558d8548fd4a95ede78
ae6def6fea30c55bcb11b993f6ccec3134fb4e06
F20101112_AABDYP ko_b_Page_172.tif
c227a42dc7d033a7d2dd0bfe15a82140
087470c6567f807fc6dbf1ce89c4d9bf317a3096
24940 F20101112_AABFSC ko_b_Page_066.QC.jpg
d74d0f7f685f4508500cd0f5b214b2f4
140eb86a5922101da70cb781faff6b4fecb9ea97
F20101112_AABEVJ ko_b_Page_120.tif
6677b0c1817ba970b757b4dcc2b605f7
3181334ae62a9c2ce98cf3607f20fab0644f5e41
F20101112_AABDLF ko_b_Page_168.tif
d93ec5e2440d5de2f511bc060f375da4
61905e0f816f15a83a18f5b9c0e17ed58d82e4e3
56679 F20101112_AABDYQ ko_b_Page_022.pro
69a1359296d9e1d2fd524b42567fc950
ecfef35cb9d2c0c649e4e8cad2fd44444711841e
F20101112_AABFSD ko_b_Page_066thm.jpg
924b9f9cf3bd61b3c7e0ed5acbd1b77e
b3d74b0c93babaf356c6baa696820585eae2676c
F20101112_AABEVK ko_b_Page_122.tif
7c0ac7cce435c572e6f4b4a20c6a00c9
8077d351bb4345ad4fe276889162d39e618d04d8
6871 F20101112_AABDLG ko_b_Page_125thm.jpg
b60b2bb5a719861bcf0f1163b2f0acae
b95f4ac307451dae7ced1bd98d0fb98227de087c
F20101112_AABDYR ko_b_Page_033.tif
66ad61225219f286116ae880c092cde5
dfa728aa1445bea5f7acc3b1127339477690dbd1
23553 F20101112_AABFSE ko_b_Page_067.QC.jpg
52bcb3f2df94a5bfca7d55277d01c78b
6afbc4aceab837da22f2c74e6bf857de78dada5b
F20101112_AABEVL ko_b_Page_123.tif
5f1ff52bfe28ead8e7dc8282fa7fbabc
c60db7cffc6e6414c382ee68864b4e970b7e92b4
78323 F20101112_AABDLH ko_b_Page_040.jpg
215c0827aef076244ffd1d122e9c8449
b42ccdeef56e75c181f59641d768248c764eb5d6
77032 F20101112_AABEIA ko_b_Page_169.jpg
1ca1bd13c8a9e5a7c7de6a150a73a095
09ee7fc33352614a38a5230eb7d196c2244db512
6013 F20101112_AABDYS ko_b_Page_293.pro
deb006cfdb6aa7468489587a344a78fd
5983561c3ee4a8e8f5220dd3e4c6f728ba383fbc
6506 F20101112_AABFSF ko_b_Page_067thm.jpg
0ef547eb80990b678d17140d5838c64c
1ec47be8eb1ea8a4e3a0f806b92fd23abc531ac3
F20101112_AABEVM ko_b_Page_124.tif
503dde3c063dd0e1270b3fbe8c98ea44
fb190a004ec63762fee5672ab230688ee2b1a610
9996 F20101112_AABDLI ko_b_Page_216.pro
b46e2ae548e20793c14261eb8c1ed970
59d082bc009fca4b7512854a8c16bbdd42ddfc66
76319 F20101112_AABEIB ko_b_Page_170.jpg
307629e599621a887fd855bcb2f11780
52fed62900933ce8177f34a7083708d1d12816f4
1733 F20101112_AABDYT ko_b_Page_294.pro
d40c52bbc75a1e4f725c3820a42e1d2e
8599e604a7073e701279d67fdc75ad9d1b21ac91
25590 F20101112_AABFSG ko_b_Page_068.QC.jpg
aa053582a72f343572a0f116f0a6aee6
cb48552f8d1af51724ff76d53d4dddbd7f96794e
F20101112_AABEVN ko_b_Page_127.tif
8740e58764cd13691173f8db7144d705
b0350d379ba000a2a069871b04beb925d026ea63
F20101112_AABDLJ ko_b_Page_081.txt
83556af8fad8516ff05556f39782c6b9
b3ce5f73af280a42e01a94ea0e9b409b7141db2d
78230 F20101112_AABEIC ko_b_Page_171.jpg
74247f4eb2fb41e932b9a4a5f3337f47
8249e8690ede2f4b5fb76a37d95576f9315ca0c8
F20101112_AABDYU ko_b_Page_284.tif
81249a2bbbbebc8141b7e35a94bdeb60
f03466e1b4c5f09141c8f699875406e6abccef89
24290 F20101112_AABFSH ko_b_Page_069.QC.jpg
8280cc0d1e9ccd819bf9e9c9338ba71e
ba532b1a496deb9695493fbd55455f06c2e5da1b
F20101112_AABEVO ko_b_Page_129.tif
0bafd9d4e306c1916e94fc3f9946aaf7
5d02bfd48f5aaa2622bcfcdff3f626680220fe80
F20101112_AABDLK ko_b_Page_135.tif
1d2fb20f0581738813163f65fc688dd5
c6efa0a0514da187b1d5a3595bc4b27e13be5f5f
76621 F20101112_AABEID ko_b_Page_172.jpg
bb0d30b9dd6b79bc4c5e69de788e77fa
2f2af4b5755a413a8b7c06652dbb7f7cc695c766
9834 F20101112_AABDYV ko_b_Page_210.pro
95504f52d4de97c6f2998005654d8233
293032ad89d4ebca806202fed8279877536fd0f8
6958 F20101112_AABFSI ko_b_Page_070thm.jpg
88b1b18b87e13d30bb3d8ebc6f685612
18e7f7bbfc5ec377fc71bd24e238789bff7ae5d1
F20101112_AABEVP ko_b_Page_130.tif
928b0d70d9d632ef69b04aeca710b0bc
6d5e31eb65015ec0082533fa33d8d40738256668
20985 F20101112_AABDLL ko_b_Page_198.QC.jpg
0599e5cc8a6d8f7b7082c735a7b888f2
abcfc602eed10b02b9ba9dd31bbd010a82913a62
79122 F20101112_AABEIE ko_b_Page_174.jpg
816fe06cdaeda0ff2c569c8280473fc5
78d02d4b45945a0a0d64844916a1b673da68f9c3
88 F20101112_AABDYW ko_b_Page_294.txt
dd0138dc063e9b1c31b08d36f44e0a4a
90e46ee381ef64d6cf47f4ddec37eba9478099c8
6430 F20101112_AABFSJ ko_b_Page_071thm.jpg
613da37f9a21867399b7940b16776f38
ae91704b49ea946ef07657aef1bab6dbdba02c37
F20101112_AABEVQ ko_b_Page_131.tif
1bfed00c7153eb49c5912f6abb2f1a66
70cedcadc877dd33d9e9688d6212121e9fe5bcf5
57792 F20101112_AABDLM ko_b_Page_043.pro
ffd6adfb74afc118f9bc72b2e5f3bcfe
c2b1f12907335ca6a02514293166efa0a2f644a9
82165 F20101112_AABEIF ko_b_Page_175.jpg
efb323e8133d52510c790fe86af3e863
950299fb7c80f4873168b1aa8db324abdeeacc5e
56882 F20101112_AABDYX ko_b_Page_178.pro
8922ef9fe7ac344adbce22abae281a20
c44e1d60d12475e01a03826b439ba59f0f156065
24584 F20101112_AABFSK ko_b_Page_072.QC.jpg
37aab19dfb65e17ead825a3186623a95
ac167c0161b242ebe3b1e332e032702673cb3228
F20101112_AABEVR ko_b_Page_132.tif
1aeb71cf0fe7569cde167e9bb4d3ae43
fcf3009a82aca1a224e8ab01c8bcc95de5f9c660
97843 F20101112_AABDLN ko_b_Page_208.jp2
96682794f53259466f8f783bd8340935
4640b4c60278baf25b46b0c9443a86a019b35c1f
76868 F20101112_AABEIG ko_b_Page_177.jpg
4a81b0b69ef9e5756f6aa1dfb8d1de29
f14d59cae7c05037e5d87b6bbf8d424a208f4f1a
F20101112_AABDYY ko_b_Page_159.tif
6d2ec0108cc93a1817abfea36c08f050
35dec7f1e19210c252701281e15d81fbf95add2b
23378 F20101112_AABFSL ko_b_Page_073.QC.jpg
860576a5415733cb1d88c6debe405936
4aa4dddd6ed7e834568551adfd2d756aed5e276f
6556 F20101112_AABFFA ko_b_Page_215.pro
ebd48e8c1706a62db6e3c4873ac30140
e2eddc7228fe8db89fba42d67415b3669b2611df
F20101112_AABEVS ko_b_Page_133.tif
f728a5cc609d58f3ece8e9b7d79f98bd
a06daaf1904323b28cb37dd9e67cfa7d7a3eb422
80880 F20101112_AABEIH ko_b_Page_178.jpg
4ea5cf20e0000b83f55f078e8ae89432
2f85fd60cb1538748c4b8630207a15203ed33342
69 F20101112_AABDYZ ko_b_Page_278.txt
87eeb87329c19169d895e086e6e7c0e5
86f02ded571e5160a3ff83387ed5c30674af4a79
26473 F20101112_AABFSM ko_b_Page_074.QC.jpg
798888305811a78dbf895bf069309eab
0c3cfe174abc106f3b765ffcc2c4bec41b957184
66947 F20101112_AABFFB ko_b_Page_219.pro
c6fd5ec9734c4a9bc3cde06e843bfa9d
260a7c22f41bb78d7c6fd69bf01d2d1d93a12b17
F20101112_AABEVT ko_b_Page_134.tif
da6512c4fdd8f0be44ce6bdb9e7a7bc2
406b1644a0cda8bb466d936bbc5888dc8451a6cc
F20101112_AABDLO ko_b_Page_249.tif
7d0651afee95e2a7a9209375a3155a96
b6ae3478212af7a37dabce9497dc16bafd3ddc24
76931 F20101112_AABEII ko_b_Page_180.jpg
bd69e5c9c233a6efeaa891d710b1fdfb
08688bc0f039007d3eeb9a3cb542137ed22cc7ce
25652 F20101112_AABFSN ko_b_Page_075.QC.jpg
f08f2b00e7f66f52876e11bfa6251d95
80979ac94e58efdae43d37b79e25b5509901ee46
37207 F20101112_AABFFC ko_b_Page_220.pro
6675361c0b98074ce9e753f10f9bd5ac
50b1770636d78a56e9d6c81464d0e63e3c26b0db
F20101112_AABEVU ko_b_Page_140.tif
237a6bf0451785254f73d736defa6286
810c94e1a9fbb7a1ca06fd263e40635f6d842637
1704 F20101112_AABDLP ko_b_Page_187.txt
99780180b4f972c8878303d722749bb0
34363bbd8959934a7ce28486728586062a8f338e
75367 F20101112_AABEIJ ko_b_Page_182.jpg
18a27bac965b511d34799ca695d0f863
527c49779af8a45932c70f2c0e8f7e0a3617c67a
6807 F20101112_AABFSO ko_b_Page_078thm.jpg
f658595a13932b5ad585f3e52a58083f
5f3386c04caeab0295d3de48a979e6c58ce7c169
68984 F20101112_AABFFD ko_b_Page_221.pro
ac5192c0a7889a39a852b11e32ec13e7
521ded8e336d0095f8368cb639dcbe7ace98101a
F20101112_AABEVV ko_b_Page_145.tif
71eb5c244c651e6eea0ac8ab8845791d
869d4ca30257b5d34fc02c32da5716e0a67b0c2c
111279 F20101112_AABDLQ ko_b_Page_123.jp2
e6e7f4363db02b0dace2240ab1b8b37c
5ded1c2a4ef8ca305b3fda6e8a59a5dbc32f29ae
6747 F20101112_AABFSP ko_b_Page_079thm.jpg
0c27db1d5023ecf4bc4d24ef85abe792
663ddbf98a687bcc8fbf23e42d6a00e4c28e697d
55284 F20101112_AABFFE ko_b_Page_223.pro
ece2b53e82ac1203c43e7f1a95f2295d
21a309eefd6a274abcc5bf874997b8a8d9c31929
F20101112_AABEVW ko_b_Page_147.tif
11d5ed748239696bd2dccbe943497ee8
6477c468e177bc5219e02eea56c2fa7598bacce7
F20101112_AABDLR ko_b_Page_146.tif
6b1bc31c324885b5c87e125537678b47
b66411abab4a8f1e437cdf056976eda5053912af
78559 F20101112_AABEIK ko_b_Page_184.jpg
7e6b8023350e5e2074ca1b512e26b546
3d16eb17c0d5dd62da89d9fcec325372f516fd58
20121 F20101112_AABFSQ ko_b_Page_080.QC.jpg
e8eceeaf8fe6b5313339a7fd6c31ce5d
516ccec538742e2be99be894cb9f9afab03a2314
34330 F20101112_AABFFF ko_b_Page_224.pro
96b737e906d41cdb17473ef451fb6c15
a033128bca90b5a333b80dcec1bb5109c3aa3ff2
62189 F20101112_AABDLS ko_b_Page_048.pro
b595c8790c176097d1686cbb4b793e4e
692c4d6c52192286b852eb9811e8ee09347d7a22
71821 F20101112_AABEIL ko_b_Page_186.jpg
6db53252f359b793ae697ecb8fd0787a
e23d174ae6556974c96562c624e1a712972d1ee1
5687 F20101112_AABFSR ko_b_Page_080thm.jpg
4b452e3f3a61942fc8efdcadecf143d5
6f231b980c70bb80d8101b9bf24000e45d134be7
F20101112_AABEVX ko_b_Page_148.tif
c93d4c87fdcc98fec7729364094b088b
12d4da9b88ad61a312e89b472f9830e8cfb0e56a
7074 F20101112_AABDLT ko_b_Page_118thm.jpg
12f419f337b9142cb580b981e68aa9f0
68fd879dfec20d71a61656d397365195bf2b0ba3
72461 F20101112_AABEIM ko_b_Page_189.jpg
4174eb258a9f55b80f10fcc34be531fa
23d2b98cf25bdc01076292fb9b04d3a34567adde
6740 F20101112_AABGCA ko_b_Page_297thm.jpg
c695693669fef71b1847e1108274ffd5
3216b68e32b2b155289952eb541e5b1b9b5f2eee
6707 F20101112_AABFSS ko_b_Page_082thm.jpg
d969a24f1eef7975937954c0e3c681e4
a0bf83cc6a79e4204a44a80698868e11b26e93a0
23365 F20101112_AABFFG ko_b_Page_225.pro
b5a311a921bf6eb21fb86d82d0b6f519
bb46a86204ba1161c035f84ca40813835a190f7f
F20101112_AABEVY ko_b_Page_149.tif
b7f316283198c9c3e82fa5d671e6f68f
0db2547356323fed1d9ed476b7060b499b856e87
56697 F20101112_AABDLU ko_b_Page_033.pro
a61d27bc2bfbaad62e592baa413b8199
aed1e23ee538f1027192787ade550e2499c1f9fb
63793 F20101112_AABEIN ko_b_Page_190.jpg
852897c7e9fdadc93f5af207f8122323
56f76551ac5d32cd71cae743479bb228641914b2
4189 F20101112_AABGCB ko_b_Page_298.QC.jpg
036337af9abde10f22a5b4a72bd07394
10d3eac9d4af3b8414efb5d3d3eb2f93faacfa74
66176 F20101112_AABFFH ko_b_Page_226.pro
381b7cc8b6d0ff6cecf898781ca58e3e
2f3744a04a13fc1c20fc10f81593e35a44f2a74b
F20101112_AABEVZ ko_b_Page_151.tif
1428855a22293645b0efa7f2b1de051d
191a0706a5558e40252fea0be055d6c54b75cda3
F20101112_AABDLV ko_b_Page_277.jp2
02afd1e3012abdb23e475d1fca40b676
0fdce1b235ee597aeec087560c9a0d9173ba3d1a
52769 F20101112_AABEIO ko_b_Page_191.jpg
d39ec7e02647b30326d56e61d589b863
e743de9e590b8a8759d826dda521041cc164c72e
23953 F20101112_AABFST ko_b_Page_083.QC.jpg
abea15f9a888fd373e4add6033a06d15
7b2b5e5d05bae0dd91cc75b64203c64a00634a75
114909 F20101112_AABDLW ko_b_Page_070.jp2
4a638b9910d809da03a3f5d82919783c
87994c51261163418dd132835460c2b6ea6325db
65525 F20101112_AABEIP ko_b_Page_192.jpg
58b8abb85ddf53a35dee8c78e17edfeb
a2f2cf9537c2eb32f1036794b0e4e7a4142b640d
56782 F20101112_AABFFI ko_b_Page_227.pro
e217fea9b652b0f0f8a886f8862daa29
1bb61dad85d307b18db97b8dbe669ee03874a508
30042 F20101112_AABGCC ko_b_Page_299.QC.jpg
7ac205e36faf3eb4d8f7fd889c150a60
f48bdd9d5ccbffdd054467b25daf0130e0fdf109
6577 F20101112_AABFSU ko_b_Page_083thm.jpg
2690a38cb4908b7879e7803beec25ad6
66e1b1698191159ce48cf0719594d5a8e2190d8e
6783 F20101112_AABDLX ko_b_Page_308thm.jpg
17e26b9f7a758ee5295408d4cd41ee94
15f715e3b297a9a2361f68bb481c017a55c75f8d
68907 F20101112_AABEIQ ko_b_Page_194.jpg
3f9a68c6c6bb82f2a2c1df0d71af6c6b
2d4c49bc342e912be4792993fecff45bbfb76fbb
30462 F20101112_AABFFJ ko_b_Page_228.pro
f3e7d20ada300167eca44750ce0db052
f421b962c0f294de9b4e1baa4c2a0e05eff8e7d2
26902 F20101112_AABGCD ko_b_Page_301.QC.jpg
e6b2b0563cbef2fe1872f09d2ad3552f
6e49b1ec16feac208dd1f169ba0915abe3b085bd
24945 F20101112_AABFSV ko_b_Page_086.QC.jpg
006debd942fe5ff1e4d693723321c5e0
451d0d117378344729200181ae7b3b9cf85fa041
102999 F20101112_AABDLY ko_b_Page_223.jp2
2d2132b05b8c7a8e2e13c2e89e81a3dd
f70a5475670c8e23fe494f3b309a8afe8d4d9c7c
F20101112_AABEIR ko_b_Page_195.jpg
5aa63ecb497bab8fda5613037dfafd1c
830359c7dd7151f6f461fda3fcc291970dffef44
5052 F20101112_AABFFK ko_b_Page_230.pro
d57e57685ff636989ca84f6e58d38bb8
9eb33460c3449a6fe375bc32f2f9deb79e77dcfa
3977 F20101112_AABGCE ko_b_Page_302.QC.jpg
ed70e24ed3c156011dcae519bf52de86
c79eb2080a1025d56f775d6e57a06b588eec7d7a
F20101112_AABFSW ko_b_Page_086thm.jpg
eafc3cf11c83a56a517c2b73139c04cd
85048040c4ac090fc27704422de34059b067babf
26869 F20101112_AABDLZ ko_b_Page_256.pro
e82c17764fef195ddd902ef653c16f27
d18e9162a1a98b99a567f44c3c9399639cccd5c1
66585 F20101112_AABEIS ko_b_Page_196.jpg
f1a685e0dbdf631e9cde613df3fbfa31
c5a758d1529321906f53a940525fa900d1f18395
41601 F20101112_AABFFL ko_b_Page_233.pro
960e8a23fbb02c9e88bd17fd14294514
9f9799506fdf6adc0c770f7f1cca12f31d9298c1
1461 F20101112_AABGCF ko_b_Page_302thm.jpg
7bbb7da0ad200f988ef40fccb388911a
9965759358a42bc38265ef4c6b184836c7e77f88
6893 F20101112_AABFSX ko_b_Page_087thm.jpg
30e57b780e13adf3a9f0cfa051d2886e
0188d67a048bd1a249f7a698174fbd4a641536c8
40113 F20101112_AABEIT ko_b_Page_197.jpg
c9668165dea0b89a8fdd3791c9de6f7f
840df7bd88728ee1032fb44147f1a1f4d6b0ccb2
37565 F20101112_AABFFM ko_b_Page_235.pro
8d9eb65da13b8c14dc82c859ae684272
beecc1e7b0457c33a98a16efa26a648dcd3cd0dd
21238 F20101112_AABGCG ko_b_Page_303.QC.jpg
a89b05c0705d4a9960562ce9e13d2402
1539b035056450d7a5bfccea555d5a7a3c55214e
23738 F20101112_AABFSY ko_b_Page_088.QC.jpg
d4c33682e2afd737ae76d794b7c4dec9
20e0437e80d40502452fff6c1bec484de48364df
65096 F20101112_AABEIU ko_b_Page_198.jpg
13bfe89750e9bb93cf73d2e669d3c106
a60429d5763a3c5dda81d70f8b5274b0ad9f455a
56063 F20101112_AABFFN ko_b_Page_240.pro
f9b3937fc4b8b738a4d536d6c14933e7
4ff1c9292bf4df4ca236e28d2062a1f88a809b72
5723 F20101112_AABGCH ko_b_Page_303thm.jpg
17d8e0fad419ecfbcfca29e16319adf3
a2be71e48176aa5e9ddbc2e01273fb1de4481d3c
6654 F20101112_AABFSZ ko_b_Page_088thm.jpg
955d1f2d7c5448f069dfdfa7a3743157
09b851ce04b2b0620f2f64d4c846106ddf7ae1c0
67131 F20101112_AABEIV ko_b_Page_204.jpg
81e9f488621bc5a1985def1d730beddb
20ab24bc64ffad6f1409c6509f17d0748bdd075c
55736 F20101112_AABFFO ko_b_Page_241.pro
3818f4d6f4afe988fadf27106c62a5c4
168e597facf66c1a86a58b946906f342a4c9214c
24244 F20101112_AABGCI ko_b_Page_304.QC.jpg
5f727ea44857b228a5c2b310b0155a25
9844de3508146e310706753819d178ea15b1b5e6
78433 F20101112_AABEIW ko_b_Page_205.jpg
f60997bbe4aa9ec6df1cdccaf28b68d0
bfb6c963a5f5edeaa8478f2e8d8aa8507b725187
56909 F20101112_AABFFP ko_b_Page_242.pro
166a729146cf7426346b92e618006bbf
b53568c71807454ee9c1d838be34ddc911d3307d
F20101112_AABGCJ ko_b_Page_304thm.jpg
f660102315b767ad57ef4ae4486ff924
4741effb4ae93c0c4421e8047b3ceb7a1fb3eda2
67953 F20101112_AABEIX ko_b_Page_208.jpg
8dbd499abfddc485da5534cfafee1c26
6fbfe9f5563e4178e3f1c86b17ce06d6f9158e35
54703 F20101112_AABFFQ ko_b_Page_245.pro
19e772b2c4e4d79b05bacf72f82df041
93c9a7fe8a04b502bf5791145bc112e3d5ad3bd3
16861 F20101112_AABGCK ko_b_Page_306.QC.jpg
8b2f41610af038a1880460da9f17bd77
7d7adc81eaae6249607d3c446388b3f5c1156c73
49193 F20101112_AABEIY ko_b_Page_209.jpg
02186b04f4c3a0ca74d44f2d12de1957
bc10a6aa71651058ba0ca782f8214ed448c0813d
57166 F20101112_AABFFR ko_b_Page_247.pro
7bd28ce70b8f3bd989d76258b144d265
9093804d1a16b66e015e233ae1d74a8579891839
4828 F20101112_AABGCL ko_b_Page_306thm.jpg
22e0ecda61fef764ec87b073d5951236
adc0138252fc912ad92fd608747d7c4d68592bb0
26168 F20101112_AABEIZ ko_b_Page_214.jpg
e5fca2f858e65587648dd98e7b136b9c
45f0ad1e46cbac47921ae229c878efab284ba485
51053 F20101112_AABFFS ko_b_Page_248.pro
605177545dbdaf18395d8a31ee595c91
f6fc96328159c8e37fee76234f3f9a6cda3a0f0c
23745 F20101112_AABGCM ko_b_Page_307.QC.jpg
1692260f07b31131cd159fe4b185e2f4
64e6893a65d788b8f063a7e8cac93fd03ba707cd
F20101112_AABFFT ko_b_Page_249.pro
26dec20a74fb90f9720ed89a9352a2dc
fca77f4b5d1f343d3eaf675f4647f5e1b08429ca
6363 F20101112_AABGCN ko_b_Page_307thm.jpg
d9d731904f4b38f299d0419b2d43d03a
855766ff1ca36176a9ac2233309eb8e8815aead6
6947 F20101112_AABDRA ko_b_Page_074thm.jpg
5eff1c1d15d4e8da7351a7009be8ad98
6b10584f8a9ca0b00afb2ddc4d993e65503d56c9
50779 F20101112_AABFFU ko_b_Page_250.pro
bf713407fb3b8f98cad46b0c443e11bb
14969d804a9fe01f2b13724a56d2ddb910fdc16e
6950 F20101112_AABGCO ko_b_Page_309thm.jpg
b27db0d27c778d16ff676d4d98e214eb
de52f411c30e540d87939a0690460350c29ddc87
F20101112_AABDRB ko_b_Page_308.tif
a9a67cfac1731b607e6cdcbc0fd552c7
83b07b84f15ebd3181505026db37cbeeee753164
56345 F20101112_AABFFV ko_b_Page_252.pro
9a47df86d0e982338fddfaa434c14d59
ebcc034a4e14599cbeb0af1d80e15c4e4b9c26c7
26086 F20101112_AABGCP ko_b_Page_311.QC.jpg
2d66fb7771370aabedb1f6a5a42b734a
dee032d91e29fb0cc70193ca1bb24fca9619cee9
76973 F20101112_AABDRC ko_b_Page_183.jpg
8597b007b47b436fb21a4300f721a43d
871c3ca5bbfd5cf68e0ef67ca83c93debc37ab16
71032 F20101112_AABFFW ko_b_Page_253.pro
680b642ab8a715e52d14221d6bcde0dd
d47a4cf078e55b57e55b573940b38ebcec8c307c
7096 F20101112_AABGCQ ko_b_Page_311thm.jpg
7344201ead7ce832603770b5e3338ec4
09490491dad89d662ef5827a601f0c48158cc956
6458 F20101112_AABFYA ko_b_Page_203thm.jpg
9427157fc30f8a8754f543b297c2751e
07c0a90bb7dcd16f4a8ffe1f5d30fe7eb492c781
F20101112_AABDRD ko_b_Page_003.tif
fef7c5865d6cdae8a1006799f2580586
c887606fb475d97e759f03282e3ac2b587ca152a
44525 F20101112_AABFFX ko_b_Page_254.pro
505fa3468a1644619431247ebd30a6ab
8b2b88c985c9da69891b3aca232250659faf7834
F20101112_AABGCR ko_b_Page_312.QC.jpg
3ed5249076414ce0956741b9921025f1
0a3815be9bbbd4c9d1ddbb9de3308f3b95893044
5769 F20101112_AABFYB ko_b_Page_204thm.jpg
dcb18095adf3f07dcb9497100533eb32
9e93702e32a997f178a0c1f3a48596e5dd956e72
F20101112_AABDRE ko_b_Page_083.tif
d12138bb675e6a66ed0e128e1415d923
8bbede141272f3b48067761c7613da1c3955eafd
57997 F20101112_AABFFY ko_b_Page_255.pro
9f2595aaaddf19f1ed05cdeb138d58cc
f5b1739ee5114c36594aa8df42de959f7324fc90
350240 F20101112_AABGCS UFE0019320_00001.mets
1e1e8417076373dc32a08afc8cfbb562
4c1711fc149498aee37ee60d43f0451d569433b3
20539 F20101112_AABFYC ko_b_Page_206.QC.jpg
1a70d526b73c018022a0c45c14b2e1f0
ffae55e96e565c8d07b44b1f46833a277c7611e9
75520 F20101112_AABDRF ko_b_Page_160.jpg
64791ac8b190d8eeac8d929d68821c81
609565ee303d08829492ace3bef2f832fd2390bd
1759 F20101112_AABFFZ ko_b_Page_257.pro
fe7db7bbd90f04f3fc7810859823262a
da07940977c94341952ddeebca77a4c83ba35cd6
4812 F20101112_AABFYD ko_b_Page_207thm.jpg
468d72ee4ff91afbd605ce03418258e9
3b64c5378b96165eee062057d9d59639539a7c35
2183 F20101112_AABDRG ko_b_Page_076.txt
c9da1317fa97e5d5398135af1236ccad
0cf96d14a6f82ab428acfb528fffd14a1defbff8
5608 F20101112_AABFYE ko_b_Page_208thm.jpg
a422cd9fe4f68ae211557aa40a3434dc
24317008bf1c038d680739665a64b20175cc7873
F20101112_AABDRH ko_b_Page_009.jp2
eca68040628aa140b7eeaab827d3f10c
6a7d85313cc598d4c33c47a8d9b235fafba9904f
118596 F20101112_AABEOA ko_b_Page_121.jp2
ab8d4670110d5d2438b834eaba8491a9
7719e452661efa9256fead5a139a795ef75ac265
4359 F20101112_AABFYF ko_b_Page_209thm.jpg
ae1814d64898f0be2aa987a3bdb4d635
1cab0fad5cf48ac4da5825093c1c174ac6f09305
73057 F20101112_AABDRI ko_b_Page_133.jpg
a46e7c7c0489b43f3e3e6d8df71daa50
3b0bf360671f3b84e7c265709b4fbe9b8d84126a
117372 F20101112_AABEOB ko_b_Page_125.jp2
65983370dd19c1a8968e0a4e1cd23911
308ed22e104abb363f18f0f8ed49e220b805d0b1
11694 F20101112_AABFYG ko_b_Page_210.QC.jpg
b5c327ca512b8c0f02bed033c21fc995
8804fbd06205c4b7fb5c1e164b644623d21b3449
38051 F20101112_AABDRJ ko_b_Page_210.jpg
4fa3382514309236b709e90282d85bdf
76a5f74f8caffb13f63816e33dc60425bcb71a83
119399 F20101112_AABEOC ko_b_Page_126.jp2
dd27703e3bc9250d1035a933ea618a77
b40dd8bda4895e960fc2c4b2d29de88df4896762
12699 F20101112_AABFYH ko_b_Page_211.QC.jpg
1d24e0b8178224a637ad83eebdafe8ff
382a12dd761cadc97d143ab101a3235c617d6100
65153 F20101112_AABDRK ko_b_Page_014.jp2
b6ee5a54faf1d23bb37912d99915a9e5
4ea82612dbbd8fe62e47f64e3dbb09022fc48ac0
109170 F20101112_AABEOD ko_b_Page_127.jp2
78c4d20d82850d660366a64235c876b4
b5939b518cc118ea27101b80c44cf67dccfbd43d
3795 F20101112_AABFYI ko_b_Page_211thm.jpg
2e1531064e70279f9d15e9a2c78f9c68
71227a009766f3300b4a24558b4583cb8c8087d5
17127 F20101112_AABDRL ko_b_Page_207.QC.jpg
8fcbfa10d8d08b19d11f127e88906ab1
f998b7b8286fb5176de62accdb39aa83fb6f89e3
116772 F20101112_AABEOE ko_b_Page_128.jp2
d611cc084a206f0e9cd4423444cf9257
76bc8aa50cff222dfdf77ada71fadc93dede1293
21616 F20101112_AABDEA ko_b_Page_273.QC.jpg
9820f7d019dd9cda6b2edef2be5254f3
4cb8ccaf40903bb02b5ff4b4567998009fd12f09
3413 F20101112_AABFYJ ko_b_Page_212thm.jpg
ee96e50f27c120d3d052be29312b83f6
3ba44cf8179f960e3d75e4ca41006150220f1681
7895 F20101112_AABDRM ko_b_Page_285.jp2
e2a23162823ca06a45278de2072d2090
561ca8b3e3325e27b4591b29eae6dbd28358f5e9
118713 F20101112_AABEOF ko_b_Page_129.jp2
afee5a55d24615b13eb3706b0689dbd6
6d07b8c695053fed26c49f13611100a0ace5d12b
24547 F20101112_AABDEB ko_b_Page_016.jpg
56284e121380a6c93cb740fcedd3e2d5
510831974199f5cc7f5d4b690afd02912b2ca788
9168 F20101112_AABFYK ko_b_Page_213.QC.jpg
8c30bdb45e2a7bb9783128047d3637f3
ec038590648865465bb3d6314807fc863233aa08
F20101112_AABDRN ko_b_Page_014.tif
e362b2bf37978eadb8b9d56c7c08db11
111d0889f0d5667f538fd4445b178f46c6cef4d6
120974 F20101112_AABEOG ko_b_Page_130.jp2
b95fe72e076120da6e0fe0c75c816d0d
d32e35d19f1f22b96103d2825bf2dbf25194511e
6336 F20101112_AABDEC ko_b_Page_202thm.jpg
d0a0104b63acbd17ac46bd5ec9a00a6d
135201219c859ea0583cee8fdc48160d28365534
3046 F20101112_AABFYL ko_b_Page_214thm.jpg
200ab98055633b62baaf82d6aed6fadd
c5ce3389a4e1114ac677268cf4617a5b5986b2d3
F20101112_AABFLA ko_b_Page_163.txt
10fb80adb07b013ef3aa2d9f2923690e
ed12f1483c4b405e67eb81d53562994c5e3d0a5d
F20101112_AABDRO ko_b_Page_282.tif
fa0cbfa802b7d8fba65a9f0f95788f20
2f39f42e3ac5b0e14dd58ee8adc7e34c418bafed
117859 F20101112_AABEOH ko_b_Page_131.jp2
113240b4a8c72cda7d0c7f2829585199
78f99e30c8e6a8b27de2b66f2a244687504803a0
F20101112_AABDED ko_b_Page_062.tif
3ef36cb5f2476d6c6dc84b4515014a47
2562b66019ec5a3cf8313e6b1120b1abc46b7a65
3105 F20101112_AABFYM ko_b_Page_215thm.jpg
9c27754c545c9a6f5bc56408264b8758
c907b360585aad1052704fb30c3fb1f0d615e1a0
F20101112_AABFLB ko_b_Page_164.txt
d922a907f994959fd599a5b157534bbb
5e17709dc40952a34b8cb601d4f9556ddb6b6516
114196 F20101112_AABDRP ko_b_Page_032.jp2
9892a8a64aa4e70d9ee4dd62bfe63fec
1dbd2610bf289dd93e3b80db5bc0a3ad753c1c45
116523 F20101112_AABEOI ko_b_Page_134.jp2
84a68467e20606e9f3403c818f011594
d131544677460145c642f5a5df219c91f937f5f8
54780 F20101112_AABDEE ko_b_Page_018.pro
50fa2c4a961d0807c753400d7e03e509
5e3516884e6aff18e6cae33fb3c71b49d5056f0a
3740 F20101112_AABFYN ko_b_Page_216thm.jpg
5bd479ce8eab4e9646d31db0d95c12f6
4fd29c5560fb1575324eaa2aaf20247e8b476df7
2017 F20101112_AABFLC ko_b_Page_166.txt
dda37548efc1fc6677929afe55e827dd
290f63e58c11e43c7d68ea752f59f73a19a736d1
51034 F20101112_AABDRQ ko_b_Page_071.pro
68717fd6ed69102012c13933b2402552
73bc63d38d485aaa8d449fcc04d516d95576b84d
111609 F20101112_AABEOJ ko_b_Page_135.jp2
ecffe5a593ad4bfa360f774fbb5048f7
0a87204214dc5a722d7286cc05e18bf1ec2baff4
2157 F20101112_AABDEF ko_b_Page_183.txt
a80358f91be42ef3015c7de01629268e
3999be0453cdcccb9ab90dde00753085349e995c
5129 F20101112_AABFYO ko_b_Page_217thm.jpg
2e793baa3ed71627b998c42b0ecf35a7
57b06f676c5e4af6a4f0c08b7835002812812a09
2159 F20101112_AABFLD ko_b_Page_169.txt
c4bfe28793e5828642246c69aeed5858
98057f21954b456c62b16238fbad60f18f673587
15612 F20101112_AABDRR ko_b_Page_209.QC.jpg
a59dde030e5e3a5071aa7e599cdc0ff0
34d0f98d70fdf97895958920f4e410a4eddecbf4
118931 F20101112_AABEOK ko_b_Page_137.jp2
7fe2e1edaca90e02bbc932d6bd2fab12
2eab274f500059d7b18ed0eeb976a6bb2cd2f0a2
22773 F20101112_AABDEG ko_b_Page_268.QC.jpg
2241f321809ae11e6e1bc9152b0dbf05
98ee80a38daa37d2a36fc9b2205e1bdd6f1a74fe
4821 F20101112_AABFYP ko_b_Page_218thm.jpg
0f49b5c04f59358e46501f80bda4119a
358b5f34208d57d76e3c367a09ab06f815b71f78
F20101112_AABFLE ko_b_Page_170.txt
430acf669b0a024feffda08fd2e43c29
53cd7816873285971a83a468e3cee0b65f3fe8dc
32141 F20101112_AABEBA ko_b_Page_292.jp2
ad90064d754dbd97de222de3538fa3cb
87be9c39c456417d132c0f33e067614f7bd50978
1480 F20101112_AABDRS ko_b_Page_277.txt
4246b75f3a4c1f2447bf9bcaea39efd7
5dfad6f0ff0b33a6713a0ced22f398131c987138
118964 F20101112_AABEOL ko_b_Page_140.jp2
7d4d6db7047fdb43b9dc017360548d2a
8f7fd91ceb2c9fa82e0ded01fd60e65b351df3f3
24846 F20101112_AABFYQ ko_b_Page_219.QC.jpg
3023cf077787b69038c238d50709fc83
fe80eb7471bc67ced7dcea2ade7e39b1bbbdfc06
F20101112_AABFLF ko_b_Page_171.txt
cefb738fcb6e96f002479e85fbaaaa4c
0be1571dcd93c710937dd18047663d62536c511c
109782 F20101112_AABEBB ko_b_Page_065.jp2
38a019ce15c485d1a9da72e32ba54fe0
52da06101b7dc6e6890fbb0f5b9a3e399a6d6c5a
67654 F20101112_AABDRT ko_b_Page_004.jpg
7061f13c31cdc5e8eb790428fa2fb2ca
dd18ba15ea2f30e895aa8b7328742e19ffe0d2b2
120220 F20101112_AABEOM ko_b_Page_142.jp2
d7bbc5bdeca5937e53f8f4be8dc037fe
f81c4c543d23790b782f26cebde40a277d8f3fa9
279 F20101112_AABDEH ko_b_Page_231.txt
afe2908743e973594e250c8b0ccbc6aa
16cf2e744420b7caad9573f37df171308af66744
6576 F20101112_AABFYR ko_b_Page_219thm.jpg
11b7520b2ec37ffde78f42aa9fa998bb
e9fd4798fee3b3c11c9747e792541f06ca759a18
F20101112_AABFLG ko_b_Page_172.txt
364843c451d74ffc73d63e43703f700c
b2792652910340a980a40930b28e4289d53c7b5a
6782 F20101112_AABEBC ko_b_Page_072thm.jpg
d704f76ff5ed20ae3d453df348f567f7
5512d8e9dbff97164710d277ce0e2f763f967000
123919 F20101112_AABEON ko_b_Page_143.jp2
b4bcfe48f584f215172d2d568136c2d6
631d5c23a03cd1d30f1e794623b3a01b35171e69
1649 F20101112_AABDEI ko_b_Page_100.txt
6694954ecdad03f8bb2d1e1e235982ce
b08979d019743aa1e30961c19319b3235029df6e
4490 F20101112_AABFYS ko_b_Page_220thm.jpg
e34dc195242b36a731075931f96fe031
fc2e4f69b79b1d09a83c49d9fa7f8c30f1faa0c1
F20101112_AABFLH ko_b_Page_173.txt
a216f85193cd191700a4472ee7fc2441
2a10fee0838b070dde3f5d17609b318e32acb57b
29276 F20101112_AABDRU ko_b_Page_019.jpg
836500ebe156182ee3c3e3b40972680b
24952a61f654b4b3d4967ef1f2ef5f89648c29ec
120931 F20101112_AABEOO ko_b_Page_146.jp2
4b6a3091f24a9788c490b1b90b8fecf1
00843fb903f3e99492b3355b2f6eea6fdac7393f
10963 F20101112_AABDEJ ko_b_Page_003.jpg
37e5dba4cb34235f2d1a4d2aa5d0ea16
45c259ab32583f809f46d9d7d3d5c13db0c69483
21198 F20101112_AABFYT ko_b_Page_223.QC.jpg
fc77dbf44e0d91f94db76f5a5366a344
546f8898383a30e859e3f473b894efb85a63f70e
F20101112_AABFLI ko_b_Page_174.txt
b5e2b7a12cfb4fb675efceb8457870f9
b057708b7dab6b4a06e6a32240a262374687a1f0
F20101112_AABEBD ko_b_Page_138.tif
9f778710f4776751c7225e59792228d8
c5955d8a893d82f5e2fd6fc5a0379dfa82168d80
1051980 F20101112_AABDRV ko_b_Page_295.jp2
8bc6c34565428cddad3fb2795a4d58dc
48dee507c03f36bdd34affcbb608b90c7f45e51d
121768 F20101112_AABEOP ko_b_Page_148.jp2
b76019e9c68d6bf8c289a5f9b6581e74
11c103facda08dd12e7e9dd9848bd78a3de42cc4
F20101112_AABDEK ko_b_Page_083.txt
78f1f4ca008d963c19be68fdbb929788
f57d74d0edf6f0ffc790947903503545420682cf
5688 F20101112_AABFYU ko_b_Page_223thm.jpg
9fcbdd86e6d77299a0bbd62ebe0d09c8
190df002c625280ecb251b78e4458be4ab1d6358
2232 F20101112_AABFLJ ko_b_Page_175.txt
536ef15de7a1f70eba233c9f654f16a0
409d5214561a7996161d42b985c49af26f18f273
2165 F20101112_AABEBE ko_b_Page_156.txt
a494a9c17c3dc469f77f69d2249ce312
0ffa7670d20aa59b32187f41f0de4ad5f4e64419
54598 F20101112_AABDRW ko_b_Page_034.pro
7071d2a6fb85e8ac36c00f334b8956ec
df16ef59776d2870ec1d972e6c1a8a819e02bc2d
6822 F20101112_AABDEL ko_b_Page_023thm.jpg
f7e9b0813f88a371897dafa83c4cbfda
a85fc963076c4f30a9e771fbf6ed220e1a9eab3c
5905 F20101112_AABFYV ko_b_Page_227thm.jpg
c5fc1febb55573f4a7e8fc8d56bbf2b9
a46930c4afa2405f3e670896068d169dccbcc690
2098 F20101112_AABFLK ko_b_Page_176.txt
173b77af38e93a8819e4aa7fa2c9cb17
e8368f45e8ba95e15cd0ee18bdc762a2274a2a2d
2709 F20101112_AABEBF ko_b_Page_291.txt
03887682ea62ae7c6b213d0e2bfd35df
7d5dca91fd0f09098264141cdde516919182493f
F20101112_AABDRX ko_b_Page_061.tif
efd02309a0c2ac39928ac96d5a092d44
3605264646d929ed073ff8df2b7167556c56b829
114643 F20101112_AABEOQ ko_b_Page_149.jp2
072c5b7d0e30a71032a61365e21209b2
c9c3282f5c7474ee9c1a4a2f1bce396ba1e56425
27457 F20101112_AABDEM ko_b_Page_290.QC.jpg
a86d41793f1e65d3ca66cd4ca1571d16
37b699f795b3367659f624620e305b1c0fd2e2c8
13608 F20101112_AABFYW ko_b_Page_228.QC.jpg
52e2b0f76486e784ba679236950fbef1
77f3f46303cdc943605759131b9373b369abce91
F20101112_AABFLL ko_b_Page_177.txt
e47e8eb8276428130772111ffbebdf7c
c4c979c4b551f41af9e29cc3caffe88fa89f3c84
1821 F20101112_AABEBG ko_b_Page_233.txt
f0caa7352967be96c3f57ea4ca735d1e
7ed0a768e780b1c373ea633ec2c1239449c92e78
50818 F20101112_AABDRY ko_b_Page_246.pro
41eac570283d0871210ce0e085c0303f
9d21d2d5988f506f10a6aae44ce731613ef5d168
1051985 F20101112_AABEOR ko_b_Page_150.jp2
9b04a4e714b00127c285209eaa19545e
435b7453c1439abdf995deec9e5bf0f8a558acb2
12433 F20101112_AABDEN ko_b_Page_197.QC.jpg
e4ee31d97dec096e8e4d4d37f51ef887
94a0846cb5aeda1a35893297d54de1d5e8295a8d
3846 F20101112_AABFYX ko_b_Page_228thm.jpg
20bfbd7d8d4938a17d6b7326fce0df43
d98bba23fbe86c62a5637a089dba65c424456e67
F20101112_AABEBH ko_b_Page_174thm.jpg
3bc681458fe4b4d8eed35b3519d18782
f6a7e9f8f4daa32c5be4920f3d50ff4b261fe728
7135 F20101112_AABDRZ ko_b_Page_301thm.jpg
ad72afadfe8bf4236a916ffc25f7e6ff
23d7af87c3fb9c1b3675cfd64eba346d01a8c117
110935 F20101112_AABEOS ko_b_Page_152.jp2
c2cf504cbfc7c4881b46bc0aba2dc62f
8ead830c347b1ca2be2e3b3f6260afd1528568a3
6731 F20101112_AABDEO ko_b_Page_084thm.jpg
4a6dc8950ffc9e5cdc5bc2b7be4aa0f3
8cc3ad9dbe47b9db299154120c8bf29a598d7b56
11187 F20101112_AABFYY ko_b_Page_229.QC.jpg
834b0d8bf3867545824cd8d2834ab91c
ea60c8989351dc69c436a0df179a21ffea6a26f8
2158 F20101112_AABFLM ko_b_Page_180.txt
e13baf44792b6439a4da7480f84fb6b8
abed1d1d4b718f0914e61551534a855ec693d867
F20101112_AABEBI ko_b_Page_081.tif
0b1aac56464797ca46cc4ae4c73295d1
70678928912b8d8a762923dd880681f5f1b83e86
116357 F20101112_AABEOT ko_b_Page_153.jp2
f872ccda8eda995f94fbbc65e1b58840
eb4874dec25a8fef1dbd7f504c4384258c127157
55922 F20101112_AABDEP ko_b_Page_125.pro
7dd342a03bca22767b8bbf081a4ee340
05aafac65980d2c27223145ed17daad56578d452
2185 F20101112_AABFLN ko_b_Page_181.txt
e05d53a0ecc2ffd2a5e413c2f1100e0f
dc751ecf3420a708e8f1b178ae70f50a3fb646d7
75357 F20101112_AABEBJ ko_b_Page_031.jpg
aa5985ed4de0fce15a8f854cde3fb4c4
e9c44cf1d35a41c7524539bb23e2864f07e640bb
111793 F20101112_AABEOU ko_b_Page_154.jp2
6b8126cc29d5ab90f82dd815eb318ef5
f2f801cab85d7c63c1622ac8a3c9fa7f73c4f38e
55016 F20101112_AABDEQ ko_b_Page_256.jp2
90bbb57b7879f90688ebc9c059ff3790
dd2f82c128dfa93f3e9fdee1dce5d40a78b11615
3552 F20101112_AABFYZ ko_b_Page_230thm.jpg
a9f8c0070581b9878c4bb44d29bfabf6
280fd655d043deebe210952691e9d31198370f17
F20101112_AABFLO ko_b_Page_182.txt
625cc4d0921e94d8223039fc1f0c7e39
9b70f18d4a0b5e2f3acf9ed60d5c6adbda674e0c
1051921 F20101112_AABEBK ko_b_Page_299.jp2
e719ca2ffbd285221da1428d6551ab22
2c28bbd5c94e562ddc5531066c99b62dc4b3eb46
1051951 F20101112_AABEOV ko_b_Page_157.jp2
1b4b85f7c55c4352515d15f5c482c1b9
605f2f4ae46b6189d8ce07315a5ece06ba928b84
73526 F20101112_AABDER ko_b_Page_083.jpg
acfed3329c8d616cefcde65f191336ab
7296279e6a0849726cefa6f1ae1587c5fe5b5c55
2226 F20101112_AABFLP ko_b_Page_184.txt
75200a05b187d15fc9821cbf08ffd2bb
26538d56df6d830ed7f8790211ca719a88bfcbdf
18162 F20101112_AABEBL ko_b_Page_233.QC.jpg
1d007b04508017fac4dbcb49c822006b
0d4ffa19b6aa7f160c00ddd2a8e14116ed59a963
107455 F20101112_AABEOW ko_b_Page_158.jp2
8f9e76a3643beda01cdf9c6be9c729cc
f8231f6b14de721935a223103c5c9a39ac4788f8
F20101112_AABDES ko_b_Page_234.tif
324621047de4f34533b656631170a463
db7c47c0aa1beee823c2afc86d439dba4b0d5524
2021 F20101112_AABFLQ ko_b_Page_186.txt
14971e7b9f7608f4df866bcb8baa21be
ef301deb7c3baa8907c0ba38934942a049097096
1051961 F20101112_AABEBM ko_b_Page_279.jp2
efe8aec03451bb26d621185ddea3e53b
301876e7bb5d44d0fdf2ee0a36fc9cff27b62335
114837 F20101112_AABEOX ko_b_Page_160.jp2
adbff51453f35ff39d680b64c64735fb
5b3b297ef6d4127f38feeffb9d0c4b465b444382
6593 F20101112_AABDET ko_b_Page_073thm.jpg
fd5cc57393cf670bb9f77ab76d177ba5
c28e1f005b01b86c8a2bcd683c40767d9e33d4f5
2511 F20101112_AABFLR ko_b_Page_190.txt
3680896b8728c9f050df4238722958ec
b8985d2a00472f74bafbae4683e3066d00da777d
107903 F20101112_AABEBN ko_b_Page_305.jp2
ba46b8993e6e559c16472bc095a840d3
271ede6fc5fdef283ba88690bdb1bf9727e1ce99
115977 F20101112_AABEOY ko_b_Page_162.jp2
53a54f502c40b0f2b1740ecd2445f361
f3dbaddc23f61a4b29bf9ae118a81e938fbfbaf8
51658 F20101112_AABDEU ko_b_Page_127.pro
ca848a3eae6e6f5631e43092515758eb
fb8ded1f2a1dcbd1c9864665fad19fe2e8b7f715
1935 F20101112_AABFLS ko_b_Page_191.txt
4a5f846795f3efba560d9d2d7e429c3a
b0a9f7c42afce3608fabc95b07c8832540108b0a
F20101112_AABEBO ko_b_Page_091thm.jpg
ea1803e12e7ff61f7519458e6460fa4d
15508c33fb7f09f3adb28745fb9e2a6d2086e429
115056 F20101112_AABEOZ ko_b_Page_163.jp2
af7bbb94ddd0b6029f377467f9b2dab8
a5a1c766e08b3160433fcffc9122fe8f713f4202
80989 F20101112_AABDEV ko_b_Page_074.jpg
916faecda282fab5328963007a93e9f0
3a5e268e25a802f811999bcb4c8fca4cba19e764
2415 F20101112_AABFLT ko_b_Page_192.txt
59d9a2dcb889235a8cc363e651d29073
fc3dbb9ad00fe959048c7fcc9662aaa353d6b433
1373 F20101112_AABEBP ko_b_Page_306.txt
198ed6b94825ace44b9dce935b041402
2377164340c675c16221ead07f021c84a8b1a33a
F20101112_AABDEW ko_b_Page_008.tif
f0732fe1cac0100eb3675182e7f74bdd
e2208df55ea18a4cb41db3b5439008157c84185d
2457 F20101112_AABFLU ko_b_Page_193.txt
780f3a90417d0971f178c65374c515f6
3202de8db882cf6237fe3a864f8ac3276e6ad024
4086 F20101112_AABEBQ ko_b_Page_222thm.jpg
5d1e804288464555275857dc8a6bdc25
f335cbc2ccabde8708903705deae5ac52591caa2
F20101112_AABDEX ko_b_Page_307.tif
cd738ff511b82566149e84c2cbbcff74
ee341d2e2c92c70ba6a4d5be4f5cb72e94055e67
7053 F20101112_AABDXA ko_b_Page_155thm.jpg
f6d8cc6d9709bcae0e3b6be8c18513d1
75029d85ecdf22a6f2fdc3fe775e30a13d5c7a83
986 F20101112_AABFLV ko_b_Page_197.txt
a74a53699bcc52cfd44be40994612dcd
601cb7c31ff9bc5dbf3b3e2dfafeddf6b8298e9f
6940 F20101112_AABEBR ko_b_Page_131thm.jpg
eaec41dea185e83b018ad8e0acbe6e69
c0ec14229d18b7a006c34c1401bd642aa1fd312c
F20101112_AABDEY ko_b_Page_165.txt
01200954bc42b338f33b47ffdd8136fb
954d17f3ee6ca786d9d3d13868110828cfacb9d9
6739 F20101112_AABDXB ko_b_Page_020thm.jpg
40c2cc2d28fae3e816f6e442a016ea4d
5fb5fc862c2ab9c7c1ba0f50aa4519844b300815
F20101112_AABFLW ko_b_Page_198.txt
37b36d32134c940b3b860722dcf99638
5b32c99b74100b9ef71230bb68bc47da679c9f01
55112 F20101112_AABDEZ ko_b_Page_139.pro
005c1d070388ba8e464c121253751b7a
d932243c84b0caebf303d68398aaff271dfefc04
2501 F20101112_AABDXC ko_b_Page_289.txt
d7fe3d0c3e0733c736fc593c4b71d02f
f1eee1cdf479038b968af317b8f426290b488024
75417 F20101112_AABEBS ko_b_Page_086.jpg
135c5461942b96955792918d6e3b608e
fd22fb14288dbf5dff09b0f878a35850667f8258
2444 F20101112_AABFLX ko_b_Page_199.txt
18b5446daaf4679f153ae2fb38db1352
9ae31120f122acc071b6ff40655216811cf7054e
118168 F20101112_AABDXD ko_b_Page_243.jp2
7777a79b48a70908d345a8e53ec4b927
45c7f8d6c2143db95420a942f3c99c873e9330e6
53883 F20101112_AABEBT ko_b_Page_201.jpg
64e2e64a4000147041a0ceafecd0cb07
6111989f316c735a0c29ecc5f4ea94fd4a13173b
1698 F20101112_AABFLY ko_b_Page_201.txt
172dfa5073d00d387dbe3b0707900d16
f2db470ac9869918411b1604ba9563db945fc3a0
26113 F20101112_AABDXE ko_b_Page_121.QC.jpg
26f46badff201ac60caa272c05646ca2
0ada1b4a278b6d8cef6a4c1b1ae1873a6fabeaa9
7908 F20101112_AABEBU ko_b_Page_229.pro
0331f81090a13af0d64c4ef4de09e15d
e4f175c168c7760331e9265aa0fec86359373275
F20101112_AABFLZ ko_b_Page_203.txt
f158543aea98e867fe257464663882f7
f5457a8f6e44984f538dc899e2f5c1cc16474982
F20101112_AABDXF ko_b_Page_112.tif
eebc07f5863eb8e479ea74cbcce96855
84e48adebdae1720abb86d9bc5590d37044d18b8
6941 F20101112_AABEBV ko_b_Page_205thm.jpg
b4162d18e7523429277910b29f5d6fcd
e1947c991d75d71f1081936d40a50782da76ab6f
7517 F20101112_AABDXG ko_b_Page_157thm.jpg
85e2ac7d2d5fc9c3e904ca77e0484357
64c8da67bf4252ee2fa72b3ccb21979bb59ab0f7
77898 F20101112_AABEBW ko_b_Page_244.jpg
3908c262fcc1980de2cf90fba2b8543f
6d367f086f0522bda043d66b11a88f92813eeba9
F20101112_AABEUA ko_b_Page_063.tif
df24f53fd34cbb48bbde4a12a8ca8b30
18b481cc9c65054eae13d6762045ad979a96689d
2236 F20101112_AABDXH ko_b_Page_129.txt
27abc320f175551caabcc5abf8186d65
ec2792ac0f9b5a57658ad7b9d61a4f51f9f520e4
F20101112_AABEBX ko_b_Page_012.tif
485a07d78d88b9ccc4b08b8f82e08bc0
92d95df03c2d4cafe9c321d7d0601b8439227f9a
F20101112_AABEUB ko_b_Page_064.tif
8a4641500c051661da095d5472b643d7
7d81714bedca729642d3dde03c76d547b2b2e7d4
2225 F20101112_AABDXI ko_b_Page_126.txt
4ef2b8f09b11d4ce3732c226862e7924
58b0d2bce4ac9b7054094a4156fd026eeba039b0
7237 F20101112_AABEBY ko_b_Page_168thm.jpg
e0354d1c3174246f387c1fef4d19668f
bb9ec0ca3dbb3a963c2c02eacf0593940f195dd0
F20101112_AABEUC ko_b_Page_065.tif
5d791cd4afbef9085f75238b9b406b8b
e7dd168e8baa4d79ffb7bcb74870c83a9f4d5a11
25612 F20101112_AABDXJ ko_b_Page_183.QC.jpg
71a0eac3b7b6eee3c0ab05e70ffe55b5
acd4e1d6ae151667358c3dc65de98b4990ffaacc
39822 F20101112_AABEBZ ko_b_Page_237.jpg
bf221d5bcdf8590e765c3c1298eca3dd
ea9aa6c4f7c44b44cf7989d8730517a73df9b5df
F20101112_AABEUD ko_b_Page_066.tif
6049201ee14e80a14c2bfe9077a37105
bb8a543f3ce0efea15ddf394c16b670aed998ce8
F20101112_AABDXK ko_b_Page_141.tif
e46922f71c0d0449d85f8702ae198389
cd3d2c9d16b2cee59427fb47bb49bb23f608b2e0
F20101112_AABEUE ko_b_Page_067.tif
08e5caa1257dd3d4d53550e41eab6389
3b118358cbb62d2f3c207a12f01047ee10853fdf
120322 F20101112_AABDKA ko_b_Page_036.jp2
2443d6951a2278ae7bed3ea7cdae8c16
7656149076ae4baf6ff110033c4c60a6e6cdf346
7008 F20101112_AABDXL ko_b_Page_137thm.jpg
276850d9eadbcbb3a5c7c60a3c856bfa
ac963b5f824fc7903997cb08c079a89335fdbf5a
F20101112_AABEUF ko_b_Page_068.tif
0cfa84ffea04e7b2c16b329e3bc02c95
830302a1ee9863990fb3b7a41fbf97d0deddc69f
2244 F20101112_AABDKB ko_b_Page_247.txt
4366684626fef34f1f512fc6b71e407f
d4ecc883c8f04c5e4ea0b594e0abe75dbe0696fa
79123 F20101112_AABDXM ko_b_Page_173.jpg
8ba74736a6e4439c7f8c1c910cddd896
73ae3d47585b254e735dae2bdeacc83876a48126
F20101112_AABEUG ko_b_Page_069.tif
4206e7dd07be75152829ae41374d8acf
a7d3c5b2ff54383cd9ace4193ca7aab64369e525
217081 F20101112_AABDKC ko_b_Page_213.jp2
723b6839b1d10ff0aadfcab3287558c9
0682ba222aa8006df6d5a191728cd5882d89b1df
57464 F20101112_AABDXN ko_b_Page_037.pro
768ceb8552bbe478e82d2e53b3288b54
a6663ae72f428cf5a98bad03c6121e2d610b3239
25479 F20101112_AABFRA ko_b_Page_046.QC.jpg
32ba23787153c3d72706c1e860117d69
f3dedb177279ed6719a959132950df3256b5c933
F20101112_AABEUH ko_b_Page_072.tif
7b748a60470acf19c81db18abb9f5d34
9fc9e70115200f5bb8f8208e85a2e09b39fe5745
F20101112_AABDKD ko_b_Page_165.tif
6344aa960c9942b39c845100b70c6e58
f84003db3d56c48eb1bfeaacff59a231517a23d5
1051974 F20101112_AABDXO ko_b_Page_109.jp2
e2c7e6f02287143dc123d1d06e78f861
97b267fb5494eaf179c01f5ea1813da285b35993
6744 F20101112_AABFRB ko_b_Page_046thm.jpg
93462a5d840c85b0ee469819932c4349
284ba8041059f51dfa9e7482c68d6820c268aded
F20101112_AABEUI ko_b_Page_074.tif
4bc4ae1aae873e9e66f8104c44f82050
353281fb7f6dedb589454d77ae42437a7303d1a6
24507 F20101112_AABDKE ko_b_Page_308.QC.jpg
c6ed35d83840a272131373619d20fc8e
d8dbdf67289932e153a7f68f631f33f60e0addb9
6660 F20101112_AABDXP ko_b_Page_042thm.jpg
8014ae86873ba8a867cd774125785528
c1222b49ae044df28cc476734f36efefba0d8116
24200 F20101112_AABFRC ko_b_Page_047.QC.jpg
59d609112969fab5b66ab74a2e4b6b68
084b8b866864a4ee59abb271313655f72faa9355
F20101112_AABEUJ ko_b_Page_075.tif
ca5c6a4a607a7b625f66b9e7d1a59ec1
431fcddd01d40209b4ffef21f29ed700aaa0a418
F20101112_AABDKF ko_b_Page_113.tif
d683ebb907475f851b0e2a6e8048f47b
098c900a84cc8d920fc9df3ee3156ecbcd53b761
26574 F20101112_AABDXQ ko_b_Page_178.QC.jpg
1fc0d44689b1025944b54832e6f3446e
18bf13d001072394af344a7ad6b11d4f57e04f02
26329 F20101112_AABFRD ko_b_Page_048.QC.jpg
57930316683ec4f104db618132c31159
c6c5490757cfd70da5b015997597fbca29c45bc8
F20101112_AABEUK ko_b_Page_076.tif
d32b3a3e0290ea7b8c6f7fe207a76d22
ada965ea2c01873be4eabffd45a5d2f50b2042a0
29141 F20101112_AABDKG ko_b_Page_295.QC.jpg
bf1fd9abaf0fb829f4da09568da03dfc
dfef32fa0659e971e2bd0167ca93365980f165a8
25428 F20101112_AABDXR ko_b_Page_070.QC.jpg
36c0708d46d9317ba5abfa111839a21e
99047cce2b3f70b1449cb25b3f027de39a66152c
7320 F20101112_AABFRE ko_b_Page_048thm.jpg
88337db2da14461a45095a4937e380df
31c7ceed4f8f4da89ab9b53403283b607603aa70
F20101112_AABEUL ko_b_Page_084.tif
32b6e6c322fb46eda0e01bd8434696bc
2a13fdbb70f07385bf2d5fa33768875d668dc746
113164 F20101112_AABDKH ko_b_Page_079.jp2
cbce7fde08e313a287d1cc01e691cdf9
2fd6e54c2a8613a75547e178f07a3468f008eb47
73251 F20101112_AABEHA ko_b_Page_127.jpg
c302fb12e1bd54434b05ff46798c24c1
f47d69415f159355d025cae65dce761c42f22a0f
3359 F20101112_AABDXS ko_b_Page_236thm.jpg
65ceae7a1d3da3274290cb22f8f55365
02c433964c67ba68a9f81e2b30ce726676655678
25526 F20101112_AABFRF ko_b_Page_049.QC.jpg
e1d0aec05589b59f09e9d3ea5782b320
686b9c66c9e6a3904b583ba48fd9b11ada56457f
F20101112_AABEUM ko_b_Page_086.tif
a04670d4914610b69e61e508d25d7dea
36a65766991f1dd885cb0b394572d5f64e00536d
26365 F20101112_AABDKI ko_b_Page_238.pro
6a52b815210a38fdc35594347b3aae6d
7c6a10927370eeb236d8b2d5b8b2fca1979eb453
77235 F20101112_AABEHB ko_b_Page_128.jpg
8dd19e0dc3d0b4ff23488c68f60899cc
9040803dfb3fdacaab11988aebaab63fb321f2a1
72456 F20101112_AABDXT ko_b_Page_092.jpg
e0d31675a1464a82c9df9b13700bcb8f
101c11ff478217741749efb13da2ac94d5ed781a
6887 F20101112_AABFRG ko_b_Page_049thm.jpg
d08b9724747ddc7669b5ca86198c196c
a9aa6f74dbba17bb82d3ad528be45cf30d988b83
F20101112_AABEUN ko_b_Page_087.tif
8b72cb96357096a71936d18c90b7dbec
a969632ff91f843a546986ce06a51bf172aeb3ff
F20101112_AABDKJ ko_b_Page_187.tif
45e6c85ce9783d01a47f05173cca0b7d
fc747b70655e2c911fea81b98042a5b19b0607ba
81486 F20101112_AABEHC ko_b_Page_130.jpg
d92aa20c46c5435f954c3fc445dd8ec6
498adc0b91cb039827ff2d0f63dc3fac58ebbf3c
27284 F20101112_AABDXU ko_b_Page_263.QC.jpg
1e97f39d0730a08ee53010237ba3e1f7
e21e9df8971ae819c0de8a65ec894dd9a9b285f0
25446 F20101112_AABFRH ko_b_Page_050.QC.jpg
fd646f646e733443e3f689ea9674f399
5168a04d50cf212b7c41a0cf7795e7a1cef4bde7
F20101112_AABEUO ko_b_Page_088.tif
4195cec8fdf823a112265773215b5c99
bfbaf1fb8053e64eff54133d8b106e1a96ce631f
100438 F20101112_AABDKK ko_b_Page_062.jp2
7951dd7642ff7471a2149e457dbe8bb8
3df37ab4a650d4c1a7bd05770606f005137fc897
74827 F20101112_AABEHD ko_b_Page_135.jpg
85ba65c52c4d15542a6457b018f7d4ba
47c3ef8428dc5b130d10fb76400a3c94b7b973c8
73410 F20101112_AABDXV ko_b_Page_054.jpg
2aa88c3933aae1d34c2a94a35e70292e
64adff567f909af5c0846b03d59576d847ccb87c
24777 F20101112_AABFRI ko_b_Page_051.QC.jpg
1c7d7b663cd4f6bcf3f52de7a01bcd58
d29d69bc3e3cc09b084523880c4a7281e97cd590
F20101112_AABEUP ko_b_Page_089.tif
625c06378b302e0ae6ae519bc872c60e
031f6c36ef596b47725995842d65d160313520c4
75613 F20101112_AABDKL ko_b_Page_087.jpg
d50de2ea4d04df48940181d3e4557e66
10432836658dbf90df086dc5d6a691b1d7ca3368
78251 F20101112_AABEHE ko_b_Page_137.jpg
1596cf58fe2a7d773d658b2dc767782f
d9ff7e51cf997266c782e5e58eef09882476d40a
27213 F20101112_AABDXW ko_b_Page_150.QC.jpg
5e480fb381d78a6fc98ad62d36d23f88
7811b70e81e1b155988f4f3a1b6ebe05eae06521
F20101112_AABFRJ ko_b_Page_051thm.jpg
d1d4bfc0447d1008f5f9a40c761243a8
1979e084cb1a32a1739de99bb8948e93913b3882
F20101112_AABEUQ ko_b_Page_090.tif
68314928ae085a43fd04211a429fb3a4
7180d84c35f3b7c931b7adf85030d143ef2efc8f
77113 F20101112_AABDKM ko_b_Page_104.jpg
9b43dd9060b4df654a10a1c05eff8361
3dcef421b25211c874baac75281902dd56d3f878
70354 F20101112_AABEHF ko_b_Page_138.jpg
daea9dcb0feb1d288f34a9266b474e5f
8383113a0f233e620462869244891dbc64f83f3e
2137 F20101112_AABDXX ko_b_Page_057.txt
248cef7db64a4945c07e06f630e0c9a8
1d7681e16b669c86c6d5466c93e50670b1130907
25534 F20101112_AABFRK ko_b_Page_052.QC.jpg
fd606286f72ca351aaa2d153fc1d5d38
f0499253c04fbc54838d2bdcfc3de3afc5fd7274
F20101112_AABEUR ko_b_Page_091.tif
e612bea760de9ee02faa6f21741a0146
cf1bfab40475a11d6d5ee61aab8cad0e7b21e4d5
78517 F20101112_AABEHG ko_b_Page_140.jpg
9d6f2ac38102a1f0789837c0c07d0e87
4d82cc6efed82942398a7a3d3021df75cd3ac8c3
6243 F20101112_AABDXY ko_b_Page_138thm.jpg
913ab506368c6cecbdcf577fee77034a
b60b1708b220704f167ba121101ead70704539b8
6746 F20101112_AABFRL ko_b_Page_052thm.jpg
1e01164017e34e97379621b10cf51884
600190df2e6b9713d1461541958047ba1dd6a509
56213 F20101112_AABFEA ko_b_Page_174.pro
6ddffebf981dfca97d5328b3c50401a5
ca7e78a5b5261170fa0686766981e2d0588287e1
F20101112_AABEUS ko_b_Page_092.tif
6d4b2f7c65a8781d144d9bb5ea1fd7b0
2ca1e7fdda286a4af128af337445848189d18af5
F20101112_AABDKN ko_b_Page_292.tif
600e39aad15c5fc33fe94dfee660927b
00ab39061d3942dd2310418896d8a43c5b35039e
78574 F20101112_AABEHH ko_b_Page_141.jpg
f02ad573ce2ab19434b4d8f65b9fda4b
7cb91599da592cb363abb941d88673ef9c05bb1b
76785 F20101112_AABDXZ ko_b_Page_021.jpg
31edc0a37728bad183dc416e7098c31b
c3d34a523e17aed178c040aec4ec49972d3696f9
25739 F20101112_AABFRM ko_b_Page_053.QC.jpg
85de5bc1ab5cf03f46a9a68d24712edd
c795d0e60eb5c1c8ef373c06d16df8803acb2e1f
56609 F20101112_AABFEB ko_b_Page_175.pro
aa813a570c47ce9296d28a29e34f4ead
016ad25cf50e1e598becb06cb4eb9e1448b57aa0
F20101112_AABEUT ko_b_Page_095.tif
d190e54b84c6f328ce4772c2a94b265b
12413f471a79203912cac57bb5476c98e6df9884
49143 F20101112_AABDKO ko_b_Page_239.pro
c6e5763a7f08f4e59150c1ec1cfff7a7
89d4daa2effc0b917bbcef83807773f8b49374e9
78438 F20101112_AABEHI ko_b_Page_142.jpg
5d8637b29605d4b206a9c35bf710e069
420ef638245f2374bb463a02d695a5e2033cd8cc
7022 F20101112_AABFRN ko_b_Page_053thm.jpg
ac3f5075a78ace872664c72c52254b2a
1530ded45d13499f7a9f82b9411569be4816c07f
54574 F20101112_AABFEC ko_b_Page_179.pro
fae22552a02b72cc19ffeb01f6a621c8
034eb6cb4496cf0243c1f9dc59c90db641ffbe04
F20101112_AABEUU ko_b_Page_096.tif
4ebfe22a9eb1d66c7efe55aa696c68b0
6cfb53ad8424362124c21c831fe96ae652cb4458
F20101112_AABDKP ko_b_Page_216.tif
15106f4ee11fa3a78fc4f5cd5831bc6d
0676b888138ba24986be10992c68cfdf5833d2c1
22958 F20101112_AABFRO ko_b_Page_054.QC.jpg
3bc20e5d21a0314adc4eeea2de660da9
cf69c5a88226357c2a134a9908d1a093ceeca8ab
54307 F20101112_AABFED ko_b_Page_180.pro
cfd794cbe9c3b9d6fe7b6c8127b754af
d5b5796d205c30ddc984a8eb35c24b327f109b8a
F20101112_AABEUV ko_b_Page_097.tif
42f459b0cefc12fb0c7ebc4457c4ca34
7a72f4c38fcb0d24baeb0bd0670940abf249e0f7
F20101112_AABDKQ ko_b_Page_006.jp2
ac1074725fc6fa2e71b6772e43c49f5f
df21d04f98df77260259a34412bb4bccc9625373
81737 F20101112_AABEHJ ko_b_Page_143.jpg
0e218420371ff47c05e08938643f2da3
9ef34350ea841bbef00f3c916fc4de4e6d58705a
24542 F20101112_AABFRP ko_b_Page_055.QC.jpg
495f2eaf3647e9e3d742eba94858f072
ccd40ff199d9357afe846c5e04bfe1dc93c8b10c
52241 F20101112_AABFEE ko_b_Page_182.pro
fce656dfc22cc3bb38558b370a499347
67d1001058abeaae279d96474c7e8312b2386fd6
4215 F20101112_AABDKR ko_b_Page_272.QC.jpg
7fa5ef0c5e0d85f4d0350b19a7bab2bf
3f53425df1b5e9af9c9d5ce6bee646e144d8f685
74379 F20101112_AABEHK ko_b_Page_145.jpg
d36d4a339b97a8ad7e6d4eb0c46e879f
167990cf2c9aec71dc7b7fd07827aa141a8e6eb7
6600 F20101112_AABFRQ ko_b_Page_056thm.jpg
c72bd9c49f4206c82e83afd72c0a902c
b4dc6ce8d3445e72d20870ddcd410bd4618a24d5
F20101112_AABEUW ko_b_Page_098.tif
055c0ebf173ecaa04c9c4441d49ba706
2ece05438b5ddd167af2f380c2c4b46a88b4d98d
F20101112_AABDKS ko_b_Page_227.tif
396ad9f23cd63cf10c0cf45b22e4bf7b
ee0899aadfbbdd7d7ae5203b7686f432a27918ba
79739 F20101112_AABEHL ko_b_Page_146.jpg
599417f371d3fa6d7c35b37717293463
57bcd26a1b87c93b1c9ca0705ff072b5a2a443d8
25619 F20101112_AABFRR ko_b_Page_057.QC.jpg
9d554cc03e7d1af91741ba48dcd81653
50590151d716992c2efe55486a0a704ffea23ede
54791 F20101112_AABFEF ko_b_Page_183.pro
e6273621453192cb43244a6fcb3a455c
b228c9ba837ca9b472ef8afa0e6109bd5bee9f4d
F20101112_AABEUX ko_b_Page_099.tif
282402cea1785715ae40d5dcc8566217
b20db32dcaa668978409e48beb9b4cf0ad45021d
72603 F20101112_AABDKT ko_b_Page_203.jpg
c2902768847ae3504cc20b9138242700
3743e66784fc951eb02f0a6962c869b94342d1e5
74869 F20101112_AABEHM ko_b_Page_149.jpg
b9eaab07fdcb90d277ac61abcfd6fdbb
0bece9dc755d182a377f820aa8f12c0265234261
4476 F20101112_AABGBA ko_b_Page_275.QC.jpg
4e52b818ede1936eabbea8126d4d3dd8
0231f6080a5f4e65341baa44c4d3bb18d415c0a2
56821 F20101112_AABFEG ko_b_Page_184.pro
bf7f6b5074bb279d49e01a69a38602cb
c353ae0a949dd1b590e0a47093dab22285d37109
F20101112_AABEUY ko_b_Page_102.tif
244174c7d99f3eb9fdde7497016c353f
f3f3cb01e02a96e6818ead6e6b7992ae22417681
7066 F20101112_AABDKU ko_b_Page_290thm.jpg
288e1ec22cfd33d4225017c56703c846
6fa742377c5270a07e48da50f8e70f4d4b773ed3
85419 F20101112_AABEHN ko_b_Page_150.jpg
93707d9b67095506f96f2845103a302b
4bc880ef38c610dbf41cb42f9a343a826c3c09a9
18771 F20101112_AABFRS ko_b_Page_058.QC.jpg
4adbadf19f23f017025cf46f7b209b03
5a4b89214715c968812ac9757c81bfb618c8de97
50740 F20101112_AABFEH ko_b_Page_186.pro
db8a0bd4c8d101c5e37401f4e46a72b7
30d37ee8b39b8c27497573f19c9fc9585029adf0
F20101112_AABEUZ ko_b_Page_104.tif
d7ee3a834355d657aed4e65db3b4d443
d01c6a45a566697417c4a91781d09236d8849c80
9288 F20101112_AABDKV ko_b_Page_214.QC.jpg
2b4004300567eddb6ceba74b6acfdd4e
4643dc78460f9283adae0eccb159013a0a48dc73
72470 F20101112_AABEHO ko_b_Page_152.jpg
3512d4824504febe4f36f7c34c1b7b3c
1671c7b2a424bc39ed29e79da6c56adbea083505
1561 F20101112_AABGBB ko_b_Page_275thm.jpg
ddc482e95f76f349bfaa3ddd2f297e60
8b42390a3bda29f151e1a70f557d0dd5d2f58e4c
5246 F20101112_AABFRT ko_b_Page_058thm.jpg
25b89f2afb76678af588adb68e02d5ae
55dcd8cc0f6dd73d9d3abed98e6e6404c93ad504
42606 F20101112_AABFEI ko_b_Page_187.pro
70cdaaefa7e5e1d35a6cb9545fa505dd
1b3684d4b29919ca203d61ba79d60dfcdb2a9ce3
F20101112_AABDKW ko_b_Page_255.tif
9d835a2f283cebf941cadc84fd5b9c47
46ace2da406ca47d1d7a2dbafa026c27b39e9e56
76477 F20101112_AABEHP ko_b_Page_153.jpg
ec0e6dfcfb2fca34da7886f0d28c5fbb
e5b82186aac009d3f3b67114629000eaeeef76b4
21296 F20101112_AABGBC ko_b_Page_276.QC.jpg
4695d56bd5f28c8f3dceeb8ca0264d7a
db87142de144237ea55897161c5d55fc0c8d00c6
25069 F20101112_AABFRU ko_b_Page_059.QC.jpg
4f492131716b13797073abda7ae210f0
49f71e61f9a7f323facb3e46605d8ae925faa339
47781 F20101112_AABFEJ ko_b_Page_188.pro
428cfd240592bd483e7ac5b609af6c28
ed18d45c112b0152e2d3ec5fd38b4983665c5855
24030 F20101112_AABDKX ko_b_Page_060.QC.jpg
002b1d260188e926566799885c25986e
d16f2a946fc83422a9e17d9f5784d3c6ef3f701e
74062 F20101112_AABEHQ ko_b_Page_154.jpg
14d24e0acd6d3ac6b0765472fa319aed
d50dfc3078ce2c558aef3be827dcfb333d97f7e6
6062 F20101112_AABGBD ko_b_Page_276thm.jpg
c5a3d7f1f514ff1014573ad76e76e603
d27b2a791a69458d525aa45c12af7547b67bd105
6752 F20101112_AABFRV ko_b_Page_059thm.jpg
670fa364127dfa69aa3a7df70f7d697b
3f4b723f21a78b52c848e1664038594b15f8cbc0
54431 F20101112_AABFEK ko_b_Page_189.pro
0f43665c8ad07b929eb6fc48f31b5ffa
e75a686193190e7ad2382e01ff7f5d6d2f4d1010
1051939 F20101112_AABDKY ko_b_Page_280.jp2
f750c01ded469fd4dcdef1644a86e073
b38945bd25f440af72ee3dab55e06b07ff31a40c
77102 F20101112_AABEHR ko_b_Page_155.jpg
9cf6b798bc4e9f3fcb3a7290c13f117b
17001630d552da9293255ba68742dbaef1a534c1
23646 F20101112_AABGBE ko_b_Page_277.QC.jpg
689713b2eff696ffda3516068bd65a5a
babde460e7083714028586e6e75116aaf9eff39f
6611 F20101112_AABFRW ko_b_Page_060thm.jpg
f936ce6aca838844672fef4533789cdd
022ff386c00173307b9f10ecf0874dcc5362b3b0
47815 F20101112_AABFEL ko_b_Page_190.pro
65fc055e4f7722e15afb1a098424d607
0a13f7a6a6549ec9824f6b44ecf63282d285370b
2045 F20101112_AABDKZ ko_b_Page_133.txt
02fe41cfa311da18a764a2e81e4c45c4
4347df2c3176af401ca78104e6b612448341679e
78328 F20101112_AABEHS ko_b_Page_156.jpg
525a2f86b578fc2c12de1ec59958c6bc
c7b47a5d804999b34ab2841bd55dd9cc52719e35
6242 F20101112_AABGBF ko_b_Page_277thm.jpg
b7ecd63d95924000c16d0c74b7f18f9d
5ed94688d2f24b16ac49ebf2f0c0574f69af4992
21479 F20101112_AABFRX ko_b_Page_062.QC.jpg
c8b5179505a7a4fc065dddcf4cbbba70
33d4f7ab188ef629dfa95ace18c78f718257c4e3
50678 F20101112_AABFEM ko_b_Page_192.pro
e79bbec996d3276ad7dcba4585dad54e
b4d260b21cd12e62873c34293fa434e7a62cb4fb
71297 F20101112_AABEHT ko_b_Page_158.jpg
883c14c53de26556f63ec8bb5c1443f3
605979eb43e20399e64a081b3648208fcedcdc0d
3632 F20101112_AABGBG ko_b_Page_278.QC.jpg
b12d800478005c23035dea84e359b7d6
d51c6e46dc8282b6e0cb52d65e2edb3cdb4dc993
6202 F20101112_AABFRY ko_b_Page_062thm.jpg
7cb079ddd4d9d2fa9fdbaff380c90d38
ffd8be46326e8817bc46b5daf02725ac88742acc
39024 F20101112_AABFEN ko_b_Page_195.pro
9b2ba7b2f5a520629392d0e22565840e
3d0237f011dab67f5bb39c42d83012bfa574139e
74765 F20101112_AABEHU ko_b_Page_159.jpg
dea492021bdd18aab0e852a8fd01c3b5
e778ba98ad12f51db071da373fcd6c2ddaf24500
25818 F20101112_AABGBH ko_b_Page_280.QC.jpg
b562bb1bc34bb37e99d359834608c839
bc9f2aaeabd0bd84c79c334f927533e35824b6e4
6939 F20101112_AABFRZ ko_b_Page_063thm.jpg
1ce48c9e99e52d3d377c8f7b24d52e1e
eb1435619388cacb17b55ff10ec789621011f040
46678 F20101112_AABFEO ko_b_Page_196.pro
7b0c4b2f7da6798292745ec000b7de74
37e891659dff839c5b8135466818514a501a0a47
77783 F20101112_AABEHV ko_b_Page_161.jpg
e6fc353ade9aad47785faf51f9a2b892
62aa8b0b7888bbde3b11a91aac4002eea73038d1
F20101112_AABGBI ko_b_Page_280thm.jpg
174a7f68205931c52d83e72edfd063fa
e13c29f7509532472f2e074db42febb4a5124ba4
23705 F20101112_AABFEP ko_b_Page_197.pro
c2778a899aed76fbf2d8d0f6390bd9d6
7fa547ed9b115ffea3883e14083b5288b7ac19dd
76356 F20101112_AABEHW ko_b_Page_162.jpg
8cd7e031c01b03f8b2b5023d797f355f
609fe60cc2694e438bfad601c317a52184e9a140
7745 F20101112_AABGBJ ko_b_Page_281thm.jpg
f93bf1527bc5f69ebb028509247b9151
838cc21df3594f489635c7e1d481742a098b6daa
48720 F20101112_AABFEQ ko_b_Page_198.pro
c7f6f8563222d32f11f0740aeb785d08
366450bdc9e745e518a906e87d87e25f6cb91162
84777 F20101112_AABEHX ko_b_Page_164.jpg
3c3e8e750b194d2da163467b5387abc2
1aedc5f37e509feeb0299dee2740596bf3563dfe
8277 F20101112_AABGBK ko_b_Page_283thm.jpg
7cd1d622291551f8b3e9a37b74b3ae5f
585aa905a4265cf25dbd79f26f95e89fc3ad7c8c
42299 F20101112_AABFER ko_b_Page_200.pro
e676ba992cf903e22e03dacf21730670
4979a28c9fe1be848ddb2ac155e8edf08552d9e9
77679 F20101112_AABEHY ko_b_Page_165.jpg
2d505eb1b25c3f4b1b32f0687ec2c46b
be17fedebd4501370b152fcea18cd4ec3fc78b33
6975 F20101112_AABGBL ko_b_Page_284thm.jpg
2ec7f4dd6264c4552ad96b33b7d39bdc
be1008ef7401bc8c648c51f5ec6b539f7dd66ae0
38010 F20101112_AABFES ko_b_Page_201.pro
8e2db2b76c1df47a68ece386205dd9a3
f513a5929d2324b0776018d557dada40a380e338
74628 F20101112_AABEHZ ko_b_Page_166.jpg
58badd3cc520612b97f4170fb5bdf88e
f68662ac6457727df547b403137e3e667702c7a2
3895 F20101112_AABGBM ko_b_Page_285.QC.jpg
1aff9d02d5ae2801d0d4d7adc37fae09
6379edc8973e01b03b9fdd1caa40885d07d0a5aa
55008 F20101112_AABFET ko_b_Page_202.pro
8c58614c4d8ceee8ffa064dce1726444
c92007069fc63df6aad52fc2bddce3824802b3d0
25107 F20101112_AABGBN ko_b_Page_286.QC.jpg
80ca85572634cde4eb2f9c73b4529000
e1a08172ddee91a3a734dc89a664474e37c8f358
F20101112_AABDQA ko_b_Page_135thm.jpg
c67937c14eac22a163c193708df142c3
188bc404fe63ea08975f397cf568515501b62027
58798 F20101112_AABFEU ko_b_Page_205.pro
75a225bb8ece605c5282704552004339
a9d48be712f036c61202939f824f61b0d4a7f1de
26671 F20101112_AABGBO ko_b_Page_287.QC.jpg
b3b10ad02b4496dd9a1b915139d0eec3
8c343d1f3d2a306c55351f35e4c036cfd9d71357
5938 F20101112_AABDQB ko_b_Page_273thm.jpg
2e8db77ac71dba67148cbbb8b8596de9
3e625278870bae7e026f2085004b0b22fa0de446
48481 F20101112_AABFEV ko_b_Page_208.pro
d9533a20b7a30771f0212f102abb9ee2
e8d5273ea28713e8b4598ea9a89249b4c3464925
27364 F20101112_AABGBP ko_b_Page_288.QC.jpg
d4d00a670766cded7c72dccd3f6188ed
81fe6ccfa63d45dc3e35c2cfeb4c1e007d29824d
79525 F20101112_AABDQC ko_b_Page_181.jpg
114c8b1161346f6126bced88fb240892
ffb2da6333e51667bf75432bcca245ac7c9e6923
31934 F20101112_AABFEW ko_b_Page_209.pro
3237b2afe4f20df198b6c99955d2214b
df83b94e2080085dfa3c2889d300d8a53e58710e
7010 F20101112_AABGBQ ko_b_Page_288thm.jpg
ee88834574ea10792b68f790e3d12b28
88915713d6fe516b3ee6bf6adc02d0632f08cb18
7200 F20101112_AABFXA ko_b_Page_178thm.jpg
b22e1d5b25519f72f9d3dddcb73875a6
c9724461f90b079f9c14111e0d0be27aaba47954
99430 F20101112_AABDQD ko_b_Page_007.pro
fd5e290399624eff3a7de39a3513cdee
dacd413f056d04118f46ff9a9d0dcfe132ec5c46
8586 F20101112_AABFEX ko_b_Page_211.pro
a3ab6498f65d51d3b4bbd49466e74dc7
64699620fac547b0651a0c4b9c3c38e16f52af00
27005 F20101112_AABGBR ko_b_Page_289.QC.jpg
03c1bec4dfd52806fdc5657a51400ded
40e92dbf5bf7a268a35346859227ba56ac874cac
25509 F20101112_AABFXB ko_b_Page_179.QC.jpg
bb50406bc4c5039f2e3e496c2fb23413
0f6e85dd0fcd55e15cc3ce2d3512de39710129a2
70217 F20101112_AABDQE ko_b_Page_239.jpg
bbe083e4d953393df8a70847943d2fa2
ec3880a7e8acaa403e2127d8c980b2ae83dea0d2
9106 F20101112_AABFEY ko_b_Page_212.pro
3f8beceeb7ca2c544594ca61b1410a22
47c9f20c4526c5e61253d38ec1197a6ba3287516
7041 F20101112_AABGBS ko_b_Page_289thm.jpg
d35b5289afa8dcabd106f7cb10f74c0c
009e58b50e947420dc5b3250d3ad52da861dc1f1
F20101112_AABFXC ko_b_Page_181thm.jpg
ca5712bae6e7a1cbf65a80b769331904
53d68f3da3ae32e07c4aeb05b87148f35473194a
F20101112_AABDQF ko_b_Page_288.tif
55629ce8634a29029dfae5506c1637b7
4cdbee19a07b11a30836db1ab150586e3180e53a
6538 F20101112_AABFEZ ko_b_Page_213.pro
85dc6ed3af038e7a86123904b93301cc
478db62f0ef6dc36990772c21c7cf7abba362585
F20101112_AABGBT ko_b_Page_291thm.jpg
65830ecdc21ab5512ada702c3dfb83ba
955256eea632a5ba25aabd99dc5d4e5e65467547
24750 F20101112_AABFXD ko_b_Page_182.QC.jpg
865b16690a0a7095455ffc04f9b79b74
6d2e01425f485070bcd668ee7a2ae44813cea2b3
20143 F20101112_AABDQG ko_b_Page_196.QC.jpg
20da858e12f896bc25ad1c290df6a2f2
00a4252af6d3536b8d76050b9b3e805bf60da91f
9098 F20101112_AABGBU ko_b_Page_292.QC.jpg
82a5054892b7fda0378a1e53dc99f354
52df92ebd687e6d0f8e5d57614f07b29f258b65a
7034 F20101112_AABFXE ko_b_Page_182thm.jpg
e6e4a4f108f311c2bbac04b70d68466d
34eec2e58e439510eb89156044d8c69ef5270588
54072 F20101112_AABDQH ko_b_Page_113.jpg
4a1c3e78b280b6c311d62be1527f8e5c
1aa69dc7fe538c272f53b846a985507b80d4de8c
123813 F20101112_AABENA ko_b_Page_074.jp2
c24ab784d6aec55d79f8bbf2e2026bab
1f68e1c93a1da13bc6dff1e1c31ff31314d524f0
3147 F20101112_AABGBV ko_b_Page_292thm.jpg
006f27228cf7e79b08ffc85bd877e572
c3f4cf7862136d334c831e26b98f716f7676dea1
7101 F20101112_AABFXF ko_b_Page_184thm.jpg
caa51930f27b5b62ee8eb7526cc6b5d4
5538fcd09bee2a2e736eaa5fc122f240b50289f9
93122 F20101112_AABDQI ko_b_Page_058.jp2
205dc9129d97c5787dbc5eb5a67cfc9e
4c88449474fb970e937e0bd231ad1be7ab4234e1
118921 F20101112_AABENB ko_b_Page_075.jp2
b4effcf7762fb11436d56321d5b0af3d
35baa52a2be85c47bdff41707eef7f529b2ab62c
5151 F20101112_AABGBW ko_b_Page_293.QC.jpg
5565be27224cdabe62b091920bae6005
cc3ff165967a2c80100286e5b0c5792381ba451f
24704 F20101112_AABFXG ko_b_Page_185.QC.jpg
110e9868c66dd42c652a8874b27dc0e6
f9339dabd5f27ab58478b7728c620f99999ece9b
26699 F20101112_AABDQJ ko_b_Page_147.QC.jpg
a9bd1c1f39f80ad8901a74ced7acaad7
7ab22a14b470dabdbc7a5a444af8bf3043e3d8ed
118056 F20101112_AABENC ko_b_Page_076.jp2
3aad81f6eb565200d7cce8babf857e24
a68fc4499b426028c507d5b2d8addd9e0ccc7ef2
2076 F20101112_AABGBX ko_b_Page_293thm.jpg
7c35430cd8287b8157eaa554dfa21d13
510f0858e9888190e92967b9b7fcb93b6b8f05b6
19539 F20101112_AABFXH ko_b_Page_188.QC.jpg
e9f34f18a37d816fb3e72bba78dc5375
7c32d1558626ac21826222ef8a4a5d91f92808ab
24090 F20101112_AABDQK ko_b_Page_226.QC.jpg
b659850e63bcddfe423f586ac7558a8d
98520d0636a492f930bbe603c21ee19b11673fb1
119810 F20101112_AABEND ko_b_Page_077.jp2
a26f594d7de121f67016d16aa7ed1581
8c7f705f713f21f1af12aa9f89b704db621c9e6d
3954 F20101112_AABGBY ko_b_Page_294.QC.jpg
2a72ed7cf84565acae7d7706fa3946d4
a2d0b4de5d5e0a47dbb6dc6a66142921584908cd
F20101112_AABFXI ko_b_Page_188thm.jpg
bef047882c30bee9a58e983705261ff7
6de55972b227cb0c3844163cfe8334d4870423da
2075 F20101112_AABDQL ko_b_Page_167.txt
2a7eadc9a5f46442e1447e0bf0829d20
b297e9ac989fbfaefc3f9e98578827628b74aa96
114687 F20101112_AABENE ko_b_Page_078.jp2
c7e4bf2f8db5d53443363e79d0e6c30c
bd2676dbb09fed87f12b5a00646b479f203c0468
F20101112_AABDDA ko_b_Page_110.jp2
5242c80379095d96e924c546f87a3097
37d4cee58f214e07ba654db3c2de7d5f10a3aba5
F20101112_AABGBZ ko_b_Page_297.QC.jpg
438d3ac2de344c3335e449022e2c6e48
f3a99f1e038d6a657ff4d45f7e7ad7e59a59b50b
20842 F20101112_AABFXJ ko_b_Page_189.QC.jpg
abec01904bcf79a85f486166c0703b33
64a1edc6073d5b257b783fd32fa410e7ef162c0c
67675 F20101112_AABDQM ko_b_Page_276.jpg
72047e72361feb026c9c5e3528ebdf79
09c4b634a6e0386aa56d383c8be4a1473f638282
89710 F20101112_AABENF ko_b_Page_080.jp2
6de9ded0bb2560d378b808293c6c6041
d4874835cf7e379b600b1be2f1ec7847d77e1c34
2117 F20101112_AABDDB ko_b_Page_063.txt
99a4911c2d997387eb598015febeb3e8
260efd2eebc0bfe61318f5b603a07635ea9fef66
5346 F20101112_AABFXK ko_b_Page_189thm.jpg
d17cf37a190d79716c472cb1715d2186
9ea99df7cab9088ea02e31a5abc3e430b73984c0
2277 F20101112_AABDQN ko_b_Page_037.txt
b5e8fe554a28ee59d66aa2cc01770534
521cedb603e7a54403b40c04dd0c6988a5cc369d
117758 F20101112_AABENG ko_b_Page_081.jp2
f354710feae83d273ca0d52ca4fcbd0b
566989c696add40bea2737b180e2161df9787ffa
25494 F20101112_AABDDC ko_b_Page_063.QC.jpg
261c73684b31220e03ff010a25471f29
19c11d13afdc86b09772dbf53c4b4c4a0f8ebfb4
18589 F20101112_AABFXL ko_b_Page_190.QC.jpg
c0d43c37b08cdee096eb1767c874d34f
8039f9d287ea090f48c7980ba0d8b05120b38d82
1913 F20101112_AABFKA ko_b_Page_115.txt
7646ffe7086f050ce2ad91d62e756a6c
70e4876ce9632aa477f5c8233bb943d76921e6e8
F20101112_AABDQO ko_b_Page_160.tif
5354e5e02a5eee760b5c212416cc3aeb
ddb8167f0e84355318a5e73fa189f3a3123f8c8c
112417 F20101112_AABENH ko_b_Page_082.jp2
24d7f2823c495d2c81c862dfd9a2a62a
253f29ccfc8b80b186271c1539605a03bb03ac27
25422 F20101112_AABDDD ko_b_Page_249.QC.jpg
1d1530158d5d208bde823eaab249b289
6df882dbf481bf4a72c4af5bacb4dda162a70b61
21520 F20101112_AABFXM ko_b_Page_192.QC.jpg
b6c2cd1893c18c4b4eb0c5049c788860
464e66288a5e10aecd9504ad91d857b3d202b52b
F20101112_AABFKB ko_b_Page_119.txt
c0a29b6281d7fa1c514cebc9908901fc
061f70894d7ebf58ce028cda074199e5c996d23d
F20101112_AABDQP ko_b_Page_173.tif
f095f11cd0dda70f46fafa5764dc3fb5
81c2c1857ccc03f8bff118f62fb8186718aa8a91
112292 F20101112_AABENI ko_b_Page_083.jp2
355e0b1f489c7f10b4c75869a9e41342
94d0ff267eb331dcdb6297a110efc836d587e5f3
F20101112_AABDDE ko_b_Page_118.txt
d273aa45fc1329c5b9ab3aa4413be0f5
db4ecdde4c5fc233e7cfa1a0cf785f80d7784944
5867 F20101112_AABFXN ko_b_Page_192thm.jpg
a357ce9115ec89258e7c19f480abc19c
b4d7a29c43daa3c43fc73aca4a643ac01859655a
2197 F20101112_AABFKC ko_b_Page_120.txt
5473389d00477b3170920e1e5190ac03
33352fc23a52de5c995956b75d996c4e865151b7
4518 F20101112_AABDQQ ko_b_Page_112thm.jpg
a5b38ce0aa89f68bbb53ef4ae4a1b96a
864992830089fab621940a90fc16c80667a5b24e
120203 F20101112_AABENJ ko_b_Page_085.jp2
4dc628e64d0e52a2efb8cf9380c51783
7ebc50a4b5eefd6fe55e065b93509a28c973a3dc
54027 F20101112_AABDDF ko_b_Page_031.pro
45fc417ba9c271579e25b465a34987e9
ce52481ac2d5976b5a32419e66d9f6a852e7b129
23855 F20101112_AABFXO ko_b_Page_193.QC.jpg
69f4359fe102e1c8e56c32483035f69b
5d631314866d97fad1db53dd288dbf6cc9d12a15
2206 F20101112_AABFKD ko_b_Page_121.txt
7654c8b3486c242d6a3c616852f84aae
3d79ec28f58520cc2ece1c1ee4076fb3d701bf67
444975 F20101112_AABDQR ko_b_Page_212.jp2
163da8d4831b33eb908b782fe6a9a196
2a11edc3c112c61b1f79db4d3f9348af153002ea
115306 F20101112_AABENK ko_b_Page_086.jp2
f6ee420ec0bd14b62a396f7cffeb1662
919750196636d4b3e786b5f5da0a1d8a762d6cf1
6827 F20101112_AABFXP ko_b_Page_193thm.jpg
0ac50287df27c16e4c56a8934d1b8aff
5a33c0671e247c9b5aad30283a54b017f2a0fe7e
2274 F20101112_AABFKE ko_b_Page_122.txt
b6236c90de4a9c7bb5b14d504d28a949
a3ba204f241874b9150dd6a676cc9bc6c40cdfa3
118098 F20101112_AABEAA ko_b_Page_105.jp2
e3fe0d57fa04df27f877268f06748798
3cb24ce9eaa7f6470f6f1d15d637bb45d515b27d
51306 F20101112_AABDQS ko_b_Page_288.pro
60c235e5db9d6751d8fcf3313ab9ff9e
c030ed0f8b301146ad07e201cdd1c726b7d3ddf6
114739 F20101112_AABENL ko_b_Page_087.jp2
52f329336f519a8879524211542ed82f
760a6a2f664bf3ecb8b8cff85fa2c5154c01185b
F20101112_AABDDG ko_b_Page_249.txt
a23ed6ad542b854bd96a7e6092828464
bfd285d7594bd251d0c50cd31f3c401be6135b8b
20638 F20101112_AABFXQ ko_b_Page_194.QC.jpg
543e360f37fb7510a7869018882309de
0883c07012191371aac5740516c82a8ca1e716aa
F20101112_AABFKF ko_b_Page_123.txt
82e2211425798a798365914df7a3e754
e53a0875664b82b986c147a5b10ac359abe3d90c
58181 F20101112_AABEAB ko_b_Page_116.pro
980b13183a887bbedcff851137189667
3fc5b81832ff8d35582361f5b2dd25e727c1707b
108349 F20101112_AABENM ko_b_Page_088.jp2
dbe1b1f5bfce6cdaa1131c87d30c3e09
aee5839e4f6b9585381f74a703a50419af69f484
96782 F20101112_AABDDH ko_b_Page_204.jp2
3adbb661570b7a826d790973ac381af4
f04a37cc39c351857d561f8bc2382107fa4fc50e
5629 F20101112_AABFXR ko_b_Page_194thm.jpg
a80f145ce90046be1efbfb9f39698701
6117a150ddf6a437d3cc3b36f7eb95e24ddf09ec
2243 F20101112_AABFKG ko_b_Page_124.txt
61aee6f37eb847be13660d238292b2be
40423aedd90072848d4c3abd6d38e79beaff5902
F20101112_AABDQT ko_b_Page_175.tif
2630071fb469cca89ded01ab028d84a3
70b83c9c17d3b62d7b03233725648073b5d33ab0
118006 F20101112_AABENN ko_b_Page_090.jp2
63267967dfc69d002b8c3d1313cbac69
0b137ac1c3dd21e0618cec86f0a04ea9338162aa
57697 F20101112_AABDDI ko_b_Page_207.jpg
55e55a3bde26a5bf97858cc9aa460d11
32705826bc810fa811b49363883d46dab33c04c7
16774 F20101112_AABFXS ko_b_Page_195.QC.jpg
68f9c4b7267b46a70d437bcb64b4d1fb
2a51c90f6bfca51eb7d31c777ae86fea0ed2ad86
F20101112_AABFKH ko_b_Page_131.txt
d7516fc9a97569b98a1793b91c60b20d
7b742cecb5fef81621523bee5b4d83057e20cfc5
F20101112_AABEAC ko_b_Page_139.txt
bcaff7dee008457cba3e2fa84e399751
bd29c3adc96c151810da0d59cfcb2150b78ce0bd
22432 F20101112_AABDQU ko_b_Page_227.QC.jpg
7c32694222016a4b841168fc0bd72bd2
b403134c890abab7656f67724f8ec3fa18dacca8
122601 F20101112_AABENO ko_b_Page_095.jp2
e43c27a3860c049be5190242b58d3c02
158931fb6b9322c26197d29ec309d948d474e230
F20101112_AABDDJ ko_b_Page_246.tif
54ba3e815e24118f892c05574738368b
4d8c94a9551bcdf822a79fcfeeadde3035245c19
5443 F20101112_AABFXT ko_b_Page_196thm.jpg
777f74ef6b840ceb251ed3dbf0d690cb
462a57c3fbd22c3f67a907ce6595cee292d7f1b7
2212 F20101112_AABFKI ko_b_Page_132.txt
4d0d6f0aa805bf92741cdd259b76b7a3
4531bb359485b2b549cdc13c32edf37144485437
24074 F20101112_AABEAD ko_b_Page_199.QC.jpg
b85be9ee0addca86d92c136e4383b233
d9e01557a49080d1a56a85b8ce0b825ead6437c8
118233 F20101112_AABDQV ko_b_Page_124.jp2
8b6d9307d837b998fe9d8b32df998213
d9c2e162a54125017714b9963f5a8ac318cb1d90
61824 F20101112_AABDDK ko_b_Page_188.jpg
ae71e0d192d703422a2ac72506ebf66d
089baa169d2e9a11ca29dfc4677db2bbc114124c
5587 F20101112_AABFXU ko_b_Page_198thm.jpg
88dc3b73f9352bd0e78f532e29d03992
be57aef996775634c8386f665fa5c00d532622a5
2088 F20101112_AABFKJ ko_b_Page_135.txt
8ad217bd54f3d70994050ea5b3d5f48c
eaba81bc0cda41003a9d22639df5b5d23b20306d
20995 F20101112_AABEAE ko_b_Page_187.QC.jpg
2c868305fcd8c4bfa0828109c0f6249e
9a7a4d0c77b3c40824a61ffe640929c32b77c716
23984 F20101112_AABDQW ko_b_Page_065.QC.jpg
55a1e459179f29e01373f2fe246abb47
ae3ddce1b21f3fd639f88b9a2ce1ecf9a0f1ebcf
116004 F20101112_AABENP ko_b_Page_096.jp2
ba5a3c029ef23635a59eea9ff454ebfe
9dc589d86c30614be1764a3792767d04debeb799
F20101112_AABDDL ko_b_Page_071.tif
da5dc50f06961897d3a608665a9c5508
d126f28bf505863feb58ea785303c44bff0891ba
F20101112_AABFXV ko_b_Page_199thm.jpg
403976f46e049423edefa95b95311a71
af319850774f37e132dc041ed7b1495c15bb43b1
F20101112_AABFKK ko_b_Page_136.txt
0323aff39f50bd9d4d76e28d7575950f
f2957cbffdc9148526973f6bbeab27be80013278
99880 F20101112_AABEAF ko_b_Page_115.jp2
7eceef6839f27fbcaf8c58c3409192bb
50af9d239d0639def55a2684bd2531ff9e3c4bfb
F20101112_AABDQX ko_b_Page_154.tif
b1bd1951c3d34e579cc179e892d61238
4a494fc842b2c9870ebc41e301a5730efc244fc6
117894 F20101112_AABENQ ko_b_Page_097.jp2
055f51975f87e93347246efcff8dcb73
dd0855324149915929f7635250f8821fe57a1cd6
6045 F20101112_AABDDM ko_b_Page_098thm.jpg
f092d7d42d3b71e53dcf3698a191d013
5fda8ecedbaa841142b976efc5733cedf06de1c4
17985 F20101112_AABFXW ko_b_Page_200.QC.jpg
1c84a60e443eb35e57037a7ae99eef79
e5c2d3696a56af817893b75503c1959c60a19f14
25718 F20101112_AABEAG ko_b_Page_125.QC.jpg
6aab0e93686c97604011d31dedd30772
905723efc2963d4373912cab2fb5eeea41a99594
8933 F20101112_AABDQY ko_b_Page_272.jp2
1cedb29b2af7ffb2391ef5f2b39c79c2
00bb8cbb58963e0b343cc1a8f2315722e0199dab
84844 F20101112_AABENR ko_b_Page_100.jp2
b490ed71601106496e04ba506cabbb3d
df7afe4fd824cec98cc21c37c95d4def5462172d
1446 F20101112_AABDDN ko_b_Page_285thm.jpg
11023b3bd944f215811e4e4581c6df16
96435d1119bc3e6beb2675e94b13af67f3c00e23
5018 F20101112_AABFXX ko_b_Page_200thm.jpg
620de2519d219bd419ce7626078db743
056541233ff97756e3680e55612fa31c8b8b99d2
F20101112_AABFKL ko_b_Page_137.txt
424a937f3ef483619f69f591d351e25c
d352731efb2e02e2d99851c8893befe2cd51120f
5285 F20101112_AABEAH ko_b_Page_013thm.jpg
b00e29a9475195cca0c1900216aed273
dca11f63af9f00a2f8880d46a688820f786e87d6
F20101112_AABDQZ ko_b_Page_038.txt
c1cfaa01ac6164d772f056cd15ab6c96
f0dbbe3f2382e7283bec9d8d120ce65539268ef8
77571 F20101112_AABENS ko_b_Page_101.jp2
cc73488df9a76bd14d5a4dc3881a55b2
515e7d23ded129490928b7ea357747a0054107a5
F20101112_AABDDO ko_b_Page_200.tif
bda71ab690ef96d4bbab43ad09371c9a
5b50d6b1fe9c6fff826f1e0a749526c0de7d8a35
1958 F20101112_AABFKM ko_b_Page_138.txt
8791f347ebd4826be99ad6f89d838df2
a88894cc0c150524eff1474e68d8558b8dcf498e
F20101112_AABEAI ko_b_Page_015.tif
3fffa8644e7fe0a4b63e1a073c743f5f
4e608eacca376845b8a33d809e5d089cf7b89dc8
115654 F20101112_AABENT ko_b_Page_103.jp2
be450ea8b0fb1a561a89c06d6dcc34df
afc3df4c9c8235cb5c3ef6dcf8bc01e8ada32d3d
54484 F20101112_AABDDP ko_b_Page_185.pro
476de63bf25e68b3bf00bc12f91d85ac
c22fee770c1e0672064087cd5b480da8db57580a
15756 F20101112_AABFXY ko_b_Page_201.QC.jpg
61caaa721c1f6301b441314247b810f0
5cf9515e072310605db7d8b3ee47853bd6aa9452
F20101112_AABFKN ko_b_Page_141.txt
94d02681c7c71d913854bbaf25d7e2bb
02f70757d78bca216f1971c9e9a8b876f9336f7e
25804 F20101112_AABEAJ ko_b_Page_230.jpg
fd3c9f3bc17c6f46a6da87e8248789f3
caac22c5a3b15240f41637accfa360bb5dde0b2e
F20101112_AABENU ko_b_Page_107.jp2
fbcb6576adca97273bab03259c40eb26
a7f5cdf98451b198af42220b1bfb89975dd5fcf8
114215 F20101112_AABCZA ko_b_Page_026.jp2
7d7183bae79abe48683b987b233686e9
2777f4d9d8e586c92dc1baa0e5f2b4982734f126
26169 F20101112_AABDDQ ko_b_Page_118.QC.jpg
7b37c0ec104270081a6a20b3bb3cbe58
39407a8bbef2e6621fad8fc461b6b6be2b27c641
22870 F20101112_AABFXZ ko_b_Page_202.QC.jpg
071b376682faa51a12020d81bcbacb82
de2e4b6ab403899cb918ef66a4bf600647c876f3
2316 F20101112_AABFKO ko_b_Page_143.txt
1f0c20af6bcb7b59c0610c95eced659b
29fa559c75eee45b5c69f71d8fbc5e276cddf3c0
6902 F20101112_AABEAK ko_b_Page_077thm.jpg
07f5991a5b1e26f37fe07b56187c16a3
6dbddb2d751b2bd8d2151b9ebb145ff4acd6ebf7
834750 F20101112_AABENV ko_b_Page_108.jp2
94e63cc092706a895804456fb31d52e4
83f36c46233e3d370638d4ad29b351a7fdfa4f2c
32077 F20101112_AABCZB ko_b_Page_277.pro
565d14aa9a531f430a470fcfd3e8a0bd
97fe27fa76336e1a099191bc8ecea737ef9febe9
77169 F20101112_AABDDR ko_b_Page_027.jpg
7e583a357811a25ce72ac64cc34dea9b
7f2e0e39387fc49c043e8b7e476dadd5ac5f91eb
1316 F20101112_AABFKP ko_b_Page_144.txt
3903482880b70395e13b07953b35d48c
3ad130c517f18270341ccf62b0cc36f02480c00b
24998 F20101112_AABEAL ko_b_Page_117.QC.jpg
b8aa1983aed48bfef079211c682282c9
0ed9107da2c1acbb3e208bc7a1a228a3598d89f1
96845 F20101112_AABENW ko_b_Page_111.jp2
7e35e373e97a31a6ad2ca8577afc8b66
158a64de75218edc714688e5dc3d3c1478c575e7
F20101112_AABCZC ko_b_Page_156.tif
7f3592df006b3ceae78667690b53b31a
bb17e684b1032465ef9397449ccb76da51052651
F20101112_AABDDS ko_b_Page_143.tif
202a88c3e56602119e624813d8e3170c
fc7ecee821e0a97d2c0ed8327c1d4ebf2b90e847
2184 F20101112_AABFKQ ko_b_Page_146.txt
dbe4f4705671999fd064ea5087690857
ca460c2f2b6969ee54d1a1f97367f5f5a5f60328
66560 F20101112_AABEAM ko_b_Page_017.jpg
9629bf484dc0a4aac2e6a866927ea356
1cc7b2df33cda3914260f15e6eff904d1d8dcdc1
75001 F20101112_AABENX ko_b_Page_112.jp2
bec90bde02c61bf508ad362dd68f2da3
145826060600ab8cd8062b3b3e32537071b9f9fb
F20101112_AABCZD ko_b_Page_137.tif
52bc443a1b14ad2ea244c8a09c2d0bcc
2a5f73fc88c9cec0c4ec3568b4c38edc5a4cd94b
3860 F20101112_AABDDT ko_b_Page_258.txt
d2aed6eed6a3e45328e004e7021f5965
78bd7394ec04e22fbd370a66d5432e93bb6b7739
2222 F20101112_AABFKR ko_b_Page_147.txt
80cd518683283a73e027eeb1a72c2a15
e95a514f25b4e1a7d2e0d8c8e030be6ea51dfdc1
100712 F20101112_AABEAN ko_b_Page_232.jp2
2aa46c34b8511904ac0a12da312efc68
87d81b23c54d57de2a7384d55e7654715413dc40
658416 F20101112_AABENY ko_b_Page_113.jp2
09709c3cdf09a5959d1d3a689a34305c
82e0ba7b21b652fe3876bcf3077879e2457b70dd
52209 F20101112_AABCZE ko_b_Page_035.pro
46894d1776899fbe930dfa98f57fe8d9
915ead1293317dab6cae596084a73a65afd0956c
6655 F20101112_AABDDU ko_b_Page_246thm.jpg
a7a2fb969e2c16f2b5f181ae71f1fc0f
c5b8bddfe494dfead41ce4c2cbde16888e04e4a7
2097 F20101112_AABFKS ko_b_Page_149.txt
a9ee2ded01411151225e632805e13dee
17d977fbc75aab6bda8edc098d6602bf24c02995
25167 F20101112_AABEAO ko_b_Page_170.QC.jpg
23aacfe8a50de718826809a64ae3cb51
e7df1461e412a772ed78798d8c49c9613c136000
121936 F20101112_AABENZ ko_b_Page_116.jp2
ced289f5b4708408555b516123be9828
8ea8ab034b7249ea76a520d4e490e9ebe2849e7e
6961 F20101112_AABCZF ko_b_Page_169thm.jpg
425b7be10927540ea8b675c42f167b44
0d7e1fde8954214eb181c3442c927a6ae4d88085
F20101112_AABDDV ko_b_Page_272.tif
84a02a9bf857efeb09e2c05e260aa08c
7ef049a0c97ef9b9576b62fe25a50c334bf9004a
2122 F20101112_AABFKT ko_b_Page_150.txt
45b672e01864914fabc43b0e16ad3c30
ed96c097f6b18423b5464f19263b7920c3f14116
110109 F20101112_AABEAP ko_b_Page_042.jp2
9b1b5cf789e0facf15d35a72c9978df7
00351d75b541a61bdd428dec8d48e57ac29d8ce1
8197 F20101112_AABCZG ko_b_Page_001.pro
e3ff715adb3b7f2bb0549a03b2366ff0
5c26cf76ba8f196862c254d95963694a07d03245
36690 F20101112_AABDDW ko_b_Page_229.jpg
239b7a4fc82862409669d71919482fb9
be4b9edcdf27ce7161c2fb2d1d6d8b1c5047b041
F20101112_AABFKU ko_b_Page_151.txt
98deb307ab8b533730d02a651eaffa66
2efa92c52ecd36eb40849e8e1022c5bcd48d5631
6427 F20101112_AABDWA ko_b_Page_262thm.jpg
0e727aa4548d5f9d72450141cdd6e97b
ff4eebe20455e61c16959fd0ae0988552d987693
18487 F20101112_AABEAQ ko_b_Page_110.QC.jpg
e312ff3b32fc9264271db8a9500f5b40
dd958f402a05f491dcd65b0fb5ab152b4e55b1db
6866 F20101112_AABCZH ko_b_Page_300thm.jpg
d0695a343569577275ff120b65cb473e
d94ebda71b0347a125ac0f1b07706676a1c07b8a
21322 F20101112_AABDDX ko_b_Page_005.jpg
9a40324552cbc4c981998c3ca358a525
e53cec89d559f946bcb9d1c3d772904c0db0f7e7
1994 F20101112_AABFKV ko_b_Page_152.txt
a3fb42430d88081825fd86e5a048b578
fea2f770a86167cc6e230220eeb8f26c40ad28a3
8276 F20101112_AABDWB ko_b_Page_302.jp2
ae2fb9c8fb4778b16d662016345829de
f505d6e8cbc8b99bafa962b058dcd48f829c6039
106258 F20101112_AABEAR ko_b_Page_239.jp2
6fb380d7996088d94f0776776fcab369
70ab0aa0a3d511005aca34227dcd61a73075a884
6884 F20101112_AABCZI ko_b_Page_156thm.jpg
9d18f23fd6cd8127a51095b2902399da
f37dd494c4f7a812fdae7afd9578bddcbf4c1454
55457 F20101112_AABDDY ko_b_Page_076.pro
07b42e5579728e0228cd52665831f34b
9b2342b01d6384b3243ec4ecebf632021cde4ebc
1973 F20101112_AABFKW ko_b_Page_158.txt
a5acaa0332bdd34d0c23c1a19d7b843f
580c54aa6deaf8b4c23796a5ab0dc9d7f495ee90
113974 F20101112_AABDWC ko_b_Page_069.jp2
01eed361126a18b218347098f78a54f5
50a07bff61abb633cda9df6ddc71a9b5be62df1a
24125 F20101112_AABEAS ko_b_Page_079.QC.jpg
1f7aaca0ec6b86ca936a122cf80dc3cd
e5d5dd4a499ab07746689e9aba38c9f6b4b1c47d
5918 F20101112_AABCZJ ko_b_Page_017thm.jpg
01dc33446987f64221e81ac262c34bec
6fa2afef9d6523a9331214e34c4bebfb05fdbe71
4257 F20101112_AABDDZ ko_b_Page_191thm.jpg
a082e98edf6bf685326c9729715380fb
a7bc7808c412c9cfb5d962934d41c14bb9834003
2135 F20101112_AABFKX ko_b_Page_160.txt
0f157c44dc43b4be2e2823bbeb4fcd84
a3a4dfc3d22cf0cf644f9e22826f2f64f1012007
4133 F20101112_AABDWD ko_b_Page_015thm.jpg
17c91b34024f794e01e7c573e8771528
3819a2f581ccdbb42ba970532151c263dd21cfb8
F20101112_AABEAT ko_b_Page_119.tif
bba17e330b06e3135474ebeaba7b0877
359a93f8d667680e9aee33774accc4705845a011
6899 F20101112_AABCZK ko_b_Page_047thm.jpg
50b682dc64e5e2a5fee7222f245ab82e
5a835cd71ef9c64b12627a247b7a9aba157a8191
F20101112_AABFKY ko_b_Page_161.txt
fff28d08a88a39456d0800942497f383
7e0c990644dc2bdbadcc941d7a2c5c0ff6bf86d2
74420 F20101112_AABDWE ko_b_Page_089.jpg
eb6770a1e5fad544979ba3192ebb564b
95469a17164275b47e59fc4c2444a17171c6a3fa
6900 F20101112_AABEAU ko_b_Page_279thm.jpg
c43184af9b155660287153387e38fa26
d3395c5f8cd67d3f95e3581de4dbc464860cf886
27655 F20101112_AABCZL ko_b_Page_157.QC.jpg
02621706371109b5c3ea70f40b6b9b31
29e5f9a3f6d15072f96314462e16ff0ae01f98c7
F20101112_AABFKZ ko_b_Page_162.txt
11183ae693d69b7f4e5b952899c39530
9cd27e3914febaa9ad69836b583b4bfef5c71e87
26005 F20101112_AABDWF ko_b_Page_213.jpg
fcd2441fb41fcce5d510d4a20f0c2c92
f0222776de13ebb0c58a08884385bc3a732dec2c
117098 F20101112_AABEAV ko_b_Page_120.jp2
1ab6fee443ed8cb7ff278c1225eece49
04e399a4b8eaa81c7ad75aa4dd4847aa32c691bf
8609 F20101112_AABCZM ko_b_Page_016.QC.jpg
221f34624dfbf373337c3aa2dedb49ab
742e213a037d0c4212e79f9c6ea89b828124c66e
4449 F20101112_AABDWG ko_b_Page_113thm.jpg
c405e084cb9ee71235a8848e5e2a6182
9dd122bc143f6e8eaea304f1de967ef8d2cc5838
54821 F20101112_AABEAW ko_b_Page_099.jpg
adcd5aa5fd928c6cfa4de449b6e7e558
6ebb99acb90b27ec0711e6ee4b111205e0b22668
F20101112_AABCZN ko_b_Page_209.tif
a3ba96aa8ecf4bf3180322db498510e0
b8241001847ac88be26c668ed8013c1435ef31f5
24574 F20101112_AABDWH ko_b_Page_087.QC.jpg
51c62090d7548895b8621193351536ec
2d8a8d3afd3fab62c2f53460562a4877584a1719
77444 F20101112_AABEAX ko_b_Page_131.jpg
ea00121bf07021f89f4efad5d9cfd55b
cc809c1f4e24e0cd5f6da09f27fa48cf066ae733
F20101112_AABETA ko_b_Page_025.tif
2b77d5bfa0dc484a50f24fe76652546c
356cea27a454bf9308b7f2b6fc029d7f744a7b3f
3723 F20101112_AABCZO ko_b_Page_262.txt
5755363ca0e3a8add1dfc2b55b16e8c3
6eb66445ae974f162fbef4add8bad3ab5b9099a7
24174 F20101112_AABDWI ko_b_Page_152.QC.jpg
63d2d240b1d77eff8fcdefe6d20cb69a
f5f25e02c5e9a27801a9a2cfc8fbf9e6821a6dcb
F20101112_AABEAY ko_b_Page_101.tif
525b3b2114837dee4b39f274bce16d5a
1cb264d26d64995726d767c9d1051e797c8d12bd
F20101112_AABETB ko_b_Page_027.tif
70754ef82d4c7b11bc446e2e865c25a3
5bb9632d407b6dfc67639549b4a9ce8699f01164
7052 F20101112_AABCZP ko_b_Page_036thm.jpg
d99c2c8dcdee096d2e5bc7cb298a4176
871c9982ad64fc8ff610e572828ff83d344a4c04
26713 F20101112_AABDWJ ko_b_Page_116.QC.jpg
9bb11a7b2d891d2cab5d9b3e35786f4b
3a68e3724114263c3346ba0b10166a027a325209
1993 F20101112_AABEAZ ko_b_Page_272.pro
d1f27a1c31cd606d5611a2b94f336398
360265eed14d8ba16e118927e11e8c3adf9c7440
F20101112_AABETC ko_b_Page_028.tif
1fe87a42472f6200dea5e96bccbde995
0ddede27e190cf1c458a2556dbbccfbc6d882b1f
1440 F20101112_AABCZQ ko_b_Page_273.txt
9b1491688cfbd656a50219820a9ed068
93de7d892e6576673027841fdfd240aa450b1d37
55647 F20101112_AABDWK ko_b_Page_075.pro
be221f0b3014707e268ef934229b2f34
18e1d217c9aa204719dec56060f2d0baf948e756
F20101112_AABETD ko_b_Page_029.tif
4ed539238749aaf61ac528b6e82eba05
b56d21038df5cf347143a8c7a172181fee8a9a60
F20101112_AABCZR ko_b_Page_139.tif
cf71ef87facf089430aa6dcc2655a218
e7d63ca9c5d7991d7d4b0d30222c48dd51edb592
45961 F20101112_AABDWL ko_b_Page_270.pro
576fd802f321c31a11a68690440bf81f
b961edd1bf530ab7bbcf1f7a6170602d12679b19
F20101112_AABETE ko_b_Page_030.tif
d9a6d3c8e0930c0465be0a7312d17858
01087d2530af030a52bcb7297babf895cb8d9c87
61281 F20101112_AABDJA ko_b_Page_010.pro
df37e803f2e00269b87a76b082f5e617
f7ff4beb78b0014485e8458996a46b155b9c91c1
55146 F20101112_AABCZS ko_b_Page_243.pro
cd19afc3f997616cc9cf9f00bc930c66
f0b5d8bbb660c865d259a511c3fb14e02718c769
F20101112_AABETF ko_b_Page_032.tif
4de013148b5f4f3f164450867df82332
7c39679006ee7a255cef6234d8e2e1a6d2795ba3
7072 F20101112_AABDJB ko_b_Page_129thm.jpg
edd8d3faae0ec82a67c7365d1f90a0cb
aa3ff0d7fa9a96c28b9a5d88ff8995907029b448
56513 F20101112_AABCZT ko_b_Page_171.pro
38e3a3b373385ccc70b5037067a76732
49c09a59c3949182f17287d8e93e7b1aea24c4e9
5618 F20101112_AABDWM ko_b_Page_267thm.jpg
318dbb26c3e971ebebffdc0c75c68010
e8d4708cac33318c41edacbabb6f3329f76f1826
F20101112_AABETG ko_b_Page_035.tif
510b99adf1976ed99e792aaeddeaabad
0c817f5eb93121030f879416885059c360c2160d
6705 F20101112_AABDJC ko_b_Page_069thm.jpg
5daa1f6caeca7e4bfb01f29f1313fcf8
1486f853bc5c54cf59f9b1eb4428976a078a5deb
20530 F20101112_AABCZU ko_b_Page_269.QC.jpg
328b529d0b615c5793d90f8e8b7065f3
9c4165b795d2f33244a86fef74faffbd79619c89
26633 F20101112_AABDWN ko_b_Page_148.QC.jpg
c2787a85bfba886b53fa0b0bdd0f4c48
0537fcee263ac0659b45154a5748007745c5f76a
25756 F20101112_AABFQA ko_b_Page_028.QC.jpg
df384e90d5611c37af6b3110bde41ef7
2030b93fdaa560c786a84107153cc936d064500e
F20101112_AABETH ko_b_Page_037.tif
f733d54c16bbfc8d058780c2743618dd
54953bd76e4a73a43edcb57cb8188febc09a38a6
6443 F20101112_AABDJD ko_b_Page_034thm.jpg
3664e40f99751ba164b450ed33e05d9f
86d37ed8fe00e68946f9206534bea2ab648d5e64
12595 F20101112_AABCZV ko_b_Page_237.QC.jpg
2e40d42d2b4d289322097bc1e7d81543
68d747b890148c4db72b99374ba4b69869b951f9
104814 F20101112_AABDWO ko_b_Page_203.jp2
2832a248268fb8f21449cfdf6b48cd7c
71baba4fe7570ac0c5f546756ec6d7df27571cfb
6935 F20101112_AABFQB ko_b_Page_029thm.jpg
7fca99334fe0ac7b44b8d8156b6a9c8f
ace96d16b214617c629eaf4f801fecbd8f88b3b5
F20101112_AABETI ko_b_Page_038.tif
8933051b8d52f192405abe6652d04d88
36d40d86d5195b03d545871ad523c09e086c6887
53927 F20101112_AABDJE ko_b_Page_170.pro
d5fbda27dedb0ba0971d0aaf08e920ba
6bb3eb39a9aa5027dfaaad8eae95ad3045e2a9eb
26736 F20101112_AABCZW ko_b_Page_247.QC.jpg
6c77a579575f612c0555ae60afb0e7b3
6934c5f2c45560b51b6c8570189a6b93368f3484
51760 F20101112_AABDWP ko_b_Page_217.jpg
489caaa1ddb097d0e4d8affa22ef6721
b93f98842a7edc076e8e5930020c437f78bf6ae1
23243 F20101112_AABFQC ko_b_Page_030.QC.jpg
2affea86ae076ca071962f0a4f9d209d
373797b5a67c06e9b4634ae1d9ce30d60a5165f0
F20101112_AABETJ ko_b_Page_039.tif
4f6397c4fbd8e971f781ebfb15127fc8
503344ffdf69372d8766ce52f2e3832febebf833
F20101112_AABDJF ko_b_Page_237.tif
763ad6ff2c45370b0b2598d273d216b4
01573a354daae39e1ce890c30d820c4f5f004b2c
53072 F20101112_AABCZX ko_b_Page_086.pro
7b582e045a2a3338b530162d04af4c67
0c905d782ce56c3d6f1b22f4a368639d41905f3b
51629 F20101112_AABDWQ ko_b_Page_089.pro
fa39901b069a46647a1089cb26471adc
e7a21fcae26ba7cd1df29e074b3e7541d7d52c66
6579 F20101112_AABFQD ko_b_Page_030thm.jpg
7adc29364361dc3b28c53d884f1fd5ca
6391474231d550cf44c22fef4353b680601a159c
F20101112_AABETK ko_b_Page_040.tif
e15e29d0bf1651b4b66cd29fd6df429e
7a92aec1b07197b5dfd76db8e7068d220ae26aeb
47580 F20101112_AABDJG ko_b_Page_024.pro
c460a3f49392e32b9a08e176eacc8fba
a6c1776fd64d8194568a10aee844d887e6ed2805
F20101112_AABCZY ko_b_Page_121.tif
0ae2bf467122f35778a6cd3e304f2795
0f358fe9aaaa3844f7ad2fcc1f3787607bd77ef4
F20101112_AABDWR ko_b_Page_303.tif
4928a9bea405bef0a59ff6fd0cd95e3a
728654585ea54215cd0344d0299990bf799bdd79
24752 F20101112_AABFQE ko_b_Page_031.QC.jpg
7991f3ad1b9229bf421e17fdaf7d99b7
4bb8ca4cc96205feb4b9dd5b87ca2dbabc44c2d1
F20101112_AABETL ko_b_Page_041.tif
9bc3dba7817931326371bb6a50cbac75
900dee54f11e646c7cffa024b6f777034ca1555d
7065 F20101112_AABDJH ko_b_Page_185thm.jpg
66cae7edd182d585933d6bcebc636ae9
0f69df5e4c2e5e92c1babe91ac15aa1b1726bce7
43304 F20101112_AABCZZ ko_b_Page_216.jpg
6846da00a0901f16a7fc402844625d13
a7d26623aebeabb0145104cf02bee687a52ca214
78713 F20101112_AABEGA ko_b_Page_085.jpg
257d12c463c1cb008fe438ba70b39e05
7f5e337e28aacdc1f3f020c01828dc12e71795c6
24711 F20101112_AABDWS ko_b_Page_166.QC.jpg
ce85672fe74f152ddca0c83deeac0e5a
9a9ba882728b0c58f21d473b570ec2ab97500f80
F20101112_AABFQF ko_b_Page_031thm.jpg
a2ba92fed378c0abdf87847a2e3ca42a
11d8406bbb9020680c900b1e53cfff8d4f29c51c
F20101112_AABETM ko_b_Page_043.tif
597feb64c793bc3545f9ff2c180f14cb
68f4fd309a4ed06316ed7bb34a1d95d07ba7fc44
23883 F20101112_AABDJI ko_b_Page_042.QC.jpg
fd2c8b263876e63d5421b1c80f164dee
0079f865cfb24ff3e79a55c2dffca11d46c39fc8
71946 F20101112_AABEGB ko_b_Page_088.jpg
60eaae6c25f356b0abff3d722d6be161
eebab59f92b2c8398aebf6d0b3b52103c532de5a
2134 F20101112_AABDWT ko_b_Page_117.txt
d8e178e79c56b5eee6fa98560e5ed78c
cccffca7fe9cbac05b3d8fcff464d3dcb35a77cd
24806 F20101112_AABFQG ko_b_Page_032.QC.jpg
15d39f4d36b90fdb650a03a7c42ef96f
d5c377589b717136e8a324c271e0be900b19b7cd
F20101112_AABETN ko_b_Page_044.tif
85fc9cee88aac4bef06ada9e8ff41671
dff35627da9ede1fccf2721e5c78bd8a97841c5f
5832 F20101112_AABDJJ ko_b_Page_187thm.jpg
cbe51073a31e29daf1e6eb09b3125a08
09075d87289ce4d1ea01ed98c945f2e4eebbce3d
78049 F20101112_AABEGC ko_b_Page_090.jpg
cc74263328e5bbb4c094e0c4092446f7
5506f31a4de0c35f589918a8e263ff12c6819728
119876 F20101112_AABDWU ko_b_Page_147.jp2
ab370f13a3fa28faccb7b4eeb3dd94f8
a80def4e7ee96122c8963ab2d883b458456282f0
26398 F20101112_AABFQH ko_b_Page_033.QC.jpg
9209287edede88b7b64ec723cce4ca38
3ddda0e757ca92aae68d2f4912c79cb0de305435
F20101112_AABETO ko_b_Page_045.tif
2883943c3f82dfdbd4997bb647476c76
4e406d262732f648dbbc1c17c6b7ab32fc8ca49e
13577 F20101112_AABDJK ko_b_Page_271.jp2
a4ba255f564d81b10d4c08078fd7add0
07e548ab35dbcb589d2fee9ce5a44a38e74f40c4
73420 F20101112_AABEGD ko_b_Page_091.jpg
3a956ba6030f650e075387d5c6a4af49
21fe468bc91cad8585465b55e1da30903858d97a
117826 F20101112_AABDWV ko_b_Page_161.jp2
d45f790fa33b47f5bcc6288564d56a50
ffcde6b48134421cede1144318623a1150117bf0
7121 F20101112_AABFQI ko_b_Page_033thm.jpg
197c9b1679acf13f745db7641241cb8f
a1f60c865a9bde5a1fd5c4525aeb19b4dc9ba95a
F20101112_AABETP ko_b_Page_046.tif
d67099d639169151fe91935d59c07264
7bc26024ec58e22ca2d30a6a683dfcedd33fd1e8
29415 F20101112_AABDJL ko_b_Page_016.jp2
090071fc8cf670bb1d74f0b313395d35
2eeadbed08ee86603148607fc46dc38226a93472
79090 F20101112_AABEGE ko_b_Page_093.jpg
ac41f383c2bf622fd68d5d367b1aa12f
a620da791286afb812be04591e560f7e5129724c
49633 F20101112_AABDWW ko_b_Page_073.pro
e1333f0ae3271e3345fa00443cb17e2c
14c43c14e534ff25912270b7bf89e2ed7061e553
24066 F20101112_AABFQJ ko_b_Page_034.QC.jpg
9d6eb11b6f113a8a97f75da675e22caa
5e1a6588ed0687a25481457c947034dc007b1592
F20101112_AABETQ ko_b_Page_047.tif
27ebe397505e3d45c2391245d3462eb4
f9f94bd530f9877f5b07d2e3af358b4467f034b6
59369 F20101112_AABEGF ko_b_Page_094.jpg
0cd931e66c8ac5c6246ecc9c1935738e
82f4b9fdc479922f8feb5045387df8860bd7c317
55914 F20101112_AABDWX ko_b_Page_049.pro
d9ad2d3a7aa4f710ed35a4884f0320a8
b9889ec82cf6d80552ee51305b27bee860a45092
23975 F20101112_AABFQK ko_b_Page_035.QC.jpg
783010486074fff389e2773204349e34
85b97353e49986e76227317de4f2b89aadeb4109
F20101112_AABETR ko_b_Page_048.tif
c9cc79c896a7ddd0e8100a5441ad23cc
d1ce43126cf3cdabc9ed341b43656be46249ef48
6017 F20101112_AABDJM ko_b_Page_305thm.jpg
3274432f1b76496b506aa7d17199cc3c
907b139e9968365603b2a0e90c34c23b1413ee2a
76619 F20101112_AABEGG ko_b_Page_096.jpg
47989f59941ba0350fc530e5a5fe0ced
caca179798410fba4fd9497d97cda207be8dbae8
53098 F20101112_AABDWY ko_b_Page_203.pro
a383edc1ec7a85e19be25509e74a7b2a
da81c989df862d79326257b570c73b4817ccfbd2
25999 F20101112_AABFQL ko_b_Page_036.QC.jpg
b563a100d173ebc01a91d8175d347d9d
34cd780b353866e09943fefb98fc43696e65f3d2
57832 F20101112_AABFDA ko_b_Page_136.pro
3d1463ace3c334be87614b57a6674c5e
002e7f657ead407e76aa31180c5b20ce9786c69d
F20101112_AABETS ko_b_Page_050.tif
4ed7cc673c6c55e7728dab926605b7f3
c8ca8ef98065e7cb1e1d506da4e4630829b7063c
75603 F20101112_AABDJN ko_b_Page_020.jpg
707011f83a1b39d35b3f4f595bfda3d4
ed4d0ccdf70f4c6c4151b50e2604cdbb611f6f96
77109 F20101112_AABEGH ko_b_Page_097.jpg
2c1c8a374d3f1a2d390dcd46a6cc2cbb
b147c4042182d7aaa9bdeb7eee24732e6983ba74
F20101112_AABFQM ko_b_Page_037.QC.jpg
34ea05096db1def13a35a2db2d1f8f4f
45257e0484ae7dc574e204af34abcbd73a5bda90
56450 F20101112_AABFDB ko_b_Page_137.pro
5758ad9646e26a74713905106646529e
a15990cc5a0c717fa866d8feb441aab489be1979
F20101112_AABETT ko_b_Page_051.tif
66777f30f97f016d8eaefd0af8ab8d95
754af1c65a267d4b2c57e19bf4c13eedb516b0bb
41778 F20101112_AABDJO ko_b_Page_025.jpg
a46def2d38a1738c875803aa8e59167e
b78b2f56a0439788e4d57ef2b7e6e6bcea8163b1
6748 F20101112_AABDWZ ko_b_Page_166thm.jpg
3b00ff10a7b22e426711a08ee4afed94
0c547c6b554a2bb5b014892f9b04c4b4fd39fb51
7257 F20101112_AABFQN ko_b_Page_037thm.jpg
bec9e345b12aa77b5c305fd375c1fc9e
7739bc7c90c20ae2446efe30c9d976fe8c42a46c
49387 F20101112_AABFDC ko_b_Page_138.pro
949a6b49a0e12a172548cd2bcd8b6de4
206b7065fb32624b977c45a7e8a6e0d4102f01ea
F20101112_AABETU ko_b_Page_052.tif
fa75386961cc7c31f194ecb37a0817ef
f5e4697903da6a8f71d93457a9ab7cbb0be0e226
70362 F20101112_AABDJP ko_b_Page_073.jpg
620cc4dd85186eb56c0fc705ba30b38f
8bbf16ad22a20808d2cb3dd0c46e4126d524ba79
63428 F20101112_AABEGI ko_b_Page_098.jpg
9e622a3270009f4b93d449e8e379687c
0942565f7cff9a6092e512348fd804e9fde2360f
26488 F20101112_AABFQO ko_b_Page_038.QC.jpg
ffb45cd6ca74fb4a7864373d3f3a8531
4285c1ec5b7a1a19200f634ab3157df24daf1570
56563 F20101112_AABFDD ko_b_Page_140.pro
6b1dbaa3d0ed7b1dd21de9178eb6e220
7f8ca75056be41f742e6353c660d100216df9e6f
22906 F20101112_AABDJQ ko_b_Page_255.QC.jpg
4827ec3ad4a19664b8cb23830fbbeab7
af9b775546a384938f96f925cd2665990319b658
42926 F20101112_AABEGJ ko_b_Page_102.jpg
f4afb8aa4735acf3e0feaf163ee40b7b
9a15193dc8543ff142f9db5d2dd404eef73cf3eb
F20101112_AABFQP ko_b_Page_038thm.jpg
abbae698ba476afc384c3c4c56baa8d0
17495e4e48498c098776c48105c86f3a9d93f335
F20101112_AABETV ko_b_Page_055.tif
6b2e5d285f941c1072f8b48f66e119a8
c7c28d6524f801570aaaa3cbbc2e958f305e8cb6
16349 F20101112_AABDJR ko_b_Page_019.pro
9c2f065de2a7b9030fbe6248d80c2609
b073839f87c9dbc3b2cf7e08c75f6c7fefbb5151
77281 F20101112_AABEGK ko_b_Page_103.jpg
56ad61a01b32296607496cf1283443b2
ca3fcceff36cd252789d341e490305d14e15a873
26330 F20101112_AABFQQ ko_b_Page_039.QC.jpg
231080aa5240aa599e8db8d9647ce366
2008a29deb2c4030b3f2023de35cb8c5468dc258
55474 F20101112_AABFDE ko_b_Page_141.pro
0be8b78d7c4f534c8a2bfc98b3afe4d1
829ef2f78f255a5d1a9da79d1d80802a8f537051
F20101112_AABETW ko_b_Page_056.tif
14c4f4a03fb60c002056d9d2e3447e98
ece512d3e18d3592575fe2d6e558fa485b80e64c
5931 F20101112_AABDJS ko_b_Page_270thm.jpg
9aa14c4cd2ccd15f4985232746c57e7c
2f9d490398b0407cc9c1a4d0110b99771323d34e
78309 F20101112_AABEGL ko_b_Page_105.jpg
58d44c61f800f02478b4eb4e6299d14d
081394b5f2bdbf85cbe8a14b11638a225120c59c
56440 F20101112_AABFDF ko_b_Page_142.pro
1692a363c008f527160a8968f72a2b0e
a116e3569fa68e46b2994a6c118219a5737c93c5
F20101112_AABETX ko_b_Page_057.tif
427312b07f5e52d4d2166ac54e919a2d
7ea742e81288ec556a964842fc76ef2aed107342
2176 F20101112_AABDJT ko_b_Page_041.txt
91017ab72eca4b360c918a83066243d5
8f68cb27cd011b2011bdc124a6aaacae807c9bcb
69939 F20101112_AABEGM ko_b_Page_106.jpg
af4bcc0492291b09a02db4d85695d165
1df0e04b069a6d5c6a3ab0a9443541d6c7de9ce2
F20101112_AABFQR ko_b_Page_039thm.jpg
f2a3ec711a6dffcb30fe752ecb773001
f41bae4b25eda0b8026f4e18c6a38b668d457bcb
33028 F20101112_AABFDG ko_b_Page_144.pro
e484d256c82b7be116bbded30731f3d7
020c9b2cb7975a590610a70ec85a62fb0a0ebd48
F20101112_AABETY ko_b_Page_059.tif
8af54d9c9b7aca56db9d573d3c712928
cc2e6270afa38098dca7785928a91180acf81976
F20101112_AABDJU ko_b_Page_194.tif
70ed867fe13a7b0d789f7cf6182efdca
4b93df44ccc9d0bfd63d9cd3198f6eb872eb604f
77326 F20101112_AABEGN ko_b_Page_107.jpg
fadc8a6a89f562cb6342cca82bb3c049
6bc6a4874dd384e96a20fae794e0a6be5758b719
26525 F20101112_AABGAA ko_b_Page_253.QC.jpg
290e70f90b0722f33e73d582574bb742
94f7d89410047fab155ef0a0163ef0db32301c7f
25877 F20101112_AABFQS ko_b_Page_040.QC.jpg
9f4b1b7a19cd6ebc887e03be6fff0238
82d3d482e1d8a48e819d9fbb309e3ea2c2673cf1
55493 F20101112_AABFDH ko_b_Page_146.pro
3db70515a79d972acdeb6cb97dd7c7e9
b0f29f526a22f99c629f803433e914bbb4a816ee
F20101112_AABETZ ko_b_Page_060.tif
0ce6f50f3665c5331cf019ce37fab1c6
c13f307139ade6e6f5ca4a3be5501e8a896ba9bb
1466 F20101112_AABDJV ko_b_Page_294thm.jpg
562384598040b3fe81dabe5a72c46e46
6a90adf58115b9c06d6b52376f77d4d448a36cb4
46195 F20101112_AABEGO ko_b_Page_109.jpg
fb966b088965f7beca692e09b052b633
8b04adad481b4035a17b1ac3462aff6b5c7b0d1f
7088 F20101112_AABGAB ko_b_Page_253thm.jpg
3c4da2e7af7662c0f02d3de4b01a232f
7987117b52054e41e9acf493d6a5d3bf53ae4392
6997 F20101112_AABFQT ko_b_Page_040thm.jpg
5a311371710e8deef8ba023457882f3c
385c55b9b12a873f6b0ea0c721dfacfc8ea31515
56427 F20101112_AABFDI ko_b_Page_147.pro
71eb1fdba0d9628bdd48ee592ac56e15
352bf2e1e6a9ff0245b836ae9113c263f607082f
133220 F20101112_AABDJW ko_b_Page_008.jpg
dc7769cbab5090272fbeb3efaa977fe7
a911dd4927180c8599a652849d6a5b509f07f133
64284 F20101112_AABEGP ko_b_Page_110.jpg
e4faf31a9a0c4e24413e6519db62327c
2e1afa335596ce3c6fe4e1510b124cfb8e57f309
5077 F20101112_AABGAC ko_b_Page_254thm.jpg
67d9f15756318c9195cc1f75c7c9da71
54cda53c0e05476d0b3dd71a66893ed252d54e4d
24157 F20101112_AABFQU ko_b_Page_041.QC.jpg
89781a5e4ba186d5d06740d1e65aa033
ecbdd9701a3258090465460aa95f1e72dd9549d2
57151 F20101112_AABFDJ ko_b_Page_148.pro
707e496fdd3f1b6f3c8f99664aa91489
0a136e93290e971cae6beb8d3bf1a586e137de12
104323 F20101112_AABDJX ko_b_Page_138.jp2
9233cf412264ccb725d3c8bd693015b9
fc270bb90db04e3112112b5f2c74223082e7704f
69746 F20101112_AABEGQ ko_b_Page_111.jpg
20af46b19a9516d3bc751ce4aa1e98b4
a0a59e2ce1be794705c95e4e1e2f460c986006cd
5928 F20101112_AABGAD ko_b_Page_255thm.jpg
81383ae6138cc68c6c1f7fbcf2aac791
08e6ce6f9b6dd2e32f23f97569d37d54aec5598a
6816 F20101112_AABFQV ko_b_Page_041thm.jpg
59cea3dd71ad6b4978fce75eada028d9
ce4781bf0726fffbd4a4f74c2461dac07e4f4be4
53306 F20101112_AABFDK ko_b_Page_149.pro
a256c0b7bff91afce7b947360c9227a2
73811ed55a790872309bc6aece848c53afa9f4f2
110143 F20101112_AABDJY ko_b_Page_091.jp2
8a00fc065a375cf20dedeb88283326a8
7218f03a20ebcf0ee4b200a2b1263a63e9aeb43b
20618 F20101112_AABEGR ko_b_Page_114.jpg
5eb1578fd86e16bba1ce089db62a0af0
7ee5c15aff53f0f0eeedcc76a982b2c8ba8a64e6
3405 F20101112_AABGAE ko_b_Page_256thm.jpg
4a2ad5986d676151ac9d09203890e73e
b47f701ce1082ae2604aa9e50417d5d7f2978ab4
24997 F20101112_AABFQW ko_b_Page_043.QC.jpg
40c2e614287d6ece69ac96e4735b14d7
b95aa683b5dff26588dbbfda837fd71550626373
54013 F20101112_AABFDL ko_b_Page_150.pro
8cf1347c63c730cf5f4190c512c90c04
aca3c2dbc8e9d0c4e6b64b9e8a4e6f6bf83bb329
52328 F20101112_AABDJZ ko_b_Page_304.pro
d9837937ab2922f436e75800e086688c
c5b991bc9660be4867f68142e2b200317040ab92
80875 F20101112_AABEGS ko_b_Page_116.jpg
5b126e0cba42f506536893f8d20caf04
f19dc7737b6871ab1bfdbc2e8083e89c4ebc02b9
3894 F20101112_AABGAF ko_b_Page_257.QC.jpg
5e588d03b6751722c2b42eb254707abf
46bbd3714198d7045074f08036ba3cb043f7da55
6915 F20101112_AABFQX ko_b_Page_043thm.jpg
e10815425de97fba586edd701cdebd8d
a555ac9ae8e922cdbd3e41ecff80c367ab03f490
52930 F20101112_AABFDM ko_b_Page_151.pro
ccf09c482d3423a1eb4b12e588b8e3b4
05c414997a9b0ee06af29d046f035c296d29ed15
75424 F20101112_AABEGT ko_b_Page_117.jpg
e5235211aee99ef544ef581e61d87c34
89b1ba2c92ca9c1c925d1593417668c5f9b3f5aa
1444 F20101112_AABGAG ko_b_Page_257thm.jpg
fefa610cffbd6ce6b4ff4779dd73877e
5bb141a9401e15485627e186e304887a2e030709
25492 F20101112_AABFQY ko_b_Page_044.QC.jpg
25e1e02e86043b225541e85be974e581
0250217713706be7aa3516a838a02ecf0b574261
54920 F20101112_AABFDN ko_b_Page_153.pro
ae275b3a65f048181245443a731d123d
3eca25c756ed4d4d8d2fca2a815271ab00331c6f
78955 F20101112_AABEGU ko_b_Page_118.jpg
c24323a597b7445018e4081b9b58ba1f
df5a9f4f0863f962bd7b3499c05699839d49b22b
28581 F20101112_AABGAH ko_b_Page_258.QC.jpg
c6994bc0cfcc89dcf512c231418096fd
697d61ab6858e74e452eabd1746e98d715358ef0
26745 F20101112_AABFQZ ko_b_Page_045.QC.jpg
c49073a610d0669436da842094f4bae3
82560c70d2c83d0a5dc1c715c27103c29db2a6d2
52735 F20101112_AABFDO ko_b_Page_154.pro
f725bbeddcb0a06758a6729b2d887634
6e583480eef198a99057d02a8ef71513cabcb1b0
77628 F20101112_AABEGV ko_b_Page_120.jpg
7016bc9344936e6da36b5d82f12da391
e83a2f7e5e8a3229d519cbecdd2f090d9010293b
F20101112_AABGAI ko_b_Page_259.QC.jpg
d798cef6fe7c662375d49726880a54e5
da845827ac6666bd7efe217916900733af3941a1
54586 F20101112_AABFDP ko_b_Page_155.pro
a083008ed790d41adfe246e39c7173d2
222b63770c66fb13f9a93a9f7da1150e21f4a816
79861 F20101112_AABEGW ko_b_Page_122.jpg
d4de8ae3e4f297e94dfe4e782a96ddb0
05e95891bd46fa59ae02c03793c32017c83b08a0
1385 F20101112_AABGAJ ko_b_Page_259thm.jpg
211164bc42d4c1affc2214d91afab99d
4f245ca01b9d4dc9a2ee8ea79a2f2bb69902dc99
F20101112_AABEZA ko_b_Page_278.tif
70e0fe7f375db3d7b3131eead8acf323
c7e2b6f3486369c8c9eff2bd35e0fc2daa10dd38
49679 F20101112_AABFDQ ko_b_Page_158.pro
22543aa49b1a7aea890a811e5cfe57b4
cb8942a37bd352ecf1016f19a0de55c7e4cd3bd6
75203 F20101112_AABEGX ko_b_Page_123.jpg
0a0ee3e4d9ff7c594cf2adc22f82c198
3f16f2f3b8d693ef7ec05d52899a41e44a90ed48
28432 F20101112_AABGAK ko_b_Page_260.QC.jpg
b8da10905f4d89a48979fdbc0c1fde52
33e49e173eaaa46c42f9c20348786fb5df606e78
F20101112_AABEZB ko_b_Page_279.tif
6e28d0770d4bebd26b1f613c924c1d9b
c5a845d46f3e0843d6e35b312120e38cfaf077ab
52606 F20101112_AABFDR ko_b_Page_159.pro
4c3180e979d9fb29cc0fdea4ca12707c
12d82119468ba599c82d8473423f1541a5d11f2c
78708 F20101112_AABEGY ko_b_Page_124.jpg
e647b4bb58a94f832b147a81f6f5a890
d97e88a7f393f083f46b938c9bb01731da02acdb
7346 F20101112_AABGAL ko_b_Page_260thm.jpg
aa9c95b6a522f7caf20925f23ac1bb0e
0b5988adece856045a3cf9c2be1eadc3a9d54d7f
F20101112_AABEZC ko_b_Page_280.tif
c80d2b543fcca82e08b853c4195104af
ab8b47b421d86473d31d939d666099991d5db324
55123 F20101112_AABFDS ko_b_Page_161.pro
b3bb23e5821dd36227c8107368cb74d7
57c1f58ff09f6d9c82c2c32183d50244dfe9a55a
79325 F20101112_AABEGZ ko_b_Page_126.jpg
bf889087d6837782d3643a8048d2cf9f
ed29ca3ce63f0de186885dfc88e53f4c7a6d5637
4389 F20101112_AABGAM ko_b_Page_261.QC.jpg
50082d08f06d368aa8e29c38dc02b93f
3070e5b0c4a71ab9a61d983c4d87912bbc67204f
F20101112_AABEZD ko_b_Page_281.tif
c11d4ae1fbcf36dc832a1d9b62b36c62
c45f15a0b0a64bbc9b3100bda605ca2a50b019c4
54145 F20101112_AABFDT ko_b_Page_162.pro
e92a2e12d628cb971a6de8e09341f321
6ccd2d80eba6a10309d60138e2fbd7e9262a6a37
1543 F20101112_AABGAN ko_b_Page_261thm.jpg
3ae0d7d9872ecba5475d23296a90b527
155e78c5fa181fa164233b182e476cf180885206
F20101112_AABEZE ko_b_Page_285.tif
9e4baa74a455f1f7d7061d0101710d0d
8ba8e56543d8551a76fff518160fe1bdb35173ed
53110 F20101112_AABFDU ko_b_Page_163.pro
317b740cbd58bf8c951b60e9333d4069
e8f299f4fb540f8450ebaade6766687664c78f5f
1842 F20101112_AABDPA ko_b_Page_004.txt
6793df96d7c8ddf53ddacc777f789a0e
44ee95844c7194e2d5a9d9ffb827d2a8d8bdc357
25016 F20101112_AABGAO ko_b_Page_262.QC.jpg
f7521552f75e92741c11527730ba053a
3d1e58814d8436561c03cefc140531b45f1d63fa
F20101112_AABEZF ko_b_Page_286.tif
c2e91f4a27a65a830170248989928c89
2e2c487d7d1b5f5a17da15bd09f2299e094bc09a
54610 F20101112_AABFDV ko_b_Page_165.pro
91f46c7bfa5a8465255f53189dfca8c1
909d09124136acce31dc15f084e2afc6718b8395
4350 F20101112_AABDPB ko_b_Page_201thm.jpg
f6439431b25c5b4c77805c706ccfd23f
5699e1be5c4d30e3d5f720eb6ddee3ff62277b0c
F20101112_AABGAP ko_b_Page_263thm.jpg
5eb0ba1d58acf872ce96ebd23269681e
6451691798462608fb578943c8d167afc8921927
F20101112_AABEZG ko_b_Page_287.tif
cff5c638f274ae477534d87b5bab0992
abb5a0fea70401c971cb0e97bb60cce4451889fb
51073 F20101112_AABFDW ko_b_Page_166.pro
f64a58779d98f4875d78c1d8a13a904d
7343d82f5f4677ac0f490893120f7b13edfcb8c0
67969 F20101112_AABDPC ko_b_Page_206.jpg
bb4678f0f33938c19a174b4a21ea3d7a
1895ead61ae3bbb822d570af9c08dcd588216093
F20101112_AABGAQ ko_b_Page_264thm.jpg
f24366c57f0c78c802676ae41bf4e447
74d661e7612e8dd281db52facb0c8e5894fa85f8
6932 F20101112_AABFWA ko_b_Page_151thm.jpg
da4b80e36a18788172656df324b5f596
1e5b8055ff33b5fd04b9dade215b4f69abcbd3e3
F20101112_AABEZH ko_b_Page_289.tif
fd98407eb396b64b17bb89759015a8c3
7c9c27ecf09b02db9e4e20bb7182a0082e521724
52559 F20101112_AABFDX ko_b_Page_167.pro
0c9bce54d2c56392b96a7a864445997a
193e5346caf09111ed8c98e82ffcf4a4d59357e0
F20101112_AABDPD ko_b_Page_258thm.jpg
cb120bfed79bc0dc5fc60306dea05927
374675f704d19e5f71e51c07a45b6adc694b5d5a
6828 F20101112_AABGAR ko_b_Page_265thm.jpg
40526d3bb65652656975ddbfe4c67110
bb1c1d60222b58b6a58fea7d3baaab789d54fe16
6839 F20101112_AABFWB ko_b_Page_152thm.jpg
45760b9a30319bc971dd1dae5eeea4fe
f3c8fdf3f6aa61abd8627d96f3df06e48c50e50a
F20101112_AABEZI ko_b_Page_290.tif
d17f596d398fac082301763a2b41d30d
4913fabe546c2553c7e880d281572e6a7747a51d
54774 F20101112_AABFDY ko_b_Page_169.pro
99d14aedb46463d1c120e69d4f21fb27
e7f9c606d5ce198a75b1470a78f77b9549da5fa6
55378 F20101112_AABDPE ko_b_Page_251.pro
e2066cfbd8034a546ce9bdb8baf86256
93753ec0f8c44c6227d0780a264a71756fb5ba8c
23026 F20101112_AABGAS ko_b_Page_266.QC.jpg
adb9607dd118ec2f0745f005dc9235ea
29324ea31430d4bbb3b86df347b351cf5eee63dd
F20101112_AABFWC ko_b_Page_153.QC.jpg
d07efcaa7d56fa642bec51b613db12e2
c10280b67f9431c31ff92229fb418cc94f13cc5d
F20101112_AABEZJ ko_b_Page_291.tif
e027cc2eff9860a37cd331b7c0dd4357
bbd6f912f106f5f5fcedf9352caea19d04f5df42
53415 F20101112_AABFDZ ko_b_Page_172.pro
35b8620b254f9dc14ac8c75343350b25
71b7dc019adb8d47b7e01385fc931c334db22ea5
F20101112_AABDPF ko_b_Page_085.tif
045e8f3f3494e2353bb92c11825da654
48732a2926903a329bb19b5489803cc0fbebd1ac
20403 F20101112_AABGAT ko_b_Page_267.QC.jpg
458eeecb434cf90324cbf9116f32f30d
16e0ae9ccde82e362742ba72990168c51b3b2c7c
24521 F20101112_AABFWD ko_b_Page_154.QC.jpg
0e62d60b4d63c93bbd8dc003d01a604c
7bd59edc5bcf9cb7faf28aade23dc3ed9f9ff67f
F20101112_AABEZK ko_b_Page_293.tif
cc8f96afc410488544c161736d0d20c2
86935ffd380785e55d93d2ff04cf026a3af38c6c
116767 F20101112_AABDPG ko_b_Page_104.jp2
cdc5f710b0a1ab502218caed44bf2f46
99153237b11e2c4ca4984fd05ffbf85fb53872d7
6369 F20101112_AABGAU ko_b_Page_268thm.jpg
d922a46ce0a080ca4eb8173b4cfc5062
5e8a70bda4a01da16e5c73602552b0c9b80f0495
25580 F20101112_AABFWE ko_b_Page_155.QC.jpg
3011f4aa7d691d5fdee7428a2741c620
ba8979b31ba84566c478cb3f1a7e433484b62117
F20101112_AABEZL ko_b_Page_294.tif
858f5d31442617a47c4ce7ae5432c9d1
853a3699d80b09709ad05d5a7bded323913ab164
49714 F20101112_AABDPH ko_b_Page_144.jpg
ede301479e51a7f9726b41288b3502a3
2850ac1893441bf27a792dae060b6378f29149fd
61373 F20101112_AABEMA ko_b_Page_025.jp2
54a0c843a257ec3e83a8c40d62832e79
49acbb6926c7227aab0cbe9933bc213dce6c6be1
5690 F20101112_AABGAV ko_b_Page_269thm.jpg
2884c45a3766faa68870195ff18e07d7
70f6f127ea4c61a13e8beafed0a3d7628f216070
24572 F20101112_AABFWF ko_b_Page_159.QC.jpg
dc645fcc37a98b085e0d81efa522943a
0af2d94265cc44bf7efbb4a6d9d66d40f3d1e490
F20101112_AABEZM ko_b_Page_295.tif
4022a89bca0d5a1dcc2d450364f6004d
9c516764e251164ba7bb14219988d7b727a5531c
25797 F20101112_AABDPI ko_b_Page_156.QC.jpg
8536bbb6091dbc3baf0e78675ac7322c
f449c7abb0db3bf6c140ba61d2170045713243d9
118342 F20101112_AABEMB ko_b_Page_028.jp2
83eeb8f17345a104d28475e9e401dd11
467514185aaebdd0aa6707a6147995e7889bdaff
20170 F20101112_AABGAW ko_b_Page_270.QC.jpg
0e48ac765824d71c05a885046f1780e5
391786a3a9c1cbecda217f698fe05a52272ff23e
F20101112_AABFWG ko_b_Page_159thm.jpg
93194da3b90167e5667decb6a09aede4
8df7c1a06fc38f1f99e04b06b2a518cdfe85a7bf
F20101112_AABEZN ko_b_Page_296.tif
7e656a6fa217c72ebe27520e216e7a83
5b75e19d438ac19ed667a2e4dc91f81f01aae956
75922 F20101112_AABDPJ ko_b_Page_306.jp2
affe30dfae490e4ed4b236e2226d387c
5609f2908fddbaf7055615d0027864cff2e16881
107251 F20101112_AABEMC ko_b_Page_030.jp2
b3e179882c454778ffecab7fd8e21725
35d18e3ec9d913a782f0c1ebbf1c83f7f1ab7457
5157 F20101112_AABGAX ko_b_Page_271.QC.jpg
78fff397edd544d30674110ff495aa6b
755f42847d004d128abbf39922053f5cf040acfb
24606 F20101112_AABFWH ko_b_Page_160.QC.jpg
f673df751aaf295ed13edc179ab965c4
8e4552dfa6cf658998fa81fad34cf55a5d8790af
11702 F20101112_AABDPK ko_b_Page_285.jpg
6b803fd766ce8f7421445134a3e8e513
baa5c932ab593b70c8855c35b2d39d54e023cc66
119230 F20101112_AABEMD ko_b_Page_033.jp2
3ee16e934a04f7cd67e716ef7d7496bd
0332ccfdabf50aa8a2c38932da214836826144a9
F20101112_AABEZO ko_b_Page_298.tif
7d27acad24062ddde5d4dbb9053d7964
750b1dde7bba4d291122a8c15e83f5f0bb07282b
1501 F20101112_AABGAY ko_b_Page_272thm.jpg
bafea31e12ccef55187ade4d12c656ac
bbd50c763305404c92df94a3d1f7c739838631ff
6728 F20101112_AABFWI ko_b_Page_160thm.jpg
14f5f4fcdd5d4461e6e0a84a502e3900
e522c655c33405ce731e32f616239ec6ed65dc8d
72848 F20101112_AABDPL ko_b_Page_220.jp2
803d1dc8fa8aa5f0aed8e328a59e9524
d1a7542c445dcdedf5629f86c062e1ae56c3598c
122705 F20101112_AABEME ko_b_Page_038.jp2
86773d52aa114ef6d60eef24658df800
4743f5ad66c6dfd236830ad9b158f09cc45e7cd9
81554 F20101112_AABDCA ko_b_Page_234.jp2
7404dd4b03f335e6413e74863b544bdb
b78ca9eebd22facc8f66f0af52b059ddbaa0c792
F20101112_AABEZP ko_b_Page_300.tif
546466b67f8e2e81b67df0a83d6ca7ab
9787a19eef1e573f00e59e51d1dc5e94facdb6ac
6686 F20101112_AABGAZ ko_b_Page_274thm.jpg
1220b8e3e234c8bf0c13b3db35b5ae98
ade7edd882bdb16835405beaea59326a4e21683a
25398 F20101112_AABFWJ ko_b_Page_161.QC.jpg
4fdb6c28a8f2436a17f47d41355f0060
c290ac286a65a89ca63101fab8c612f09876e550
F20101112_AABDPM ko_b_Page_179.tif
3f0bfbbaddc66424f2bfc17750672396
edc99fdfd9f594ad5bb4ae1e6f4a354a2dd845bd
119654 F20101112_AABEMF ko_b_Page_040.jp2
d1bc426258420df924ed7736a5b1d0db
b01213ef0ffeca534762cb37bbcbd131274326df
26226 F20101112_AABDCB ko_b_Page_252.QC.jpg
d539b062f7d13b7cf51588375cb7663f
38c0708437a07d9abce393891bed02af7e6e3d5d
F20101112_AABEZQ ko_b_Page_301.tif
6443da84ebd5add76d73c57f103b6988
683eb86f29b560ef2db831d5c6742f97837bbd2b
F20101112_AABFWK ko_b_Page_161thm.jpg
ad21c0832f30447f16f66744aa1f5065
4090bc6017bae69a8b49595991701cc2fe124f57
2242 F20101112_AABDPN ko_b_Page_148.txt
a1e87550404edad46bb7a2a6eb0623e4
2ff40cde9197b4d83f990445cc8bd31375aefa60
116421 F20101112_AABEMG ko_b_Page_041.jp2
4c07bdf2ef4ab3979d76496a4db79224
1930fae843bb2bd434d4f76cf4589d1781e41c8e
164536 F20101112_AABDCC ko_b_Page_231.jp2
9f29bffd19466418d60fba2d6c981a88
13944f88cc7e20e30219131781a82665bf7e6038
F20101112_AABEZR ko_b_Page_305.tif
85fa281718cd593b2ce84c95020b64d6
2828c74fd37e3086a5334d464d17efab2710dc69
7166 F20101112_AABFWL ko_b_Page_162thm.jpg
16e5cd1bac8ab5c167238a3e40892a80
d150957913e67f85540a940855591f875b104bea
F20101112_AABDPO ko_b_Page_164.tif
32c0a74abee4ddffadcdb76ff7c2d6fa
7a65483e76d02c56f6a1484c6d4a8b6652f9a428
122193 F20101112_AABEMH ko_b_Page_043.jp2
f840b32689719ef303e91d48e75f7b30
388d4dcb298d6733e11529fea8f08ac2b9e0b340
F20101112_AABFJA ko_b_Page_075.txt
4a9d25146bb593d3792b1c980e549017
0876344627b43c6e9982b6ab93604f6270ecbbf8
F20101112_AABDCD ko_b_Page_253.tif
ce2c790b6834001dbfa4931a5f5bf22f
9bb8f0c179ef033dc88b9fd02e37780d9a264a31
F20101112_AABEZS ko_b_Page_306.tif
2ac3381d7207efe335bc5178200caa12
6565d1bf9b5da2dcbe25557c3ecfb2f1ba396e39
25238 F20101112_AABFWM ko_b_Page_163.QC.jpg
bfbfb1bcb64ccafb5e63ceaac632e6c0
6903202e846b84f7b2cf2f4f3d3de87175d7c2e3
F20101112_AABDPP ko_b_Page_165thm.jpg
d96cd22d95bed2e88454dc5f065ac932
c15e4d83de8b7f84768b311d701051ff2debad5a
120274 F20101112_AABEMI ko_b_Page_044.jp2
aacdb8269c22ad00519c7e053b3286a8
204737f6389190e172a3a5f7bf0e91ac094bb92d
F20101112_AABFJB ko_b_Page_077.txt
6f3934246b286b9d2bec0d5b54c32077
06203c8d9ae057eb10b8602601ecfcb1d1f2b051
F20101112_AABDCE ko_b_Page_206.txt
35f9d4f77c7ae7edb5b07a318ca30385
90d5afbd78a6894c37534675b1100448883cd092
F20101112_AABEZT ko_b_Page_311.tif
953e280ed2a6282ff6e13ba83eafa27b
40b333c02f6ccf6f0aa82358697bc5a9d5e03946
25626 F20101112_AABFWN ko_b_Page_165.QC.jpg
2d567d0b6b330e38543b6912763f435a
8569c4cbad7bb1156be24d7c08d495c01a8485bf
6956 F20101112_AABDPQ ko_b_Page_120thm.jpg
8181289844787f099a04eaec3665926f
c69380096c653c8fcacdbb33cac241478266f59b
125707 F20101112_AABEMJ ko_b_Page_045.jp2
6c79ff098581d9b0304b669b25c1d6c6
fb9de9f2a804ef093c580a3e55d5a1090bf67e52
F20101112_AABFJC ko_b_Page_078.txt
2f92f7df2373a70773c84cbd35f455c4
47cb0b2d5f552e0d3ba04503a9f29442d540cd61
F20101112_AABEZU ko_b_Page_312.tif
f46ab62901782da53b4439d5c9d6ded0
f6c021d96a0c7df661b177cd720fcd308a09d7f5
6720 F20101112_AABFWO ko_b_Page_167thm.jpg
9e7bc7e8d1680fd7b73f307d1511cae9
a96e3f5c85f78972ecd23e25ba89279169bbabf1
6927 F20101112_AABDPR ko_b_Page_154thm.jpg
ed25c2821f08c78ad931161021edfe42
074e758a353eecad0e61de9ea8b638ecc99326a6
116660 F20101112_AABEMK ko_b_Page_050.jp2
e76461719c8cb440dd309853aa38b5cc
68f5f0aa13a32696aa91b10c2cb5acbc6cbabedf
1757 F20101112_AABFJD ko_b_Page_080.txt
5ae4f546d7fd686c1fc6edc2e40ca22d
2be6f2a46e5120d5528958f549b16e36ae497c24
1051955 F20101112_AABDCF ko_b_Page_263.jp2
5b7d0066c033a4dfaab9a864940053bd
7941863af2718a6610bcc9684a57008ad5185c06
748 F20101112_AABEZV ko_b_Page_002.pro
b9af434604f879e18b8112969000f5a6
a228b802e77f0433380df37328e3e5766b0a7d17
26248 F20101112_AABFWP ko_b_Page_168.QC.jpg
4a596bb52dc7efd052bbe800068d79c9
73a8b2194a5d62c9a72c5eb1780b0916906a6a05
115070 F20101112_AABEML ko_b_Page_051.jp2
f0e7e4cba308f3f5432cdc96ab60a344
1177f7fda939999ec60efaeae8d4a9879cb888a7
2066 F20101112_AABFJE ko_b_Page_082.txt
f8d2a34468a2b608f6177ae4f87c8bff
2dd82a142568a3b5f672e212cd3d82a1d8198c1f
119295 F20101112_AABDCG ko_b_Page_241.jp2
a3e171cd6e74d2a84d753990992407c7
eb7d13b9f1ef718c82ecd9c10cacc6716919a0b6
10168 F20101112_AABEZW ko_b_Page_005.pro
bc2540a505764d8129cd4c6157f6b01a
7fa9530a0db2778e54aff0ead1020df1b866da53
7017 F20101112_AABFWQ ko_b_Page_170thm.jpg
00d0ee61bf2cfd1129bec080673e88a8
c5ecad7e6e1270fd0fc94c14cbfc4c89a4688190
41010 F20101112_AABDPS ko_b_Page_207.pro
f20ad2f7f20a36eadaedc014c9342a87
c8ed65e117b5bf51b2d58e3e32db167fb2e0ad5b
118932 F20101112_AABEMM ko_b_Page_053.jp2
63a7a29c4c7e94afdd9d80ba64f0d1f7
24709f4e68732d56d51c779120b9563567535081
2034 F20101112_AABFJF ko_b_Page_084.txt
7031b45d3383d867e4bc25a31e765721
019fccaf65bd2a37e369c999c266f3cdd2723a19
41998 F20101112_AABDCH ko_b_Page_111.pro
daaf01d4f2fd42bf6dbf1c7d778d561c
3e9324069a8637c6a66a82d08ea73d3cd8088a78
73150 F20101112_AABEZX ko_b_Page_006.pro
088c4cc83e5e346d0ec91a7988556a82
0a2ca5e4d5252439fe111791764fb8725c6e766d
7108 F20101112_AABFWR ko_b_Page_171thm.jpg
5cf5ba4a33ac57f99ff5d0ef02bf71cd
b8fccb1e6020d87ab84cc164d78d468b8783a587
2271 F20101112_AABDPT ko_b_Page_114thm.jpg
656ca60374b23b450af46a7917e11b5d
36ccbbfc5381e0e7f930afd7ea1e5c2a8a5b67ef
107646 F20101112_AABEMN ko_b_Page_054.jp2
550780663d3e961290d841cc20a7c319
7a5c03757ba0764efac57e1fb8fdf14420bdcd56
2205 F20101112_AABFJG ko_b_Page_085.txt
21d76465d28b7b2eb03333650e05f1c1
7fa209275d7aaf665f3a5fe94a201d247d94f27a
75475 F20101112_AABDCI ko_b_Page_176.jpg
bbb2229c7180ef0088aec4779e014415
c5ccc6201679ec41c373dd76e9ca1598dac942b7
43465 F20101112_AABEZY ko_b_Page_009.pro
542bf116f9ea23ff8d07422905f3a2cb
a4ff2dbf1162a0db613a6ce3d29b83c15f9316c2
25166 F20101112_AABFWS ko_b_Page_172.QC.jpg
0f2542dd484d06cbd353adefe2b06ab6
894c345b08999788bb3c116655fe3263ad621351
5320 F20101112_AABDPU ko_b_Page_310thm.jpg
3dc49e22f38a4da9caa841bd53a4f846
548834863b6f03f00b83c11818b15813181d7c68
F20101112_AABFJH ko_b_Page_086.txt
bccb635bde4ef9dc060e676515a742b7
24d11b6ddad8376393ee5fe5867b3cf8730320a4
25691 F20101112_AABDCJ ko_b_Page_169.QC.jpg
f463a7a66a1ee3187200583a6d22d3d5
91713043c249c4e19a58a30fb0170fa09f0694c9
53429 F20101112_AABEZZ ko_b_Page_012.pro
5a0f6af4b8f2e985a3f97a2d9e182f23
39361e0292389a6c653edc0a16a168b56dc46e61
7036 F20101112_AABFWT ko_b_Page_173thm.jpg
141d00386a9ae25f95887b3ba860651e
67c1fb167c10d814494e0e75a6c1c50a53847d85
F20101112_AABDPV ko_b_Page_190.tif
61fe518ccf93ee6f0ee0c907087b2ce8
90e8940c2dbd28dc6005fc15275b309f496b4c54
114004 F20101112_AABEMO ko_b_Page_055.jp2
0e850ac392e38121863ea524449f173e
af4b0c28e66384b395b6134c74e335edb6b9b927
F20101112_AABFJI ko_b_Page_087.txt
a3c8b713e39dea6c6682504189762e78
54fdb41c7aa20ba222a7b83277a311a692178638
20486 F20101112_AABDCK ko_b_Page_006.QC.jpg
f6f6db70d8c4487ad111eed852061692
492e325f31f4733f7e96abc3b9b3697d7b2069e3
26908 F20101112_AABFWU ko_b_Page_175.QC.jpg
d3ac6bb9d3de20c55dcb14e215c09756
ba9868883ae66a6ae38780d91f7154ddd00aff93
76929 F20101112_AABDPW ko_b_Page_227.jpg
e8c6c98603c33c44c6dcba983252c181
b01f5bafa14495816dfd60fd2cd98fa1f1b1d6e3
110908 F20101112_AABEMP ko_b_Page_056.jp2
ba975ed384fd048b2431e7cd153913cb
6e6a363d7dd3fac1027ab03d6b15e830945faade
1988 F20101112_AABFJJ ko_b_Page_088.txt
3da85b01885a8d60007e545748b33a88
0dccacd47a9dd4797b4ffa7a93c4fc65f9d1ff88
F20101112_AABDCL ko_b_Page_302.tif
2425cc80ee9aad43fc082f0c5948d6cd
32ec7acebb8678b0bbeea59f5076ef9bfc8a75b2
7234 F20101112_AABFWV ko_b_Page_175thm.jpg
7bd954ae0a8a16e429901d79348d1263
5317abe7046ce949b55fc7c7d737fcc10e6249ba
F20101112_AABDPX ko_b_Page_070.tif
74aa37a583dbda32503b2e3e5945241e
21581d24872544a6f8796e257644815725f38168
114618 F20101112_AABEMQ ko_b_Page_059.jp2
84859cdb8511f6b4311ea59e7e48fbba
8923114f58601e123a087f4a2e733307918c6fd3
26222 F20101112_AABDCM ko_b_Page_119.QC.jpg
99ba97db1a62379f4314a4093ab04af6
240ed6e51900e518085b6b165ae31521796c6f5c
24954 F20101112_AABFWW ko_b_Page_176.QC.jpg
36352a91da526eabbf71e8f408cb1a1d
84f46435c08799d655495d3277bf6cd318b1e4c4
6856 F20101112_AABDPY ko_b_Page_081thm.jpg
47a34a294c3fc65c18930d0c571f3f16
b2ecd2bc4455a23ed1ba58700a27dfe8d10aece9
110985 F20101112_AABEMR ko_b_Page_060.jp2
e3b5973edca683b7952e47b6d9d58023
5abb77ec3db333f64f6a01a3e3d2b5d3a7e75657
2189 F20101112_AABFJK ko_b_Page_090.txt
b63ade80cf7772bd4e8902270b49e554
bcd3241ba2e681b72b0b10542b27de4989969505
35114 F20101112_AABDCN ko_b_Page_212.jpg
0f2d5411b51935874f466fadc913402b
bf82bfb7360d1c00ff47eb88724706e266625959
119069 F20101112_AABDPZ ko_b_Page_174.jp2
4eb4eeaa62a4d1ce497f7f943bda5af0
bd910cc9f06c9e985d845c278bb188d31a71613f
114409 F20101112_AABEMS ko_b_Page_061.jp2
bd39b7a185001d67ba0a4345a4972ad4
3e5991aaf019f0659dfd87baac93f66567cf3b7f
F20101112_AABFJL ko_b_Page_091.txt
94be5dd63beb639c993808e9a009d07e
deedb7b171865cf156b61540b7f7a327fd714296
26666 F20101112_AABDCO ko_b_Page_309.QC.jpg
2d765da62725fb04326a7b20fa20707b
02539df0f4da56c6282b2109ab147fc71f7671b7
6695 F20101112_AABFWX ko_b_Page_176thm.jpg
b1ef55f9b073bb35e647d28f0630e606
7f06c2be2929920d2af992b824f3e3fdcf2ade31
116975 F20101112_AABEMT ko_b_Page_064.jp2
d60aef9bdbd96ec0c89653cb4671f625
dca397971fb7786d17cd11a981ebf8663f0cc0e5
1775 F20101112_AABFJM ko_b_Page_094.txt
ecf7d7d06622703f135f70f8a20e3fa5
e8e1bd7e0fe785684fa2cd54c9a4cbeae736a3f7
33537 F20101112_AABDCP ko_b_Page_283.QC.jpg
2d54e953b4838fa7cba101bf5a930d8a
9dabb0aec8bc4aab54d39e112d92daa3359f911c
25382 F20101112_AABFWY ko_b_Page_177.QC.jpg
3487ca5934be8d52a7e302e681db2c96
5aba6d2fdee08eec8b47d84cba4a7b2b1164fb60
117408 F20101112_AABEMU ko_b_Page_066.jp2
1326b92a880ddeba12a05c645a98afdf
41738d5aa04e12ec1c51a47edb3cd2d1c93e18ef
2335 F20101112_AABFJN ko_b_Page_095.txt
562114c660fc432a0c6d4ef32eee020f
e8bbfd21000e19b9d671440b9ec9c199b15a6fbb
114502 F20101112_AABCYA ko_b_Page_047.jp2
b8d3ab1059c008214ccff1e6a59ba00d
cfc371ae7db314935cbfc1a00c020e31ee6993c4
22299 F20101112_AABDCQ ko_b_Page_232.QC.jpg
de77f149754167772ea922e99e227d14
e6f49858169b0e7f1f1ffae2cbe1bfe514f5d264
F20101112_AABFWZ ko_b_Page_177thm.jpg
ecc7e6450e1cf402ca48ed8101c5c9a9
490f630d02a4f2f529ab1c63e2edbb954d85ac83
109786 F20101112_AABEMV ko_b_Page_067.jp2
7e386fdc35497b5dcd23888ecc968be2
0650f9f516c5dacd90cf77064cb1a845c6671674
F20101112_AABFJO ko_b_Page_096.txt
dd1c226120f40f2fb720152629f61f88
045090cf221dcc749b26bc2cbdefb1e1c291ee24
11617 F20101112_AABCYB ko_b_Page_256.QC.jpg
47b12e7501e937fbcd267ddb0e9e25be
3b9e61b5326cf561fbae60589ac94a550b8021a9
6447 F20101112_AABDCR ko_b_Page_214.pro
3613e60aa255ab6e43cbfc274b1d8828
566cd724c71e4a27ba7f3d36877995f7cf2c287c
115012 F20101112_AABEMW ko_b_Page_068.jp2
4f9f9c0ed2bccdfcad56255e77cea18f
8e39a7aa2f0f81a38c4c2a49dc368290dfbdc6e8
F20101112_AABFJP ko_b_Page_097.txt
f45c8fd0384d2458a28b58193b95b910
7d9f06245f463de01bde784eea78364f36a83bdb
117761 F20101112_AABCYC ko_b_Page_141.jp2
b3adb0d9928f09982accba0c2e38d199
8c5460c9176c68c43bd63e061d71181a4be06a43
7027 F20101112_AABDCS ko_b_Page_126thm.jpg
83bbc148bd97f8a8213d8bc80dcdb5e5
b1af939bc6a74f29e619e7023b1b1964bded058f
109751 F20101112_AABEMX ko_b_Page_071.jp2
e3c22321c8cc95f0e803b609cae68178
175bcb057d1fee6fc8911d325ea44f56d49c0380
1437 F20101112_AABFJQ ko_b_Page_101.txt
c2347893c4bc401a9c476b210b0e500f
01ee9876a722214580af55a4a8ee272571259afc
60802 F20101112_AABCYD ko_b_Page_102.jp2
217e110b7da6254211bfe8a4e17682aa
bb7495693f0630e472eecd58a3d9f777e55b585f
12492 F20101112_AABDCT ko_b_Page_216.QC.jpg
2a9bd698d4caa6ae29ee5239f0568188
a915ba3f82d82095dc3fb323b08c36c8819c0439
112959 F20101112_AABEMY ko_b_Page_072.jp2
9abfbfad9520f4d0b534e99ed50ae912
2acf021e86cb25edf034588094dfc104b91b0552
1305 F20101112_AABFJR ko_b_Page_102.txt
32aab4b8dee06e3cb5d986596268fcd6
7f0e58c5ecc1a79d82bea152a725b6ab32d9b18d
3464 F20101112_AABCYE ko_b_Page_282.txt
da2052efa43bba3f5df655736d3a53af
de25b76b6be24845c4c7326ece29023f714c2d49
26800 F20101112_AABDCU ko_b_Page_279.QC.jpg
3def02e9ea43bc61f1b2abaaea843276
bb3133b518e44d81f1a3f7395ffa1c8a1ac1ac06
106906 F20101112_AABEMZ ko_b_Page_073.jp2
bf50641fd10a79dfdea1faf33c9b91c8
b5eb378d4de646eafd3dcc8d6b3c4537bf195774
F20101112_AABFJS ko_b_Page_103.txt
ddcf49fbd190d4b5cef63aba2309083e
9a234c1013b1075fd8b0df54a1258e790d83dff3
2720 F20101112_AABCYF ko_b_Page_309.txt
95d1c1409dc089b68d9ea72ec0eb6f6d
a9a110d37031c3b4e6cc36ccecf8f6c96f0114b1
F20101112_AABDCV ko_b_Page_153.txt
44c533231d1cb73cd885ef586ec19a3f
d7dc7194d182b7ceddd76c283aa9e9f1164e3729
F20101112_AABFJT ko_b_Page_104.txt
67c9f53b15721c9a33c584995ef5d49a
6c85ad6a836f30043cd24adb59bf06648c58c80e
1946 F20101112_AABCYG ko_b_Page_269.txt
e2cfee3b94e8f4f28a82bf597d9fa268
65f55a8c90199351f8db6fb00a079f55c408688f
2838 F20101112_AABDCW ko_b_Page_286.txt
736c90280b6c9e6ebddeb194753a7a37
cf73550f49bba6eeaa59c816b8ddee7440e305db
52803 F20101112_AABDVA ko_b_Page_091.pro
960c4298f7374c6fac3a5815fd07ce89
8a6dd3bc7d63f60e4eee82868f8f4dca95c63275
F20101112_AABFJU ko_b_Page_105.txt
7a25bab136874262e68ad1ca19e6a7d9
31dc22cb78e04dcafed90af3da9aacb2fff9866d
F20101112_AABCYH ko_b_Page_094.tif
67accfb85814fd02661be92dcbd44008
014859d7c5dd265e8b4d251de2c77a843d9b0753
21429 F20101112_AABDCX ko_b_Page_236.pro
7ab36b56e8f49b908128048656437458
69f743174c187d9e604848d3770c5b1a14449f1b
7272 F20101112_AABDVB ko_b_Page_247thm.jpg
9397df1fff2be369359692cc40535e80
820008ae7240c08b1e48a4e0a8b54703ce847321
F20101112_AABFJV ko_b_Page_107.txt
3fae844f758a5ccb25f6e026a29afcd2
901e7acd8ab6da45251d077f94717db153ce221b
905 F20101112_AABCYI ko_b_Page_236.txt
4b38b870b648271e91bb5817b8c1ee4e
9de1a7908750193e5e298b84ad360cbcb9103c93
6957 F20101112_AABDCY ko_b_Page_124thm.jpg
e9d035677852c6660914f609dd4ce497
b14551ca838b9a6ea38fda1ac2223db0c5f8a4e7
1148 F20101112_AABFJW ko_b_Page_108.txt
736f256a34d860308d10787b0bf1794d
cba06c1cdd8d4900e2fff3f826c6021ec453f588
32514 F20101112_AABDVC ko_b_Page_222.pro
25c5396cbbb2c7b6cf94fe546c20da11
9db70836ebcae905ccfc48f24eed501174c37eec
2080 F20101112_AABCYJ ko_b_Page_154.txt
351f9874be15961c4315a9aa7f61a963
acbd79d6e5fd627edf304d79fcae24bf8bbd62e0
72973 F20101112_AABDCZ ko_b_Page_246.jpg
d3680d02b315b1fe037fe03789c83da1
fcb3a231bdc8022ea345d5f9ed5dcc67fa10a89d
674 F20101112_AABFJX ko_b_Page_109.txt
28d603f6b5c160ce10e6b5a1925ecbf3
3d95fbd340f62c79d67fc0297ab01defb181cd4c
24884 F20101112_AABDVD ko_b_Page_005.jp2
dd02f6066b40f01599c5a5a7d2318419
596b00e5f72d40db395721ac0f5beb160149f441
F20101112_AABCYK ko_b_Page_144.tif
dadcbc5d45071962cbc5163eeba3af6e
96765bd1920d279c55050dfefeed0a03baf18e20
1676 F20101112_AABFJY ko_b_Page_110.txt
679c7f107181914494c74fc43174273a
b286ffb8bfce2c167e8572de6ba8f1d60b01fb6e
99745 F20101112_AABDVE ko_b_Page_008.pro
b0739f6c69bb21b0a498e325e793ddd1
937ae754e34022affc08e6bd98566cdb0c86cc66
2058 F20101112_AABCYL ko_b_Page_035.txt
dde926a72efa98e74041f52d9ae10751
40b21292ec596e37e44c76afb024d92452074a2d
645 F20101112_AABFJZ ko_b_Page_113.txt
597e059d332e30c184ea4909afa2f494
4a84573510f4c4cb2a18df85474d6af3d258b793
1818 F20101112_AABDVF ko_b_Page_271thm.jpg
1973b0b4b083423dd8d9cf1a03d7cea3
34e03d67fa2d23044f24991b5d019b23dca1043d
1051934 F20101112_AABCYM ko_b_Page_281.jp2
6a1b6cc28977dd25f235268e069813d2
8de19045a55663bbe099ae51b41fab297fed204c
7071 F20101112_AABDVG ko_b_Page_045thm.jpg
2964009ae30949f173d3a71005bcda2d
49ba5f533372728f53e197d8281852b528f7434c
75763 F20101112_AABCYN ko_b_Page_185.jpg
ea90ad73b3d8053fc4c8c4dbb3eec351
4c0dec1a39f12453a2f00d03cd400640ae8ed496
40811 F20101112_AABDVH ko_b_Page_234.pro
28ce631b151196e1df8efd0d353d5680
5fee7b3d0beaf8311ae0af3accba45bfd9a05cb4
13706 F20101112_AABESA ko_b_Page_293.jp2
bfcfdef1907fb1a66557b0c0db06c4ed
2809c0959f8e99864de486a8aa7eba5b02af4040
2231 F20101112_AABCYO ko_b_Page_242.txt
06a46e11a996d56dd2e28c0b1a45047c
a636954bba61a85953275f1d402a9e1d2abe56ad
F20101112_AABDVI ko_b_Page_078.tif
3099ab7b877d692433360f8a976b26d9
b1ff2600fd3a9015157475c9ff3d95effdfa4d17
8018 F20101112_AABESB ko_b_Page_294.jp2
ee29262084b16cc06ccda0b418f9beaf
0a6f028d1d09a642bffa637dbbcc7f4763d8626a
1599 F20101112_AABCYP ko_b_Page_218.txt
80bb47b4a2796928fd56429bb4c61c34
951cadc5fbfaee3892ee82a85cbde3b9fe8879e7
117073 F20101112_AABDVJ ko_b_Page_155.jp2
dc0fbf71f69b9bc6ade2dcdc4a00985c
63bcf26b71c21bf27ec46a8a52cc846fc7345032
1051954 F20101112_AABESC ko_b_Page_296.jp2
b70fc2056e08fc1fec6f1448bf583c0d
0b384347ba94ee02c75bcc910cf6073a06fa9579
F20101112_AABCYQ ko_b_Page_311.txt
0a01429ea718148014c17b240b2c053d
4c54a117544d6362be8e16ed62895b3f155698c6
51257 F20101112_AABDVK ko_b_Page_266.pro
68cbf75341a147228804a89af47af624
50045d9c863d4cbbc0c83ffb28b68f0a42668b0e
1051944 F20101112_AABESD ko_b_Page_297.jp2
1d88f04530e99133c867d3391e5fc0f1
440698a258dc1fba044fd6554e87a8e6c83ab78e
53692 F20101112_AABCYR ko_b_Page_063.pro
19746b459cd44ea27e39721a92abcd9d
e94ce28528dd4cbed7ec273319d8331a704f4092
1797 F20101112_AABDVL ko_b_Page_098.txt
ef40026cf18cdd2e8a72cc8136b0b4ee
f0a3c7f4566937f41d21677f26f1b8a075964a1c
8944 F20101112_AABESE ko_b_Page_298.jp2
7d418ca6e80af0bdf092bafd58782a52
9950a3a4e5b72d29d420ef4f3db7084096dcc824
108523 F20101112_AABDIA ko_b_Page_189.jp2
50a159786e7398b8e634e3a63d156cca
88c1f906472d1a139e9c1db28aab649b4c50cb5e
55166 F20101112_AABCYS ko_b_Page_156.pro
c2bdea2a4a7f70fed2be4ce7196286c2
a2b8d489507044bdf915c727e5981fdaed8df19c
64805 F20101112_AABDVM ko_b_Page_108.jpg
c442eee35a980aa791fca4aa1a02e58a
ddba6296b1aec4188e86b4bf924cd2f612d65742
F20101112_AABESF ko_b_Page_300.jp2
1fa871f065a90a8daa20696a729db17b
4cc23fe0773600dd01fe282a58b381591d715661
7021 F20101112_AABDIB ko_b_Page_243thm.jpg
8f44894605403fef2db27acf52001238
ca9727c45469a87655706ca16a76329cba6a8012
23268 F20101112_AABCYT ko_b_Page_237.pro
025a46351e40565390f0285e0a2bab82
1eae9caa85148cb341005bbed7483afbaa064163
7430 F20101112_AABDVN ko_b_Page_296thm.jpg
8eebe5f6c1d99907e7e7dee88b9bb05b
674161b7e96d69de03c24ad22cf0e6ebd14a2c8c
1051978 F20101112_AABESG ko_b_Page_301.jp2
21c32a218f49120b4b339fc8555247e2
5f0d6ed0a3a33ea930f6d6dba0169d599980e81d
F20101112_AABDIC ko_b_Page_297.tif
b2e706c2a2adcd5b6f21c8fdcd96e6df
ea6a6248c906980165f0572bbbc8a80882c877b0
112773 F20101112_AABCYU ko_b_Page_035.jp2
a75267417074579d7162afb357553fda
30e537a2a835820cc9c113a26b5ac535de519397
32233 F20101112_AABFPA ko_b_Page_008.QC.jpg
ba62bc2ce27e77b25809b3fe92f9b8f4
fbaf8488cc68ccdbe62616389474d2e96f31f511
2203 F20101112_AABDVO ko_b_Page_125.txt
9e0e14708c7c71d4f83cf742071ba25b
cb805e11879882fe5cf2893c2a45198ead212a34
1051903 F20101112_AABESH ko_b_Page_303.jp2
ffb76496d0135570e56a65dbaea8f94c
30bae9c9a53c8dd4b9e6eb1abd50bfcedbd736ae
119824 F20101112_AABDID ko_b_Page_252.jp2
a0dda04bd62b2a96966eeb2624bd0253
6481db3b341731f005e03877e0d158ae4e1d454f
55653 F20101112_AABCYV ko_b_Page_181.pro
66966943ee6e8e2e860448ae8375349b
bf365a4c8fae54adee7620fd6937132306f98c13



PAGE 1

1 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PE RFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TRUCK LEVEL OF SERVICE By BYUNGKON KO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Byungkon Ko

PAGE 3

3 To the graduate students of the University of Florida

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It may not have been possible for me to co mplete my Ph.D. study without the advice or assistance of those who have supported me throug hout my life in Gainesville. They are my family members, friends, and University of Flor ida faculties and administrative staffs. Although I cannot adequately describe how blessed I am to have been with them, I would like to show my gratitude to them with this opportunity. I am especially grateful to my parents, wife, and four siblings. Thei r consistent care and support have been a true driving factor for me to succeed in preparing for my future as well as earning the degree. I would like to express my a ppreciation to Dr. Scott S. Wa shburn who has served as my academic advisor for my Ph.D. study. He supported me financially and his exceptional knowledge and wisdom has provoked academic curios ity that encouraged me to enhance my research ability onto a higher level. I also would like to thank my Ph.D. supe rvisory committee members for their time and effort to provide me with invaluable advice fo r my research. Dr. Lily Elefteriadou has guided me into the right direction academically a nd also provided many gr aduate students with convenient study environment as the director of Transportation Research Center. Dr. Yafeng Yin lent me his acute insight on mathematical expressions and recommended better ways to organize the dissertation. Dr. Siva Srinivasan he lped me to improve statistical data analysis and modeling part of my work. Dr. Joseph Geunes in the Industrial Engineer ing department served as an external committee member. His consis tent concerns and advi ce about my work has become a motivation to improve overall performance of my study.

PAGE 5

5 My friends in Korea or Gainesvi lle have always cheered me up for my successful career at the University of Florida. I will never forget the time and memory I have shared with them. I certainly appreciate the assistance of Univer sity of Florida faculties and staffs. They have always tried to answer my academic or admi nistrative questions in sp ite of their tight time schedules.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......13 LIST OF TERMS.................................................................................................................. .........14 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................20 1.1 Background................................................................................................................. ......20 1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... ..21 1.3 Study Objectives and Tasks..............................................................................................23 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation.......................................................................................25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................26 2.1 Truck Level of Service.....................................................................................................26 2.2 User-Perceived Level of Service......................................................................................30 2.3 Trucking Community Focus Groups and Surveys............................................................37 2.4 Florida Trucking Community Focus Gr oup Participant Recruitment Sources................52 2.5 Trucking Community Survey Methods............................................................................54 3 RESEARCH APPROACH.....................................................................................................59 3.1 Focus Group Sessions.......................................................................................................61 3.1.1 Participant Recruitment..........................................................................................62 3.1.2 Participant Selection...............................................................................................63 3.1.3 Focus Group Questionnaires..................................................................................66 3.1.4 Conducting Interviews............................................................................................68 3.1.5 Summary of Discussions........................................................................................69 3.2 Survey Studies............................................................................................................. .....70 3.2.1 Question Types.......................................................................................................71 3.2.1.1 Interval-rating questions...............................................................................71 3.2.1.2 Ratio-scale questions....................................................................................72 3.2.1.3 Forced-ranking questions.............................................................................73 3.2.1.4 Discrete-choice questions.............................................................................74 3.2.1.5 Fixed-sum questions.....................................................................................76 3.2.2 Survey Development..............................................................................................76 3.2.3 Data Collection.......................................................................................................82

PAGE 7

7 3.2.4 Data Reduction.......................................................................................................88 3.2.5 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................89 3.2.5.1 Descriptive statistics.....................................................................................89 3.2.5.2 Exploratory factor analysis...........................................................................90 3.2.5.3 Multiple comparison test..............................................................................97 3.2.5.4 Non-parametric test......................................................................................99 3.2.5.5 Chi-squared test..........................................................................................101 3.3 Truck LOS Measurement...............................................................................................103 3.3.1 Truck LOS Service Measures...............................................................................103 3.3.1.1 Single performance measure approach......................................................104 3.3.1.2 Multiple variable approach.........................................................................104 3.3.2 Truck LOS Estimation Model..............................................................................105 3.3.2.1 Data collection............................................................................................105 3.3.2.2 Statistical modeling....................................................................................107 4 FOCUS GROUP STUDY RESULTS..................................................................................115 4.1 Perceptions of Truck Drivers..........................................................................................115 4.1.1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection.........................................................116 4.1.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality...................................................................118 4.1.2.1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways.........................................118 4.1.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials................................122 4.1.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways.........................126 4.1.2.4 Factors affecting truck trip quality on hub facilities..................................128 4.1.3 Improvement Priority of Transportation Services................................................128 4.1.4 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability....................................................................129 4.2 Perceptions of Truck Company Managers.....................................................................130 4.2.1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection.........................................................131 4.2.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality...................................................................133 4.2.2.1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways.........................................133 4.2.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials................................136 4.2.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways.........................140 4.2.2.4 Factors affecting truck trip quality on hub facilities..................................141 4.2.3 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability....................................................................141 4.3 Perceptional Difference between Truck Drivers and Truck Company Managers..........143 5 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS...........................................................................145 5.1 Backgrounds of the Participants.....................................................................................145 5.1.1 Truck Driver Participants.....................................................................................145 5.1.2 Truck Company Manager Participants.................................................................146 5.2 Perceptions on the Relative Importa nce of Each Factor on Freeways...........................147 5.2.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor.....................................................................148 5.2.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance M easure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality................................................................................................................152 5.3 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Urban Arterials..................155 5.3.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor.....................................................................155

PAGE 8

8 5.3.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance M easure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality................................................................................................................159 5.4 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Two-Lane Highways.........162 5.4.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor.....................................................................162 5.4.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance M easure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality................................................................................................................166 5.5 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors to Quality of a Truck Trip...............168 5.5.1 Relative Importance of Each Ca tegory of Factors for Freeways.........................169 5.5.2 Relative Importance of Each Categor y of Factors for Urban Arterials................169 5.5.3 Relative Importance of Each Categor y of Factors for Two-lane Highways........170 5.6 Comparisons of the Importance of Each Factor Category on Various Roadway Facilities..................................................................................................................... .......170 5.7 Perceptions on the Improvement Priority of Various Roadway Types..........................171 5.8 Relationships between Truck Drivers Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on the Applicability of Each Hypotheti cal LOS Performance Measure......................................172 5.8.1 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Freeways............173 5.8.2 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Pe rformance Measure on Urban Arterials...175 5.8.3 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LO S Performance Measure on Two-Lane Highways...................................................................................................................178 5.9 Perceptions on Truck Driving Environment by Time of Day........................................180 5.9.1 Current and Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day..............................................181 5.9.2 Relationships between Truck Drivers Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day.......................................................................182 5.10 Other Transportation Service Issues for Truck Drivers................................................186 5.10.1 Freeway Truck Operations.................................................................................186 5.10.2 Urban Arterial Truck Operations........................................................................187 5.10.3 Two-Lane Highway Truck Operations...............................................................187 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................239 6.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................ .....239 6.1.1 Quality of a Truck Trip on Freeways...................................................................240 6.1.2 Quality of a Truck Trip on Arterials.....................................................................241 6.1.3 Quality of a Truck Trip on Two-Lane Highways.................................................242 6.1.4 Improvement Priority of Various Transportation Facilities for Trucks...............244 6.1.5 Improvement Priority of the Factors on Each Transportation Facility for Trucks........................................................................................................................244 6.1.6 Preference on Truck Driving Time of Day...........................................................245 6.1.7 Relationships between Truck Drivers Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on Truck Trip Quality.....................................................................................................246 6.1.8 Overall Effectiveness of Research Approach.......................................................247 6.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................248 6.2.1 Truck LOS Estimation Model Development........................................................248 6.2.1.1 Truck LOS on freeways.............................................................................248

PAGE 9

9 6.2.1.2 Truck LOS on arterials...............................................................................251 6.2.1.3 Truck LOS on two-lane highways.............................................................252 6.2.2 Transportation Service Improveme nt for the Trucking Community....................252 6.2.3 Trucking Community Surveys.............................................................................253 APPENDIX A COOPERATION REQUEST LET TER SENT TO FTA.....................................................257 B FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION.......................................................................................259 C GUIDELINES FOR FOCUS GROUP PARTIC IPANT SELECTION SENT TO FTA......261 D FOCUS GROUP MODERATORS GUIDE........................................................................265 E FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS BA CKGROUND SURVEY RESULTS....................268 F TRUCK DRIVER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY FORM..........................272 G TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY FORM........................................................................................................................... ........275 H TRUCK DRIVER SURVEY FORM....................................................................................278 I TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER SURVEY FORM.........................................................285 J IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY SCORE................................................................................292 K POSTAGE-PAID TRUCK DR IVER SURVEY FORM......................................................294 L POSTAGE-PAID TRUCK COMP ANY MANAGER SURVEY FORM............................298 M POSTAGE-PAID MANAGER SURVEY COVER LETTER.............................................302 N SURVEY DATA FILTERING CRITERIA.........................................................................304 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................307 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................311

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Comparison of Survey Methods........................................................................................58 3-1 Survey Development........................................................................................................108 3-2 Postage-Paid Truck Driv er Survey Response Rates........................................................109 3-3 Survey Participation of the Selected Carriers by Each Conference and Chapter............110 3-4 Survey Collection by Each Conference and Chapter.......................................................111 3-5 FTDC Truck Driver Survey Data Usability.....................................................................111 3-6 Postage-Paid Truck Driver Survey Data Usability..........................................................111 3-7 Overall Truck Driver Survey Data Usability...................................................................112 3-8 Overall Truck Company Manager Survey Data Usability...............................................112 3-9 Current HCM Service Measures used for LOS Determination.......................................114 5-1 Truck Driver Survey Responde nt Background Summary Statistics................................188 5-2 Additional Truck Driver Survey Re spondent Background Summary Statistics..............189 5-3 Truck Company Manager Survey Re spondent Background Summary Statistics...........190 5-4 Additional Truck Company Manager Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics..................................................................................................................... ......191 5-5 Truck Drivers Perceptions on Each Fact or on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways....................................................................................................................... ...192 5-6 Managers Perceptions on Relative Im portance of Each Factor on Freeways................193 5-7 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results...............................................................................194 5-8 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways................195 5-9 Truck Drivers Perceptions on Applicab ility of Single Performance Measure to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways...............................................196 5-10 Truck Company Managers Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Freeways for trucking business....................................................196 5-11 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results.............................................................................197

PAGE 11

11 5-12 Truck Drivers Perceptions of Each F actor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials................................................................................................................ .198 5-13 Managers Perceptions on Relative Importa nce of Each Factor on Urban Arterials.......199 5-14 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results...............................................................................200 5-15 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Trav el Quality of Service on Urban Arterials......201 5-16 Truck Drivers Perceptions of Appli cability of Single Performance Measure to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials.....................................202 5-17 Truck Company Managers Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Urban Arterials for trucking business..........................................202 5-18 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results.............................................................................203 5-19 Truck Drivers Perceptions of Each F actor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways........................................................................................................204 5-20 Managers Perceptions of Relative Im portance of Each Factor on Two-Lane Highways....................................................................................................................... ..205 5-21 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results...............................................................................206 5-22 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways....................................................................................................................... ..207 5-23 Truck Drivers Perceptions of Appli cability of Single Performance Measure to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways............................208 5-24 Truck Company Managers Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Two-Lane Highways for trucking business..................................208 5-25 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results.............................................................................209 5-26 Definitions of Independent Vari ables used in Statistical Tests.......................................217 5-27 Definitions of Independent Vari ables used in Statistical Tests.......................................218 5-28 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................219 5-29 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................220 5-30 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................221 5-31 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................222 5-32 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................223

PAGE 12

12 5-33 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................224 5-34 Mann-Whitney Test Statistics..........................................................................................225 5-35 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................226 5-36 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-W hitney Test Statistics..........................................................227 5-37 Mann-Whitney Test Statistics..........................................................................................228 5-38 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 1........................................................................................232 5-39 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 2........................................................................................233 5-40 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 3........................................................................................233 5-41 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 4........................................................................................234 5-42 Other Factors Affecting Tr uck Trip Quality on Freeways...............................................235 5-43 Other Drivers Behavior Affec ting Truck Trip Quality on Freeways.............................236 5-44 Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Urban Arterials.....................................237 5-45 Other Factors Affecting Truck Tr ip Quality on Two-Lane Highways............................238 6-1 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Freeways..............................................254 6-2 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Arterials...............................................255 6-3 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Two-Lane Highways...........................255 6-4 Top Six Factors in the Need for the Improvement on Each Roadway Type for Trucks.256 E-1 1st Truck Driver Focus Group Partic ipants Background Survey Results.......................268 E-2 1st Truck Company Manager Focus Group Pa rticipants Background Survey Results...269 E-3 2nd Truck Driver Focus Group Partic ipants Background Survey Results......................270 J-1 Improvement Priority Scores...........................................................................................292

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Research Approach..........................................................................................................108 3-2 Truck Driving Competition Course.................................................................................109 3-3 Survey Table Setup at Truck Driving Competition.........................................................110 3-4 Example of a Path Diagram for an EF A Model by Principle Component Extraction Method......................................................................................................................... ....113 3-5 Normal Q-Q Plot of the Importance of Ease of Obtaining Useful Traveler Information on Freeways................................................................................................113 5-1 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category for Freeways...........................................210 5-2 Relative Importance of Each Fact or Category for Ur ban Arterials.................................211 5-3 Relative Importance of Each Fact or Category for Two-lane Highways..........................212 5-4 Relative Importance of Roadway Cond itions on Different Roadway Types..................213 5-5 Relative Importance of Traffic Cond itions on Different Roadway Types......................214 5-6 Relative Importance of Other Drivers Behavior on Different Roadway Types.............215 5-7 Improvement Priority of Various Road way Facilities for Truck Trip Quality................216 5-8 Truck Drivers Current and Pref erred Truck Driving Times of Day...............................229 5-9 Truck Driving Time of Day Preference of Current Users...............................................230 5-10 Truck Company Managers Preferen ce on Truck Driving Times of Day.......................231

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF TERMS AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials (now AASHTO) AASHTO American Association of State Hi ghway and Transportation Officials ANOVA Analysis of Variance ATA American Trucking Association BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics CATI Computer-Aided Telephone Interview CBD Central Business District CBR Citizen Band Radio CDL Commercial Drivers License CEDR Center for Economic Development and Research CMS Changeable Message Sign CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis ES202 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages FDHSMV Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIHS Florida Intrastate Highway System 511 Americas traveler information phone number FTA Florida Trucking Association FTDC Florida Truck Driving Championship GPS Global Positioning System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual

PAGE 15

15 HIS Highway Information System IRI International Roughness Index KYTC Kentucky Transportation Cabinet LOS Level of Service LSD Fishers Least Significance Difference multiple comparison test LTL Less-than-TruckLoad NATSO National Association of Truck Stop Operators NHS National Highway System NTA National Truckers Association NYC New York City ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OTA Ontario Trucking Association P&D Pick-up and Delivery PCE Passenger Car Equivalent PSI Present Serviceability Index PSR Present Serviceability Rating PTBF Percent-Time-Being-Followed PTSF Percent-Time-Spent-Following QOS Quality of Service Q-Q plot Quantile-Quantile plot RCI Roadway Characteristics Inventory RMI Relative Maneuverability Index RV Recreational Vehicle SIS Strategic Intermodal System SMC Safety Management Council

PAGE 16

16 S-N-K Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test SPRPC Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission SUV Sport-Utility Vehicle TIS Traveler Information System TL TruckLoad 3PL Third Party Logistics TTS Transportation Technical Services, Inc TU Text Unit TUB Text Unit Block UDC Urban Distribution Centre UHM University of Hawaii at Manoa VMS Variable Message Sign XM radio a satellite radio service

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Un iversity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PE RFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TRUCK LEVEL OF SERVICE By Byungkon Ko May 2007 Chair: Scott S. Washburn Major: Civil Engineering Commercial trucks, the leading transportation mode for freigh t movement, are vital to our economy and peoples lives. The importance of th is mode has become greater as the demand for just-in-time delivery, lower inventory, electroni c commerce, and Less-than-TruckLoad (LTL) shipping has increased. This study was conducted under the Fl oridas Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) plan for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in an effort to better understand the needs of the Florida trucking comm unity by investigating their perceptions of truck trip quality on various roadway facilities. The current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides analytical methods to evaluate performance levels of transportation facilities and estimate Level Of Service (LOS) perceived by the users. The HCM methodologies yield a single LOS value for all th e users in a traffic stream. However, due to the unique size and operating charac teristics of trucks, it is possible that truck mode users perceive LOS on various roadway faci lities based on different criteria from those of the other mode users. This study focused on id entifying the determinants of LOS perceived by truck mode users and measuring their relative importance based on which truck LOS estimation methodologies should be developed.

PAGE 18

18 Three focus group sessions (two with truck drivers and the other one with truck company managers) were held to elicit the factors affec ting truck LOS on various transportation facilities and the relative importance of those factors were evaluated through a follow-on survey study with a larger audience. A to tal of 459 truck drivers and 38 truck company managers responded to the written surveys collected at Florida Tr uck Driving Championship (FTDC) event or the postage-paid mail-back surveys dist ributed at four agri cultural inspection stations. The survey responses were analyzed with various statisti cal methods such as de scriptive statistics, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), multiple co mparisons of the means, non-parametric tests, and chi-squared tests of independence. The quality of a truck trip generally was f ound to depend on three issues: travel safety; travel time; and physical and psychological driv ing comfort. Truck drivers showed more concerns about the driving comfort, while truc k company managers were more concerned with travel time. The travel safety aspect of a truck trip was a majo r concern for both groups. Speed Variance and Pavement Quality were the two most important dete rminants of truck trip quality on freeways. Truck trip quality on arterials was a function of multiple factors including Pavement Quality, Turning Maneuvers, Speed Variance, and Traffic Density. PercentTime-Being-Followed (PTBF), Percent-Time-S pent-Following (PTSF), Travel Lane and Shoulder Widths and their Pavement Quality were identified as truck LOS determinants on twolane highways. Among many factor s contributing to the quality of a truck trip, Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette and Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics, Traffic Congestion, and Frequency and Timing of Constr uction Activities were perceived to be in significant need of improvement regardless of the type of roadway facility. Truck travel restrictions (e.g., truck lane re strictions) on freeways, inadequa te curb radii and poor traffic

PAGE 19

19 signal coordination on arterials, and inappropriate shoulder widt h and condition and poor nighttime lighting condition on two-lane highways were also considered to be greatly in need of improvement. The results of this study provide the FDOT with guidelines and recommendations to develop truck LOS estimation met hodologies to effectively assess how well it is addressing the needs of freight transportation on the state roadway system a nd offer transportation service providers and other stakeholders valuable insights for the prio ritization of transportation improvement projects for co mmercial truck traffic.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Transportation services for freight are vita l to our economy and peoples daily lives. Various kinds of freight are relocated daily in and out of Florida thr ough several transportation modes such as truck, train, ship, and plane. Am ong all the modes, truc ks moved 76.3 percent of freight value, 79.4 percent of tonnage, and 66.9 percent of ton-miles of the total freight originating in Florida in 2002, according to th e Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2004). This makes th e truck mode the leading mode for freight movement in the U.S. Truck traffic is also e xpected to grow significan tly throughout the State of Florida over the next co uple of decades, along with increasing population, as noted in the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) (U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, 2002). In addition, the increas ed demands for just-i n-time delivery, low inventory, electronic commerce (e-commerce), Le ss-than-TruckLoad (LTL) shipping, and more distributed manufacturing, make it necessary for transportation service providers and other stakeholders to look for ways to better accommod ate truck traffic on existing roadway systems. Floridas Strategic Intermodal System (S IS) plan was established by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in 2003 to support trans portation facilities that are necessary for Floridas rapidly growing and ev er changing economy (FDOT, 2003). The main goal of the SIS program is to provide safe, effici ent, and convenient tran sportation services for all types of transportation users on the most critic al transportation facilities in Florida. The SIS facilities were selected based on national or industry standards fo r measures of transportation and economic activity. The SIS includes three different types of facilities; hubs, corridors, and intermodal connectors. Hubs are ports and terminals, corridors are highways, rail lines, or

PAGE 21

21 waterways that connect major markets, and conn ectors are highways, rail lines, or waterways that connect hubs and corridors. As one of its first research projects unde r the SIS program, this study has been conducted for FDOT to better understand the needs of the Florida trucking community by investigating its pe rceptions and opinions about tran sportation services for trucks on various state roadway facilities. 1.2 Problem Statement The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Trans portation Research Board, 2000) provides analytical methods to estimate capacity and ke y performance measures for a wide variety of roadway facilities. The HCM also provides met hods for translating perf ormance measure values into a Level Of Service (LOS) value. Level Of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe general operating conditi ons within a traffic stream. Th e HCM uses a scale of A to F for LOS, with A correspond ing to excellent operating conditions and F corresponding to extremely poor operating conditions. These LOS values are typically based on performance measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic in terruptions, and comfort and convenience, and are intended to reflect drivers perception of those conditions. The selected performance measures, upon which LOS is based, referred to in the HCM as service measures, can vary from one roadway facility to another. The methods of the HCM have been widely adopted by the transportation community as the primary means of measuring system performance. They are often used as valuable to ols for most transportation agencies to monitor or improve the performance levels of existing transportation facilities or plan for future transportation facilities. The current HCM utilizes engineering-based measures such as density, delay, and average travel speed in evaluating the performance level of transportation facilities. These measures are conceptually reasonable and easy to apply, but are not necessarily consistent with the measures

PAGE 22

22 that the actual roadway users base their per ception of the facility performance level on. Furthermore, for the roadway facilities in the HC M (such as arterial, hi ghways, and freeways), the HCM methods result in a single LOS value for the entire traffic stream ; that is, they do not distinguish between different mode s within the same traffic str eam. The methods are generally designed to establish LOS for the passenger vehicle mode. However, commercial trucks (hereafter referred to as just trucks) are uniqu e in their size and operating characteristics among various vehicle types in traffic st reams. Trucks require more space and time to maneuver due to their difference in size, weight, off-tracking, acceleration, and braki ng. So they are often used as design vehicles for roadway facilities, and sometimes subject to various restrictions such as lane, route, speed, or time-of-day. In addition, most truck drivers op erate their trucks primarily for business purposes and spend a si gnificant amount of time drivi ng, while the trip purposes of other vehicle users vary and they usually drive less frequently. Due to these special characteristics of truck operations on transportation facilities, it is possible that truck mode users perceive LOS on various roadway facilities based on different criteria from those of the other mode user s. However, the current HCM (Transportation Research Board, 2000) only accounts for the mode of trucks in the traffic stream through the heavy vehicle adjustment factor (HVf ). This adjustment factor is based upon the percentage of heavy vehicles (e.g., trucks, buses, or recreationa l vehicles) in the traffic stream and their passenger car equivalents (PCEs). A PCE is th e number of passenger cars expected to have same effect on a traffic stream as a single heavy vehicle under specific roadway and traffic conditions. The PCE is used to convert a traffic stream flow ra te with some portion of heavy vehicles into an equivalent one with passenger cars only. So, although the current HCM procedures account for the effects of trucks in the traffic stream, the overall methodology does

PAGE 23

23 not provide any exclusive LOS evaluation criteria or procedures to estimate how well a transportation facility accommodates truck traffic in a traffic stream. 1.3 Study Objectives and Tasks The primary objective of this study was to dete rmine the roadway, traffic, and/or control factors important for Floridas trucking community and estimate the relative significance of each factor on overall quality of truck operation on the SIS facili ties. Based on information obtained about the perceptions of truck mode users, th is study provides the FDOT with guidelines and recommendations to develop actual LOS estim ation methodologies to effectively assess how well it is addressing the needs of freight transportation on the state roadway system. These efforts provide transportation se rvice providers, researchers, a nd transportation agencies with valuable insights as to what should be prio ritized to improve truck operations on various transportation facilities. To achieve this objective, it was essential to obtain input from both truck drivers and truck company managers, as these two groups represent the major stakeholders with regard to truck operations. For this study, data collection wa s confined to focus group and written survey methods. The major tasks performed to complete this study are described below and presented in their chronological order: Task 1: Literature review. A literature review was performed to facilitate and enhance this study with regard to the following five ar eas: 1) truck LOS studies; 2) user-perception based LOS studies; 3) trucking community focus group and/or survey studies 4) Florida trucking community focus group participan t recruitment sources, and 5) trucking community survey methods. Task 2: Preparation for focus group sessions. In advance of the focus group meetings, the methodology for conducting the focus group st udies was determined. This includes

PAGE 24

24 clarification of the purpose and scope of the interviews, part icipant selection guidelines, participant recruitment plans, moderator selection, development of participant background surveys, moderators guide regarding focus gr oup questionnaires and instructions, focus group discussion recording, and methods of analysis. Task 3: Focus group sessions of truck drivers and/or truck company managers. Several focus group meetings were held with select ed participants to explore the perceptions and opinions of the trucking community on the fact ors important to truck operations on various transportation facilities. Task 4: Summary of focus group findings. The focus group discussions were summarized to identify the factors affecting qua lity of a truck trip on each facility and by different user groups (truck drivers and truck company managers). The summary results were then used as inputs to a follow-on survey. Task 5: Survey development. Survey studies were intended to reconfirm the focus group findings with a broader audience and to meas ure the relative importance of each factor quantitatively. Two different survey forms were prepared; one for truck drivers and the other for truck company managers. Both forms contain questions about partic ipants personal and working backgrounds and their perceptions abou t the relative importance of each factor identified in the previous focus group studies. Task 6: Survey data collection. Truck driver surveys and truck company manager surveys were distributed at multiple locations wi th the assistance of the FDOT and the Florida Trucking Association (FTA). Task 7: Analysis of survey data. Collected surveys were analyzed statistically to determine the relative importance of each factor on truck trip quality and/or overall trucking

PAGE 25

25 business. Relationships between the participan ts backgrounds and their perceptions were also explored. Task 8: Study results and recommendations. The factors influenc ing truck trip quality and their relative importance were determined based on the focus group and survey results. Potential performance measures to estim ate truck LOS were recommended by each transportation facility type. 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation The remainder of this dissertation is as follows Chapter 2 provides a summary of relevant literature. Chapter 3 describes the study methods and detailed steps taken to complete this study. The study results are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 discusses focus group study findings and Chapter 5 discusses the results of sta tistical analyses on the survey data. In chapter 6, conclusions are presented and recommendations are made with regard to roadway facility improvement priorities for truck LOS considerati ons. Potential truck LOS service measures are also presented.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter describes previous research effort s by other researchers related to this study, conceptually or methodologically. It provides descriptions of the research methodologies and results of those studies, and a summary of the fi ndings. First, the studies regarding truck LOS development are presented. They contain some implications on potenti al truck LOS service measures. Other research efforts to identify and test potential LOS service measures on a specific roadway facility are described in the next section of this chapter. They provide some insights about how to elicit the perception of tr avelers and convert the information to develop user-perceived LOS. The final section reviews previous focus group and/or survey studies of the trucking community. Potential sources of focus group recruitment and characteristics of various survey methods were separately summarized to help develop the methodol ogies suitable for the purpose and scope of this study. 2.1 Truck Level of Service A study by Washburn (2002) explored and dem onstrated the development of a potential method to assess level of service specific to the truck mode. The current LOS performance measure for a freeway segment (density) applies to the traffic stream as a whole, regardless of vehicle types, although they typically have very different physical and op erating characteristics from passenger cars in the traffic stream. To assess the level of service of heavy trucks on a freeway segment, a relative density concept was proposed. Relative density for trucks could be obtained by dividing density for th e traffic stream by a Relative Maneuverability Index (RMI), which is a function of the ratio of percentage of free-flow speed of trucks to percentage of freeflow speed of passenger cars. Under low density, ideal conditions, percenta ge of free-flow speed for both trucks and cars should be at or near 100%, yielding th e same LOS for both modes (e.g.,

PAGE 27

27 A). Likewise, under high density, the percentage of free-flow speed for both trucks and cars would both be very low, producing the same LO S for both modes (e.g., F). At densities in between, the percentage of free-flow speed for truc ks will probably be less that that for cars, resulting in higher relative densit y values for trucks, which can be referenced to the current HCM density thresholds for determining LOS. Ot her possible measures for determining LOS for trucks have also been introduced in the document; acceleration noi se, passing opportunities, percent-time spent-followi ng, and heavy vehicle factor. A study by Hostovsky and Hall (2004) focused on th e perceptions of tract or-trailer drivers on the factors affecting quality of service on freeways. A focus group meeting was conducted for this study with 7 Road Knight Team memb ers at the annual convention of the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) in November, 2001. Th e participants were asked what makes for a good or bad trip for themselves to drive truc ks on a freeway. The discussion was then transcribed to be analyzed through NUD.IST (N on-numerical Unstruct ured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing), an indu stry standard qualitative data analysis software program using five criteria (intensity, releva nce, frequency, universality, and emphasis). The OTA, Canadian Trucking Association (CTA), and American Truc king Association (ATA) showed an agreement with the studys conclusions. The study results we re organized in this paper by the number of Text Unit Blocks (TUB), which represent the num ber of times a certain theme was discussed by the participants. With respect to freeway conditi ons (TUB = 34), the factor s identified were road surface (pavement condition, snow removal, road de bris), lane restrictions, signage, and lane width and markings. As far as traffic conditions (TUB = 22) are concerned, congestion, steady flow, and maneuverability were discussed. Attitudes toward other vehicles (TUB = 27) were another big

PAGE 28

28 issue mentioned in the meeting. Courteous in terplay by automobile dr ivers was found to be important for them to have a good trip. In terms of safety (TUB = 3), road etiquette, weather, and rubbernecking were considered to influence their trip quality. The participants also mentioned the hazard of aggressive driving and road rage (TUB = 23) and regionally different perceptions of trip quality (TUB = 23) with respect to such various factors as level of congestion, courteous interplay by other driv ers, driving skills of other drivers around them in snow condition, and low speed limits. With all the fi ndings mentioned above, the authors indicated that what really matters to truck drivers in term s of traffic condition is traffic flow, not traffic density, which is a service measure used in the curre nt HCM. In this resp ect, steadiness of traffic flow and an ability to drive at a comfortable operating range of highway speeds without much braking or accelerating were considered to be important for truck drivers perception of the quality of service. A study by Hall, et al. (2004) developed a met hod to evaluate the access routes for large trucks between intermodal or other truck-tr affic-generating sites and the National Highway System (NHS) and used it to prioritize and progr am the truck access routes for improvement. The study began with identifying clusters of truc k-traffic generating facilities based on total trucks per day, distance to NHS, and recommen dations on the sites with truck access problems by transportation planners from highway district and area development district offices. Then telephone surveys were conducted wi th the operators/managers of th e selected sites to identify problem routes to be evaluated in this study. Each route was evaluated with respect to three types of features: subjective, point, and conti nuous. Using the Kentuc ky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) statewide Highway Information System (H IS) database and some field observations, the following characteristics of each route were coll ected: 1) point features: curve off-tracking,

PAGE 29

29 maximum safe speed on horizontal curves, stoppi ng sight distance, turnin g radii; 2) continuous features: grade, lane width, shoulder, route LO S. The point and continuous elements on each route were ranked as preferred, adequat e, and less than adequate based on the recommendations in AASHTO (American Associ ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials)s A Policy of Ge ometric Design of Highways and Streets and Roadway Design Guide. The features subjectively evaluated by the researchers include clear zone, pavement condition, accident history, parki ng, pedestrian traffic, land use conflicts, dust/noise issues, and so on. The rankings of point and continuous el ements were converted to a relative urgency rating by assigning a relative weight with respec t to truck volume and section length. Problem truck-points and problem truck-miles were calcu lated based on these ra nkings to prioritize the problem routes. They were adjusted by predom inant subjective features, where appropriate. Finally, with all the evaluation da ta of each problem route, the re searchers inspected the routes and graded them on a subjective scale of 1 to 10 (10 represents good access for trucks). All the three studies presented in this section focused on developing methods to evaluate operating conditions on a specific roadway type for truck traffic. Washburn (2002) devised the RMI concept to evaluate truck LOS on freew ays, based on a hypothetical reasoning that maneuverability of trucks is inferior to that of passenger cars because of unique physical and operating characteristics of trucks. A study by Hostovsky and Hall (2004) f ound that traffic flow is more important than traffic density to truck drivers perception of trip quality on freeways. The two above mentioned studies imply that tr affic density, the current HCM service measure for freeway facility, may not reflect the perceptio n of truck drivers adequately. Steady traffic flow and maneuverability may be more importa nt to truck drivers than traffic density, considering the large size, heavy weight, low accel eration and deceleration capability of trucks.

PAGE 30

30 Hall, et al. (2004) developed a methodology for evaluating large truck access routes between NHS and truck-traffic generating facilities to prio ritize and program the routes for improvement. Overall quality of each route for truck access was determined by many various factors. They included geometric adequacy measures, pavement condition, clear zone, accident history, traffic LOS, and other subjective measures such as pa rking, pedestrian traffi c, land use conflicts, dust/noise issues, etc. As this study investigated so many different character istics of each route, it may not be appropriate to identify one or tw o performance measures to effectively estimate quality of an access route for trucks. 2.2 User-Perceived Level of Service A study by Hall, et al. (2001) conducted two focu s groups (one with five members, and the other with seven members) to explore what free way users perceive as important to level of service on freeways. Focus group participants we re chosen by a snowball sample selection process to identify commuters going from the c ity of Toronto, Ontario, Canada to McMaster University (the research cente r) in Hamilton, Ontario Canada. The participants were all university faculty members in various departments, and were selected to ensure that all the participants traveled the same st retch of freeway so that all knew about the situations that were being discussed and all had had relatively simila r experiences. Both groups were moderated by the same member of the research team to ensu re consistency in tech nique across groups. The following general questions were asked in the discussions; Tell me about the usual freeway r oute you take when you are commuting. Have your perceptions of the drive changed over time? I want you to talk about both the ideal or best trip youve ever made and also the worst trip ever.

PAGE 31

31 The factors important to percep tions of trip quality were listed with respect to the number of Text Units (TUs) in which each theme was me ntioned in the two discussions, as follows; Travel time (TUs = 103 (6%)) Density/maneuverability (TUs = 86 (5%)) Road safety (TUs = 81 (5%)) Commuter information and communication (TUs = 65 (4%)) Civility (TUs = 38 (2%)) Photo radar (TUs = 31 (2%)) Weather (TUs = 23 (1%)) The participants indicated travel time as the fi rst thing to describe th e quality of particular trips. Having time constraints on their arrival from a trip was thought to greatly increase the stress involved in the trip. Time spent commu ting was also considered to be lost time. Maneuverability also came up in the discussions in light of travel time, accident avoidance, adequate gaps between cars, w eaving in and out of traffic, and changing lanes. Another important issue for participants was safety. They were concerned about accidents not only in terms of congestion but also because of the risk to their personal safety. Materials from trucks and other debris on the road were concerns for many participants, and the effects of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans on other drivers vi sibility were also mentioned in the safety perspectives. Having adequate information about what was happening to traffic while they were on the road was also important to the particip ants. This issue was discussed along with the possibility for them to avoid traffic congestion by finding alternative routes. Some other factors were mentioned occasionally in the focus groups as well; driver civility, the use of photo radar, and weather and its effect on dr iving conditions. Passengers perc eptions also were different from drivers with respect to travel time, mainly due to their ability to undertake activities other than driving. The participants indicated th at travelers on the bus would have different perspectives; they usually do not notice the traffic c onditions when they are in the bus. The

PAGE 32

32 authors also indicated that the pa rticipants do not think of freeways in terms of distinct segments classified by the HCM (basic segments, ramp -freeway junctions, and weaving segments), proposing further studies about LOS breakpoints. The factors that affect traveler-perceived quality of service on rural freeways were explored using in-field surveys of motorists tr aveling on rural freeways (Washburn, et al., 2004). A total of 233 responses from a good mix of re spondents were collected at several different locations along I-75 and the Turnpike in Florida. The researchers deci ded to perform an infield survey data collection effort, as opposed to a mail-back survey or something similar, as this provided the advantage of obtaining input while the specific characteris tics of the travelers trip were still fresh in their mind. The surveys at the rest stops, whic h offered respondents a $2 food discount voucher, also showed a good overall productivity (about six respondents per hour). The importance of 16 traffic and roadway factors was ranked by respondents on a sevenpoint ordinal scale (1 being not at all important, and 7 being extr emely important). The six top ranked factors based on mean scores and/or percent time in top three are as follows: Ability to consistently maintain your desi red travel speed (mean = 6.09, % time in top three = 64.3%) Ability to change lanes and pass other vehicl es easily (mean = 5.79, % time in top three = 33.3%) Smooth and quiet road surface condition (mean = 5.68, % time in top three = 20.3%) Ability to travel at a speed no less than th e posted speed limit (mean = 5.58, % time in top three = 33.0%) Other drivers etiquette/courtesy (m ean = 5.38, % time in top three = 22.1%) Infrequent construction zones (mean = 5.37, % time in top three = 23.4%) A probit modeling technique was used to di scover any possible relationships between personal characteristics and current trip informa tion of the respondents, and their opinions about

PAGE 33

33 the top four ranked factors (from 1 to 4 above). Fo r the first factor, the mo re highly educated an individual, the more likely they were to rank th is factor highly. Th e respondents that were driving a tractor-trailer, or with higher estimated average speeds, were also more likely to rank this factor highly. For the second factor, the respondents that had highe r education or with higher estimated average speeds, were more likely to rank this factor highly. Travelers that indicated they were experiencing mostly very dense or dense traffic flow conditions on their trip were less likely to rank this factor highly. For the third factor, tr avelers with higher income were more likely to rank this factor highly. Travel ers who indicated their trip purpose was other, that is, neither business nor leisure, were less lik ely to rank this factor highly. Travelers that were on a business trip and very familiar with the route they were traveling were also less likely to rank this factor highly. For the fourth factor older people were more lik ely to rank this factor highly. On the other hand, the resp ondents that were stri ctly drivers on the trip or driving a large auto (pickup truck, SUV, miniva n, or full-size van) were less lik ely to rank this factor highly. The authors indicated that in addition to dens ity, there are some factors that are just as important to travelers, such as speed variance and percent of fre e-flow speed. Some non-traffic performance measures were also found to be im portant through the study, such as pavement quality, and driver etiquette. A web-based survey was conducted at the Univ ersity of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) in 2005 to see how road users evaluate signalized in tersection LOS (Zhang and Prevedouros, 2005). Email messages with group-specific survey hyperlinks were sent to selected samples asking them to fill out the motorist survey on-line. Six groups comprise the sample; random UHM students, faculty, and staff, Hawaii engineering and transp ortation professionals, drivers from other groups in Hawaii, and drivers from the mainland U.S. The response rate was 12.2%, 16.0%, 18.9% for

PAGE 34

34 UHM students, faculty, and staff respectively, yielding 2,017 usable surveys. The survey questions focused on factors important to drivers at signalized intersec tions, driver opinions on protected left-turn signals for va rious sizes of intersections, an d trade-offs between perceived safety risk and delay. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to dependent variables with ratioor interval-level data to assess if there were significan t differences among the independent groups. The influence of several independent variables such as gende r, age, and driving experience on the dependent variables were investigated simu ltaneously through ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). The ten factors important to drivers at signaliz ed intersections were evaluated with a fivepoint ordinal scale (1 being not important, and 5 being extremely importa nt). The factors are listed as follows in order of decreasing importance. 1. Traffic signal responsiveness 2 Ability to go through the intersection within one cycle of light changes 3 Availability of left turn only lanes and protected left turn si gnal for vehicles turning left 4 Pavement markings for se parating and guiding traffic 5 Availability of a protected left tu rn signal for vehicles turning left 6 Availability of left turn only lanes for vehicles turning left 7 Pavement quality 8 Waiting time 9 Heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses that are waiting ahead 10 Availability of right-turn only la nes for vehicles turning right The respondents were also asked to rate th e difficulty in making a left turn without a protected left turn signal and th eir preference for a protected left turn signal, on a scale form 1 (not difficult or not preferred) to 5 (extremely difficult or extr emely preferred). The difficulty increases with intersection size, and female driver s perceived more difficulty than male drivers. The preference also increases with intersection size, and female drivers prefer protected left turn signals more than male drivers. As high as 91% of the respondents stat ed that they much or

PAGE 35

35 extremely prefer a protected left turn signal at an intersection wher e left turn vehicles have to cross three lanes of opposing through traffic. Safety was stated to be three to six times more important than delay, depending on the type of conflict; drivers turn ing left are more concerned than drivers going through, and pedestrians are more concerned than drivers turning left. Female drivers, non-risk-prone drivers, and pedestrians valued safety more than delay to a significantly greater degree. Drivers and pedestrians would be willing to wait a longer time at signalized intersections in exchange for protected left turn signals. The average additi onal delay to exchange for protected left turn signal is 20.6 sec, 25.4 sec, and 27.2 sec for dr ivers going through, driver s turning left, and pedestrians respectively. Overall findings suggest that the current measure, delay, should be supplemented by a number of quantifiable attributes of signali zed intersections for determining a LOS that represents road user perceptions. Some potential performance measures for LO S on rural freeways were evaluated with microscopic traffic simulation (Kim, et al., 2003). Although density-based LOS is thought to be well suited to the assessment of urban freeways, some have questioned whether density is also a proper indicator of the quality of service on ru ral freeways because drivers may think more in terms of psychological or emotional comfort fo r rural freeways, which generally serve long, high-speed trips and rarely experience more th an moderate congestion levels. Acceleration noise, number and duration of cruise control applications, and percent time spent following (PTSF) were examined as some possible means of determining Level of Service (LOS) of rural freeway sections as they have at least an intuitiv e relationship to the concept of driver comfort. The three measures were estimated for a hypothe tical section of rural freeway. Acceleration

PAGE 36

36 noise is a measure of the physical turbulence in the traffic stream. The instantaneous acceleration of each vehicle at each second is computed from the speed differential with respect to the previous second, and the standard deviatio n of acceleration for each vehicle is computed over the 6,000 feet segment. A post-processing routine was written to analyze the simulation results and infer the application and release of cr uise control. Cruise control was applied to a vehicle when it had been traveling at its desired speed for three or more seconds. Cruise control was released when the vehicle began to decel erate for any reason. For PTSF, a vehicle is considered to be following its leader if the relationship between its position and speed with respect to the leader places it within the car-f ollowing influence zone. A nonlinear relationship between acceleration noise and traffic volume s hows that acceleration noise increases more rapidly in the lower volume range and levels off as volume increases. It is also observed that the nonlinear effect is most pronounced on single-lane freeways and diminishes as the number of lanes increases. The nonlineari ty for proportion of time with cr uise control applied was only discernible to any degree in the case of the si ngle-lane freeway. The nonl inearity for number of cruise control applications was too pronounced to be useful. The nonlinearity for PTSF was more pronounced than that for acceleration noi se, and there was no discernible difference between two and three lane freeways. Based on the investigation of th e nonlinear relationship shapes between level of volumes and three candi date measures by number of lanes, the authors concluded that a nonlinear relationship between acceleration noise and traffic volume on rural freeways could be used directly as the basis fo r a new set of LOS criteria for rural freeways, given further studies focusing on driver opinions behavior, and field measurement to support this finding. The other two measur es also have conceptual appeal but used individually would not be suitable as the basis for determining LOS on a rural freeway.

PAGE 37

37 The above described studies concerning the expl oration of user-perceiv ed level of service performance measures identifie d some interesting findings. The study by Hall, et al. (2001) found from two focus group meetings that tota l travel time is the most important LOS determinant for travelers on a freeway. It was note d that passengers did not consider the travel time as important as drivers did because they can do something else other than driving. It would be worth investigating how freeway drivers pe rceptions on importance of total travel time can be influenced by their trip purposes. The st udy by Washburn, et al. (2004) found from surveys of rural freeway travelers that consistently main taining desired travel speed is more important than ability to change lanes and pass other vehicles easily or t raveling at or not less than the posted speed limit. This implied that the cruise control factor is more important than the density factor or percent of free-flow speed fact or. Other important factors included pavement condition, other drivers etiquette /courtesy, and infrequent cons truction zones. A web-based survey study by Zhang and Prevedouros (2005) f ound that the current serv ice measure of delay for signalized intersections is less important than a number of other factors such as traffic signal responsiveness, abilit y to go through the intersecti on within one cycle of li ght changes, etc. It may be possible that drivers are more sensit ive to stop and go conditi ons than actual delay experienced at signalized intersections. Kim, et al. (2003) identified acceleration noise as a potential service measure for rural freeways due to its desirable properties of relating to drivers sense of safety and comfort and its non-linear relationship with traffic volume. Many previous studies of this type verified th at some current service measures do not reflect the perception of the users adequately. 2.3 Trucking Community Focus Groups and Surveys With increasing importance on urban freight mo bility, Morris, et al. (1998) conducted a study on cost, time, and barriers related to moving freight into New York Citys Central Business

PAGE 38

38 District (CBD). The study cons isted of 13 focus groups with di fferent industry-sector senior logistics executives and freight mobility interviews with logistics, transportation, or distribution managers. The research team cooperated with the Center for Logistics and Transportation Executive Committee in the development of a fo cus group moderators guide, recruitment of focus group participants, pretest of the guide, and the guidance of the freight mobility interview. Each focus group was scheduled at partic ipants convenience, allowing the use of speakerphones, and included 2 participants to e xplore the issues in de pth within a 2-hour time frame. Participants also received the focus group guide and informational material before the meetings so that they would have time to think about the issues in advance. At the meetings, a flip chart listing seminal points for focus group questions and probes, a nd a large CBD area map were displayed to reinforce atte ndees attention to topics. Tran sportation barriers listed in the order of greatest frequency of mention in all the meetings were; congestion, inadequate docking space, curb space for commercial vehicles, secur ity, and excessive ticketing of high-profile companies. A freight mobility interview followe d with logistics, distri bution, or transportation managers, who were recruited with the help of th e previous focus group participants or from the membership lists of Council for Logistics Ma nagement and the Center for Logistics and Transportation. An on-site interview was pla nned initially, but the response was generally negative. So phone interviews were requested to be scheduled after send ing letters containing a freight mobility interview, the study goals and purpose, and focus group findings. Follow-up calls were made 2 weeks after the letters were sent. But due to the lower than expected response rate, another attempt was made with foll ow-up calls made 1 week after sending letters, resulting in 51 completed interviews. Data on co sts, time, distance, product types, and major barriers in the movement of freight into Manhattans CBD by shippers and carriers were

PAGE 39

39 collected. Major barriers to freight mobility id entified through the interviews were; widespread congestion, security, physical constr aints, and institutional barriers. In a study by Veras, et al. (2005), various type s of efforts such as focus group studies, indepth interviews, and internet su rveys were made to obtain the perceptions on challenges and the potential of off-peak deliveries to congested areas. The target ed groups for this study included private stake holders; shippers, receivers, third party logistics (3PLs), trucking companies, and warehouses. Off-peak deliveries to the Ne w York City (NYC) metropolitan region were proposed to avoid traffic congest ion and lack of parking spot s hampering daytime commercial vehicle deliveries. The strategy may reduce the price accompanied by congestion and illegal parking, pollution, and frustration to the public, but it may pose additional costs to shippers, receivers, and carriers mainly due to workers necessary for night shifting. It may also involve regulatory and legal impediment. On January 20, 2004, two focus groups with truck dispatchers were conducted in NYC as part of the Evaluation Study of the Port Authority of New York and New Jerseys Value Pricing Initiative. The focu s group findings indicated that both shipper costs and receiver costs would increase due to the need of night time workers, regardless of feasible toll discounts, or compensation due to traveling hour s. In-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders of various types (trucking companies, shippe rs, receivers, lobbyist s, trucking-warehouse combination companies, and shipping-truck ing-warehouse combination companies) were performed to explore the issues further. Comp anies with trucking opera tions prefer to make deliveries during off-peak hours due to congestio n and parking problems, but they are often discouraged to do it becaus e of the recruitment of night-shift workers, and security of drivers, receivers, and products. The shi ppers were natural on the subject of off-peak deliveries. They do not care when their products are delivered only if the products get to th e destination on time.

PAGE 40

40 The two receivers operating restaurants stated th at off-peak deliveries would help reduce severe parking problems, but fresh food is typically not delivered during off-peak hours. Thirty-three internet surveys were gathered from private stakeholders (shippers, receivers, 3PLs, trucking companies, warehouses) in several states. Se venty-five percent of warehouses and 70% of shippers, 3PLs, and trucking companies were pe rforming off-peak deliveries. Many others at least have considered using this alternative. None of the shippers was currently performing offpeak deliveries, but majority of them indicated th at they could do them if they are provided with some incentives. Reasons given by stakeholde rs for performing off-peak deliveries included faster deliveries, faster turn-a round times, and lower costs. Reasons given for not performing off-peak deliveries included businesses not be ing open at those times, customers not accepting off-peak deliveries, and employee costs. With respect to incentives to implement off-peak deliveries, most stakeholders were interested in all of the tax incenti ves and subsidies. A significant number of trucking companies and 3PLs indicated that they would be responsive to a request from many receivers to do off-peak de liveries. The author also brought up carriercentered policies, receivers as key stumbling blocks, financial incentives, and targeted major traffic generators. Two studies focused on deve loping an effective methodol ogy to survey the freight community (i.e., shippers and carriers) in Or egon state by comparing various survey data collection methods (Lawson and Riis, 2001 and La wson, et al., 2002). The researchers did an extensive literature review on the previous truc king community survey studies and experimented with several data collection methods to find out th e most effective method to survey shippers and carriers. Traditional structured interviews c onducted in person or by telephone have a high response rate from purposeful sampling procedure. These surveys can focus on broad issues and

PAGE 41

41 are useful in obtaining detailed information about the specific topic, but may not accurately reflect the large population. Computer-Aided Telephone Interviews use a script of predetermined questions with random sampling t echniques. This method allows for a large sample size, and is less costly, but, reduces the op portunity to fully explore a certain aspect of any given topic. The response rate from the method is lower than tr aditional structured interviews, but higher than mail out surveys. Response rates for previous written surveys ranged from 8 to 24 percent, but can be improved w ith telephone follow up. Written surveys are the least costly, good for broad samp ling, but it typically produces lo w response rates and does not ensure that the right person will complete the survey. Nine types of survey methods were tested as a pilot study to search fo r the best one to use for surveying the freight community. Type 1 mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 15%) Type 2 mail out/mail back questionnaire and a map, with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 11%) Type 3 postcard invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 6%) Type 4 postcard invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back questionnaire and a map, with follow up reminde rs (ES202 database, response rate of 4%) Type 5 telephone invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 19%) Type 6 telephone survey (ES202 database, response rate of 60%) Type 7 telephone survey (Oregon DOT Mo tor Carrier Transpor tation Division truck registration database, response rate of 64%) Type 8 mail out/mail back questionnaire with telephone fo llow up reminders (Oregon DOT Motor Carrier Transportati on Division truck registration database, response rate of 33%)

PAGE 42

42 Type 9 mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up re minders (Oregon DOT Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division Commer cial Drivers License (CDL) Database, response rate of 12%) In every case, the respondents were given info rmation on the availabil ity of the survey via e-mail or the website, or both. However, little evidence was found that th e option to use the web site or to communicate via e-mail was of interest to the survey participants. In addition to the infrastructure problems, various other issues su ch as regulations, taxati on, and enforcement were covered in the survey. The survey response rate s from telephone surveys were highest among all the methods. The use of postcard invitation befo re a mail out survey resulted in very low response rates. Telephone invita tion with a mail out survey yiel ded a 19% response rate, while a mail out survey with follow up phone calls produced a 33% response rate. Freight firms said that a written survey is the most preferred method, but proved to yield a lower response rate than phone surveys. Prior to carrying out the Or egon State-wide Freight Shi pper and Carrier Survey, 34 previous freight surveys already implemented were reviewed by Loudon (2000). Considerations for conducting surveys of the freight movement community, and lessons le arned from previous freight research in Oregon are summarized. The options to be determined according to the purpose of the surveys are: One company questionnaire versus separate company questionnaires for shippers and carriers. Survey transportation managers only ve rsus survey managers and drivers. Direct driver contact versus di stribution to drivers by managers. Focus on truck movements only versus focus on all modes of freight. Explore problems through open-ended questi ons versus structured list of possible problems. Ask the respondent to rank probl ems versus list problems only.

PAGE 43

43 Ask about problem and practices for inbound and outbound freight movements or outbound only. Use a written (self-completing) questionnaire versus interviewing. Use cold mailing of written questionnaire versus pre-arranged participation. Lessons learned from previous fr eight research in Oregon are: Freight movement logistics are complex. So, sp ecial considerations for flexibility should be made to design each issue (shipm ent size, timing of shipments, etc). Methods of shipping freight ar e changing rapidly. For exam ple, more inventories are maintained in trucks on the highway rather than in manufacturing plants, warehouses, or stores. The survey questionnaires must allow sufficient flexibility to pick up on the current changes. It is not easy to get particip ation from private businesses. Limit the number of issues covered in the surv ey so that sufficient depth of understanding on those issues can be achieved. Survey the right person. A transportation ma nager will generally know the most about decisions about how goods are shipped and received, while an accountant of the company will be able to say something about impact of congestion on costs and profitability. Explore the reasons why transp ortation bottlenecks are a prob lem and how they affect the business Nonrecurring congestion is a significant prob lem, and access to the major highways was as important as level of serv ice on the major highways. The feasibility and an estimation of the pot ential for using Urba n Distribution Centres (UDCs) in the city of Dublin were studied using two surveys (Finnegan, et al., 2004 and Finnegan, et al., 2005). UDCs can fulfill a num ber of functions including warehousing, transshipment, consolidation of loads, effici ent dispatch and collection of goods. Several associations or groups including Dublin City Ce ntre Business Associati on have participated consultation meeting to indicate freight transportati on issues in Dublin City Centre prior to the surveys. The fist survey was deployed on a we eklong survey of deliveries to Trinity College Dublin. The intercept survey method was used at the gate of the campus, resulting in an 82%

PAGE 44

44 response rate (299 participated out of 365 requested). The sec ond survey was distributed to several trade association members, capturing 906 i ndividual deliveries with a 10% response rate. Many aspects of freight movement in the Dublin City Centre (time of delivery arrival and departure, types of goods, how packaged, quantity of packages, types of delivery vehicles, who supplied the goods, location of s upplier, loading and unloading places) were yielded by the surveys to discover the use and location of a UDC. Some conclusions were made at this point; Food related deliveries are expected to be im proved by the use of a UDC in Dublin, a UDC could assists in the process of backhauling, the oper ation of a delivery platform in the city centre was suggested. But, no definite recommendations for the use, location, an d impact of UDC were presented. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) conducted a broad mail survey of freight transportation users and service providers about various issues in freight transportation (SPRPC, 1996). The su rveys were drafted under the guidance of the Freight Forum and distributed to the 700 freight service provi ders from SPRPCs Freight Transportation Database, and 800 area manufacturer s listed in the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Development Councils Computer Assist ed Product Search database (CAPS). The postage-paid surveys were sent to them by mail. The original response rate was 4%, but the final response rate was 9% after follow up phone call effo rts. With various ty pes of freight service providers, and manufacturers answer ing the survey, 22% of manuf acturers indicated that they utilize intermodal trans portation, and 42% of service provid ers said that they do. Specific impediments to the respondents with locations and comments were also identified with their percent frequencies; traffic congestion (46%), rush hour deliveries (32%), roadway turning radius (25.5%), turning at traffi c lights (24%), poor bridge or tunnel clearance (18%), curfews on

PAGE 45

45 high or wide roads (17%), merge lanes (16.5%), at-grade railroad crossings (14%), lack of receiving areas at malls (13%), lack of trailer drop-off and pi ck-up (12%), poor truck access to airport air cargo area (11%), la ck of adequate warehousing (8%), delays or other problems at customs (5%), poor truck access to river terminals (4.5%), poor truck access to intermodal facilities (4.5%), lack of rail to highway access (3.5%), poor signage (3%), highway interference with railroad (2%). Womens compensation and ot her labor costs, regula tions, and taxation were also introduced to be pressing issues a ffecting the freight tr ansportation industry. In 1998, Regan and Golob (1999) studied the pe rceptions of motor carriers about traffic congestion, congestion-relief policies, usefulness of information technologies, and efficiency of intermodal facilities in California through comput er-aided telephone interviews (CATI). A total of 5258 freight operators, includi ng California-based for-h ire trucking companies, private fleets, and for-hire large national carriers were chosen from the databases maintained by Transportation Technical Services, Inc, producing an overall response rate of 22.4% (1177 responses). Most responding operators believe that tr affic congestion will get worse over the next five years. Over half the respondents indicated significant or majo r problems of increased fuel and maintenance costs due to stop and go traffi c, high numbers of accidents an d insurance costs, driver frustrations and morale, and scheduling problems due to unreliable travel times. Similarly, more than half indicated that stop and go driving, speede rs and other traffic violators, and poor road surface quality are important cause s of loss of equipment, damaged goods, or even injury to drivers. Almost 90% of the frei ght operators also replied that at least sometimes schedules are missed, drivers are re-routed due to congestion, or customer timewindows force drivers to work in congestion. Preferred congest ion relief policies in cluded adding more freeway lanes, truck only lanes on freeways or arterials, better traffi c signal coordination along the arterials, and so

PAGE 46

46 forth. The surveyed operators perceive that de dicated highway advisory radio, traffic reports on commercial radio stations, and face-to-face report s among drivers at truck stops and terminals are somewhat useful by drivers on the road, wh ile traffic reports on te levision and computer traffic maps on the Internet are ve ry useful to dispatchers. With respect to intermodal operations, about 45% of the operators pointed out that ope rations of carriers are often or very often impacted by congestion or other problems at ma ritime ports, while only 25% of them indicated this for airports or rail terminals. The American Trucking Association (ATA) su rveyed 470 stratified, randomly selected private and for-hire motor carriers based in th e Baltimore region (ATA, 1997). It yielded a response rate of 13.1% (62 returned surveys) after two times mailing and follow-up calls. The ATA worked with the Baltimore Metropolitan C ouncil and the Maryland Motor Transportation Association for the survey questions to check out various needs of tr ansportation users in Baltimore region. The survey questions included company characteristics, major routes of travel, impediments in freight fl ows, infrastructure improvement s needed, downtown freight pick up and delivery, time of day travel freight origins and destinations, intermoda l freight activity, company future plans. The survey results desc ribe facts and motor carr iers perceptions about freight transportation in the Baltimore region. Especially, traffic congestion was thought to be one major structural impediment to freight movement. Intersection design/function, ramp design, tools, constructions projects were listed by some motor carriers as well. In 2001, two surveys were conducted to obtain the opinions of the public and large truck drivers on road safety issues (Center for Public Po licy, 2001). A computer-assisted telephone surveys produced 2415 samples of randomly select ed adult residents from Virginia (n=602), Maryland (n=600), North Carolina (n=610), and West Virginia (n=603) w ith a cooperation rate

PAGE 47

47 of 52%. For truck drivers, an intercept survey was used at three truck stops (Lee Hi Truck Stop (n=206), Truck Stops of America (n=318), and Wh ites Truck Stop (n=102) on interstate 81 and 95, producing 618 samples. The surveys discovered some overall aspects of truck drivers and difference in perspectives on safety issues fr om truckers and public respondents. The main findings from the surveys are as follows: More than 70% of truckers in the surv ey were company drivers opposed to owneroperators. Most truck drivers (about 70%) ge t paid based on miles driven. More than 90% of truckers in the survey are driving tractor-semi trailers. More than 80% of truckers spend 3 7 days away from home every week. Most truckers take time for a sleep break at pr ivate truck stops or publ ic rest areas rather than motels or roadside. Both truckers and public re spondents perceived the highway s driven on most often by them to be somewhat safe. Truck drivers and public respondent s tend to attribute conflicts or crashe s between cars and trucks to each other. Both truckers and public responde nts agreed that the driving ha bits of large bus drivers are considered to be the most safe and least aggressive around cars. Both truckers and public responde nts agreed that drivers of large trucks drive somewhat aggressively around cars. Truck drivers get information of crashes betw een cars and trucks mostly from other truck drivers or citizen band (CB) radio, while public respondents get it from television or newspaper mostly. Truck drivers and motorists opinions of such restrictions at three sites (I-5 Southcenter Hill, SR-520, and I-5 Southbound to Tacoma Ma ll) in the Puget Sound region of Washington State were obtained through surveys in 1992 (K oehne, et al., 1997). The trucker survey was performed at two truck stop locations (one day at each location), slightly more than four months after the last restrictions we re put into place on I-5 Southcen ter Hill, yielding 129 completed

PAGE 48

48 surveys. A mail-back survey was distributed to motorists who traveled each of the three restricted sections of highway more than thre e months after the last restrictions. About 400 license plate numbers were collected from each si te for this purpose. The survey produced 153 completed responses (response rate of about 16%). The major findings are as follows: A relatively high 31.4 percent of truckers in dicated that they had disobeyed the lane restrictions, while about 78 per cent of motorists indicated that they have seen truckers disobey them. Only about 32 percent of the truckers are in favor of keeping Puget Sound lane restrictions, while 91 percent of the motorists are in favor of them. The ne gative view of most truckers toward restrictions could also be simply becau se they believe they are not necessary since trucks rarely use the leftmo st lanes on ascending grades. About 65 percent of truckers and motorists indica ted that it is not clear which vehicles or which lanes are subject to the lane restrictions. Only about 30 percent of the truckers believ e that lane restrictions improve freeway operations, while 86 percen t of the motorists do. Only about 31 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions improve safety, while 82 percent of the motorists do. About 66 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions should include buses, and 74 percent of the motorists do. Only about 21 percent of the truc kers believe that lane restri ctions should be expanded to more freeway sections, while 83 percent of the motorists do. Three logit models were also developed for exploring truckers and motorists favorability and awareness of truck restrictions There is a profile of a truc ker who is least likely to favor truck restrictions, one who admits to violating restrictions, frequently changes lanes to avoid rough pavement, typically carrie s nonperishable cargo, is between 20 and 40 years old, and has been licensed for many years. Mo torists most likely to favor re strictions also fit a definite profile; one who frequently changes lanes to av oid being followed by trucks, typically drives a passenger car, is between 30 a nd 45 years old, and has been a long-time licensed driver. The motorists most likely to be awar e of Puget Sound truck lane restri ctions are male passenger car

PAGE 49

49 operators who have been licensed relatively few years. Efforts to improve motorist awareness should focus on those motorists who do not fit this profile. A study by Golob and Regan (2002) investigat ed the perceptions of truck company managers on usefulness of different source of traffic information to trucking operations. Managers from 1177 trucking companies includi ng 34% private carriers and 66% for-hire carriers were asked how useful th ey consider different sources of traffic information are to the dispatchers and to their drivers. The survey s were distributed to 5258 companies containing 804 California-based for-hire companies, 2129 Californi a-based private carriers, and for-hire large national carriers based outside of California, ove rall response rate of 22.4 %. The relationships between 6 characteristics of the companies (load type, carrier type, primar y service, location of logistics manager, intermodal operations, and average length of load moves) and managerperceived usefulness of different source of traffi c information to dispatchers or drivers, are discovered through canonical correl ation analysis. The respondent s were asked to evaluate the sources in one of the three categories (i.e., ve ry useful, somewhat useful, and not useful). With respect to the overall useful ness to dispatchers, reports from the drivers on the road are judged to be most useful followed by traffic reports on the radio. Least useful was traffic reports on television, followed by internet traffic maps. Reports from their own drivers are valued most highly by carriers with either rail or multiple intermodal operations, and traffic reports on commercial radio statio ns are useful to general LTL carriers and operations based in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Traffic reports on television are thought to be useful to movers, and intermodal operations. Internet traffic informa tion is judged to be useful to operators with long moves, and phone calls to Ca ltrans are considered to be us eful to operations based in California, but outside of th e two largest metropolitan areas.

PAGE 50

50 Concerning overall usefulness to drivers, ch angeable message signs (CMS) was thought to be most useful, followed by CBR (Citizen Ba nd Radio) or other radi o reports from other drivers. Traffic reports on commercial radio sta tion were considered as useful as face-toface reports among drivers, while Dedicated highw ay advisory radio (HAR) was rated to be least useful for drivers. Face-to-face reports among drivers at truck stops and terminals are useful with rail intermodal operations, and CMS was useful to common carriers and operations from outside of CA carriers with long load move s. CBR reports from other drivers are deemed to be useful exclusively to tr uckload carriers, and HAR is judged to be useful to common carriers or carriers with long load moves. As far as future traffic information sources are concerned, HAR and CMS are considered to be most useful followed by in-vehicle na vigation system. In-vehicle navigation, computer traffic map, CMS, and traffic inform ation kiosk are expected to be useful to operations from outside of CA, and carriers with long moves, while HAR is thought to be useful for carriers with both truckload and LTL in the future. Crum, et al. (2001) developed a conceptual level of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver fatigue model by reviews of the 55 litera ture and focus group meetings with industry professionals. It was later used for developing a survey for truck drivers to explore driving environment effects on driver fatigue and crash rates. The model categorized three factors influencing driver fatigue and crashes; CMV driving environm ents, economic pressures, and carrier support for driving safe ty. The CMV driving environments were subcategorized into three issues as regularity of tim e, quality of rest, and trip control, under which a total of 25 individual measures fall, while fatigue and crash outcome measures included 15 items. The data for analysis were collected at five truck stops each in diffe rent states, yielding 502 usable

PAGE 51

51 surveys. A $10 cash inducement was offered to pa rticipants in 1999 with the assistance of the National Association of Truck Stop Operator s (NATSO). Twelve driving environment indicators were found to be meaningfully relate d to 15 fatigue and crash outcome measures; two regularity of time items, six measures of trip contro l, and four items for qua lity of rest. Factor analysis identified three constr ucts underlying the 15 fatigue a nd crash measures; close call due to fatigue, the perception of fatigue as a problem for self and other drivers, and crashes. From the regression analysis, long load time and start workweek tired is found to be significant in increasing frequency of close calls due to fatigue, while the frequency of the use of -hour time zone was negatively related to close calls unexpectedly. Long load time and start workweek tired also were associated with mo re fatigue, while more uninterrupted hours of sleep, more use of regular routes, and more times driving the same hours were associated with less fatigue. More average stops per da y and start workweek tired were found to significantly increase the number of crashes. At the front part of this st udy, it was decided to use focus group and survey methods in obtaining the perceptions and opinions of the truc king community. Thus, some previous studies relevant to this issue were revi ewed in this section to search for an effective way to conduct focus group and survey studies for the objective of this study. The authors of the studies provide their experiences and recomme ndations about focus group preparation, survey data collection and perceptions of the trucking community on various trucking-related issues as results. For the sake of this study, potential Fl orida trucking community focus group and survey participant recruitment sources, and advantages and disadvant ages of various trucking community survey methods are summarized in the following three sec tions, based on the findings from this section.

PAGE 52

52 2.4 Florida Trucking Community Focus Gr oup Participant Recruitment Sources It is generally difficult to invite truck driv ers to a meeting at one place and time. They usually spend a significant portion of their time driv ing on the road, and their schedules are apt to change for time-variant demand for deliveries. On e survey on truck safety issues at three truck stops (Center for Public Policy, 2001) showed that more than 80 percent of the total of 618 surveyed truck drivers spends 3 to 7 days away from home every week for deliveries. Given these constraints, following pot ential recruitment sources were found for truck driver focus groups: Florida Trucking Association (FTA) Road Team members Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTDC) participants Florida-based National Truckers Association (NTA) members Truck drivers from one or two trucking companies Many previous trucking-related studies have benefited from the cooperation of national or state trucking associations. The American Trucking Association (ATA) is a major national association for United States trucking indus try, which often provide s assistance to the researchers, even conducting resear ch studies by itself (ATA, 1997). Most states have either the state trucking association or motor vehicle carri er association, which is the state division of ATA. The Florida Trucking Associ ation (FTA) is in that category. A focus group study was conducted in Toronto at the annual convention of the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) with its Road Kn ight Team members, which consist of 10 professional truck drivers (Hostovs ky and Hall, 2004). FTA Road T eam is the equivalent of the OTA Road Knight Team. The FTA Road Team in cludes 8 professional driv ers from 6 different companies. They are highly informed professi onals (each with more than 15 years of truck driving experience) and care abou t their industry and profession enough to take time from their daily jobs to speak at any public gatherings and give safety de monstration to the general public.

PAGE 53

53 The Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTD C) is an annual competition of truck drivers driving skills and know ledge on how to operate trucks safely and efficiently. Each participant competes for the championship in one of eight classes of trucks (i.e., single truck, three-axle, four-axle, five-axle, tank truck, flat bed, sleeper bert h, and twins). The champions of this event represent Florida truck drivers in the annual National Truck Driving Championship (NTDC). Florida-licensed truck drivers, who perfo rmed regular duties of a full-time professional truck driver with no accident history for at least a year and no crimin al record in the past 5 years, are eligible to particip ate in the competition. The National Truckers Associ ation (NTA) is an organiza tion designed to protect and support the trucking business of independent (own er-operator) truck drivers. For the reason, most NTA members are inde pendent truck drivers. One or two big-sized trucking companies may he lp get their drivers together for a focus group meeting. The following potential sources of trucking company contacts were found: FTA membership directory Center for Economic Development Res earch (CEDR) Data Center (ES202) Florida Department of Highway Sa fety & Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV) Transportation Technical Services, Inc (TTS) A total of 180 Florida-based trucking companies are listed in the FTA membership directory. They are categorized by 5 chapters (geographical locations), or 6 conferences (carrier types). One study (Lawson, et al., 2002) utilized the Or egon Employment Department database (ES202), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Motor Carrier Transportation Division truck registration database, and ODOT Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division Commercial Drivers License (CDL) database to survey fr eight shippers and carriers. Likewise, ES202 database from CEDR Data Cent er or FDHSMV database can be used to contact the trucking companies in Florida. The information by TTS was used in the Golob and Regan (2002) study.

PAGE 54

54 It includes national motor carrier directory, private fleet direct ory, and owner-operator directory database. FDOT personnel also recommended the following companies as potential sources of truck driver participant recruitment: Watkins Motor Lines, Inc (one of the nations largest LTL carriers) Landstar Systems, Inc (a big logist ics and transportation provider) Roundtree Transport & Rigging, Inc It seems to be also difficult to recruit manager-level particip ants for focus group meetings. A study by Morris, et al. (1998) performed 13 i ndustry sector focus groups, but with only 2 participants per group. Some of them also used a conference call. They seem to be tight in their time schedules. The following potential recrui tment sources were found for truck company manager focus groups. FTA Leadership Conference participants FTA Safety Management Council (SMC) members Truck company managers from two or more trucking companies In 2004, Veras, et al. (2005) conducted 2 focus groups with truck dispatchers as a part of the Evaluation Study of the Port Authority of New York and New Jerseys Value Pricing Initiative. FTA Leadership Conference is held annually to suppor t and enhance trucking business for Florida trucking community. Florid a-based Truck company owners and managers are the main attendees in this event. SMC memb ers consist of professional safety managers from FTA member companies. Their primary goal is to make trucking in Florida as safe as possible. It is also possible to contact some of the trucking companies by using the same sources presented earlier to recruit truck company managers. 2.5 Trucking Community Survey Methods In-field survey methods have often been used by other resear chers to collect truck driver surveys. The perceptions of tr uck drivers on roadway safety i ssues (Center for Public Policy,

PAGE 55

55 2001) were surveyed at three truck stops (Lee Hi Truck Stop, Truck St ops of America, and Whites Truck Stop on interstate 81 and 95), produc ing a total of 618 surveys. A truck driver survey by Koehne, et al. (1997) was performed at two truck stop locations (one day at each location), yielding 129 completed surveys. Anot her study about truck driv er fatigue and crash rates (Crum, et al., 2001) conducted surveys at 5 truck stop locations: Maryland, Georgia, California, Iowa, and Colorado. The National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO) assisted with the study, producing a total of 502 us able surveys (overall e ffective response rate was 97.3% with $10 cash incentives). A week-long survey of deliveries to Trinity College Dublin (TCD) was also conducted with an interc ept survey method at the gate of the campus, resulting in an 82% response rate (Finnegan et al., 2004). Surveying truck drivers at rest stops or truck stops have following benefits: It usually shows good overall productivity with some types of incentives. The completed surveys are colleted promptly on site. It asks for the percepti ons of truck drivers on truck operation issues while they are on a trip, so their experiences are fresh. It enables face-to-face interactions between the participants and surveying staff. This helps yield more completed surveys and reduce the ri sk of the participants misunderstanding of the questions. However, it is required for the surveying staff to spend a fair amount of time and effort in the field. Considering the irregular work ing hours and job characterist ics of the truck drivers, it would be effective to distribute the surveys directly to them. It may be possible that written surveys are filled out by truck drivers where they can take time to fill them out. At places where truck drivers stay for a short time, written postage-paid surveys could be distributed to them so that they can return them later by mail. Otherwis e, written postage-paid surveys may be sent to a

PAGE 56

56 number of trucking companies that can distribute the su rveys to their drivers. The sources of contacting trucking companies are listed in the previous section. Different survey methods can be considered for surveying truck company managers. Two studies by Lawson and Riis, and Lawson, et al. (2001 and 2002) compared several methods to survey the freight community (i.e., shippers and carriers) by a literatu re review and a pilot study. It was found that the most effective survey method in terms of response rates is a phonebased survey although a written survey is preferred by the freight firms. In the pilot study, the highest response rate (60%) was achieved by a telephone interview survey (with five callbacks). The other study (Regan and Golob, 1999) obtained a response rate of 35% with a phone survey. However, the response rates fo r previous written surveys of the trucking community only ranged from 8% (Lawson and Riis, 2001). General characteristics of the survey methods are described in Table 2-1. Mail-based surveys are less costly and time-consuming while producing relatively lo w response rate. It would be helpful to contact th e potential respondents in person or by phone to improve the response rate. In one study (SPRPC, 1996), followup phone calls resulted in an 5% increase of the response rate (from 4% to 9 %). The other study (ATA, 1997) showed a response rate of 13.1% by mailing twice with follow-up phone calls. The surveys were personally distributed to the potential respondents to improve the response rate in anothe r study (Finnegan, et al., 2005). This approach also enabled to obtain helpful feedback and co mments about the survey issues directly from them. The survey questions should be clear and simple to reduce the possibility that the respondents misunderstand them. A postage -paid survey format is typically used to reduce the respondents effort s to return the surveys.

PAGE 57

57 Phone-based surveys usually require more money and effort while yielding relatively high response rate. The two studies (Lawson and Riis, 2001 and Lawson, et al., 2002) indicated that a traditional structured phone survey is us eful in obtaining detailed information about specific issues, but is not suitable for a sample si ze large enough to repres ent the views of a big population. The Computer-Aided Telephone Interview (CATI) allows for a large sample size while reducing the opportunity to fu lly explore a certain aspect of any given topic. The CATI is typically conducted by survey companies because it requires trained intervie wers and interactive CATI computer systems. The participants resp onses are keyed directly into a computer and administration of the interview is managed by a specifically designed software program. The program does not accept invalid surveys. In a survey study of freight operators (Regan and Golob, 1999 and Golob and Regan, 2002), the CATI was conducted by Strategic Consulting and Research, an Irvine, Californ ia-based survey company, yiel ding a response rate of 35%. The Web-based survey method is less costly an d easy to administer, but the response rate from this method may greatly depend on publicity a nd advertisement of the surveys. Some types of contacts (e.g., phone, email, mail) with poten tial respondents are highly encouraged to increase the response rate. L ittle is known about the use of this method for surveying the trucking community. The Idaho Technology Transfer Center, in conjunction with the ATA, is conducting a web-based study about the perceptions of truck drivers or fleet managers on the benefits of anti-icing chemicals and reductions of potential vehicle co rrosion (Alexander and Moore, 2006). Regardless of the survey method(s), a clear in dication of the contribution(s) of a survey study to the trucking community or industry may encourage the potential respondents to participate in the survey. The sponsorships of trucking-related associations or institutes (e.g.,

PAGE 58

58 FTA, ATA, or FDOT, etc.) may help reinforce the importance of the survey study, resulting in an improvement of the response rate as well. Table 2-1. Comparison of Survey Methods Survey Methods Characteristics Mail-based Survey Phone-based Survey Web-based Survey Advantages Less costly and timeconsuming Interviewer bias is not introduced Uniform survey method Provide respondents with enough time to give thoughtful answers Suitable for obtaining larger and more representative sample Relatively high response rate Chance to correct misunderstandings Chance to get more detailed information No respondents efforts required to return surveys Less costly, easy to administer Fast results Provide respondents with enough time to give thoughtful answers No respondents efforts required to return surveys Disadvantages Relatively low response rate Potential long time delay Hard to ensure that the right person will complete the survey Potential misunderstanding of the questionnaires by the respondents Respondents efforts required to return surveys o More costly and timeconsuming o Dependent on respondent availability o Not suitable for large sample size o Can not be used for non-audio information o May present lack of uniformity Response rates may greatly depend on publicity/advertisement of the surveys Hard to ensure that the right person will complete the survey Typical Range of Response Rates 824% 3564% Highly variable Studies in which used Lawson and Riis (2001) Lawson, et al. (2002) Finnegan, et al. (2005) SPRPC (1996) ATA (1997) Lawson and Riis (2001) Lawson, et al. (2002) Regan and Golob (1999) Golob and Regan (2002) Alexander and Moore (2003)

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH APPROACH This exploratory study was aimed at discoveri ng the factors important to estimate LOS on existing roadway systems, as perceived by truck m ode users. This was intended to provide the FDOT with the information about the determinants of truck LOS and the levels of their significance with which it can de velop methods to effectively ev aluate LOS provided for trucks on various roadway facilities. To accomplish this it was necessary to obtain the perceptions and opinions of the trucking community on what factors are important for the quality of a truck trip on various transportation facilities and the relative significance of each of those factors. Focus group and survey studies were conduc ted to satisfy this requirement. Truck drivers and truck compa ny managers are the two major stakeholder groups for the LOS provided for trucks. Truck drivers delive r goods by driving trucks while truck company managers operate the trucks and drivers to make a profit. Truck drivers are the most important group concerning truck LOS, in that they are the ones who actually drive the trucks on the road, so their performance and satisfaction is dir ectly affected by the LOS provided by various transportation facilities. Their performance leve ls also have major effects on trucking business in such aspects as on-time pe rformance, operating cost, etc. Truck company managers are primarily concerned with those trucking business concerns, but in most cases they need to manage their fleet on existing ro adway facilities based on the pe rceptions and opinions of their drivers due to the lack of regular truck dr iving experience. Thus the focus was on the perceptions of truck drivers, wh ile the perceptions of truck company managers were also sought to be compared with those of truck drivers. Initially, very limited knowledge was present on the factors determining LOS perceived by the trucking community. This required a sma ll number of observations to be obtained through

PAGE 60

60 some type of qualitative study to get enough information to develop a more formal survey, which would then be used to obtain the perceptions of a larger sample to represent the trucking community. Typically, there are two types of qua litative study methods; personal interviews and focus group studies. Individual interviews can requi re a considerable amount of time and effort. A respondent is also apt to be unwittingly influe nced by an interviewer, or, often not able to come up with his/her opinions about various aspe cts of the subjects dur ing the interview. Homogeneous and information-rich participan ts in a focus group study can boost the diverse conversation about the subjects with little guidance from a modera tor. Thus, focus group studies were performed for this study. Focus group studies do not provide enough observa tions for quantitative analysis. Thus, a follow-on survey study was conducted to confir m the focus group findings with a broader audience and measure the relative importance of each factor quantitatively. The surveys focused only on potentially relevant and important items. Based on the focus group and survey studies, the guidelines for developing truck LOS estimation methodologies were developed to provide the FDOT with potential service measures for truck LOS and/or a list of f actors that should be considered to develop truck LOS estimation models on various roadway facilities. The overall description of the research approach of this study is presented in Figure 3-1. To develop actual truck LOS estimation models in future studies, experimental data should be collected to quantitatively m easure the correlations between the service me asures and/or the list of factors identified in this study and the pe rceptions of a representa tive sample of truck drivers on trip quality. This ofte n requires some experimental effo rts with in-field driving, video simulation, or driving simulator methods.

PAGE 61

61 3.1 Focus Group Sessions The primary objective of this focus group study was to identify the roadway, traffic, and control factors that are important to the truc king community for truck trip quality on various transportation facilities and to explore the per ceptional differences between truck drivers and truck company managers on the relative importance of each factor. Ultimately, this study sought to inform transpor tation service providers of what should be focused on to better accommodate truck traffic on existing roadway facilities. Thus, the factors that cannot be controlled by the transportation service providers were of less interest in the discussions, although the discussions were open to any factor im portant to the quality of a complete truck trip from origin to destina tion. The focus was on the operational and design policies and issues relative to truck operations on various road way facilities (e.g., lane widths, traveler information systems, etc.) as opposed to truck industry regulation issues such as number of continuous hours of driving, maximum non-permit we ight loads, etc. Weather-related factors were also less of a concern. Three focus group interviews were conducted to elicit the factors affecting LOS on various transportation facilities perceived by truck m ode users (truck drivers and truck company managers). The participants for each focus group session were recruited by the cooperation of the Florida Trucking Association (F TA). Several discussion topics were selected carefully for the overall objective of this study, which is to find out what should be focused on to better accommodate truck traffic on the existing roadway system. During each focus group session, the topics were introduced to the participants with several open-ended questions so that they discuss each topic amongst themselves with only a little guidance from the moderator. The focus group discussions were transcribed and summarized to be used as inputs to a follow-on survey.

PAGE 62

62 3.1.1 Participant Recruitment Based on the review and considerations of fo cus group participant recruitment presented in Chapter 2, it was decided that the most effective and efficient approach to recruiting candidates for the focus group sessions would be with the c ooperation of the FTA. With the FTAs contacts and presence in the industry, they would be much more capable of identifying willing participants for this study. Thus, assistan ce from the FTA was solicited (Appendix A for a cooperation request letter), and they were happy to assist. FTA staff were pleased to hear that the FDOT was conducting a research project ta rgeted at the LOS needs of the trucking community. For the focus group participant recruitment, several documents were provided to the FTA to inform them of preferred participant ch aracteristics, what ques tions would be asked throughout the sessions, and how the sessions wo uld be conducted. The documents included focus group instructions (Appendi x B), guidelines for participan t selection (Appendix C), and a focus group moderators guide (Appendix D). For the truck drivers focus group sessions, the FTA recruited members from its Road Team. Two other truck driver candidates were also recruited. Once they provided a list of thes e candidates, a follow-up recruitment letter was emailed to them to ask for confirmation. Focu s group instructions and a map to the meeting place were attached to the email as well. Two focus group sessions were held with the truck drivers as follows: 5 people including 4 FTA Road Team memb ers, 2.5 hours of discussion, on November 15th, 2005 4 people including 3 FTA Road Team memb ers, 2.5 hours of discussion, on December 8th, 2005

PAGE 63

63 It was initially planned to al so hold two focus group sessions with truck managers, but the FTA found the recruitment of these individuals to be much more difficult. Ultimately, just one 2-hour focus group session was held w ith three managers on November 17th, 2005. 3.1.2 Participant Selection When the FTA agreed to help recruit the pa rticipants for the focus group meetings, the guidelines for selecting the participants were de veloped and provided to the FTA (Appendix C). This was intended to ask the FTA to consider the guidelines to obtain a repr esentative sample of the Florida trucking community. They describe ch aracteristics of eligible participants and the desirable participant composition for each focu s group. This section explains the reasoning behind the development of the guidelines. Initially, a total of four focus group intervie ws were proposed (two with drivers and two with managers), balancing the sc ope and resources available for this study. The two distinct groups of participants were separately invited to different meetings because they were expected to have different perspectives wi th regard to the discussion topics Truck drivers may show more concerns about the traffic, road way, and/or control factors aff ecting truck driving comfort and amount of earning while truck company managers may be more concerned with the factors contributing to their trucking businesses. The separation of the two groups not only made the participants comfortable to shar e their opinions, but also helped the research team to clearly identify the perceptions of each group. The de sired number of participants in each focus group was originally 8. However, it proved challenging for the FTA to obtain this number of participants. Thus, about half this number of participants for each focus group was obtained. Nonetheless, these group sizes worked out well give n the depth and breadth of the participants in each session, and that each of the participants had much to contribute to the discussions.

PAGE 64

64 There are several major socio-economic or working characteristics of the trucking community that may be highly correlated with th eir perceptions on the fa ctors affecting LOS on transportation facilities. It is not realistic to ta ke into account all the characteristics of the focus group participants with the several focus group m eetings, but consideratio n would help recruit a more representative sample of the Florida truc king community. The following characteristics of the trucking community were c onsidered in the guidelines: Hauling distance : Long-haul trucking with frequent travel on the Floridas SIS facilities was of main interest in this exploratory study as opposed to local or short-haul trucking, which only use small portion of th e Floridas SIS facilities. Carrier type : It was desired to include the part icipants from both for-hire and private truck companies. Private trucks moved 32.7 percen t, and for-hire trucks transported 43.3 percent of the total freight valu e originating in Florida in 2002 (BTS, 2004). The rest of the percent (24 percent) was delivered by other modes such as train, ship, plane, or multiple modes. One survey study (Golob and Regan, 2002) verified the percep tional difference between private and for-hire truck companies about various sources of traffic information. Load type : It was desired to include truck dr ivers from both Truckload (TL) and Lessthan-Truckload (LTL) carriers. It is likely that the perceptions of TL drivers on truck trip quality issues are different from those of LTL driver due to the weight of the equipment and goods. The TL and LTL operations are defined as follows: TruckLoad (TL): The quantity of freight required to fill a truck. Usually in excess of 10,000 pounds. When used in connection with fr eight rates, the qua ntities of freight necessary to qualify a shipme nt for a truckload rate. Less-than-TruckLoad (LTL): A quantity of freight less than that required for the application of a truckload ra te. Usually less than 10,000 pounds and generally involves the use of terminal facilities to break and consolidate shipments.

PAGE 65

65 Truck type : It is likely that perceptional differe nce among the drivers operating different types of trucks exists due to their discrete size and operational characteristics. The majority of the trucks on the roads were categorized into the following three types of trucks in terms of truck configurations: Straight Truck (single unit truck) Truck-Trailer (truck-trail er, truck-double trailer) Tractor-Trailer (tracto r-semitrailer, twin-trailer, rocky mountain double, turnpike double) It was desired that each truck driver focus gr oup include at least three truck drivers, each operating different three types of the trucks. Fleet size : It was desired to include truck driv ers that represented companies with a variety of fleet sizes. About 87 percent of the ca rriers in the U.S. operated 6 or fewer trucks, 9 percent operated the fleet size between 7 and 20, a nd 4 percent operated more than 20 trucks in 2004 (ATA, 2005). Others : ATA (2005) showed that 29.4% of the to tal drivers in the U.S. were minorities in 2003 and the percentage has been going up gradua lly from the year 1996. Only 4.6 % of the total truck drivers in the U.S. were women in 2003, but the percentage has been going down since 2001. So, inclusion of the minority or wo man truck drivers in focus group sessions was desired, but this was obviously difficult to attain, given their limited proportions. Overall, a good composition of participants wa s recruited for the two truck driver focus groups in terms of carrier type and primary load type. The participants were all from major trucking companies with at least 16 years of truc k driving job experience. The truck types they operate include various tractor-tr ailers. However, no straight tr uck driver, truck trailer driver, female driver, or minority driver was present on the meetings. Only one truck company manager focus group was conducted with three managers. They were all from the TL carriers with at least

PAGE 66

66 5 years of truck company manage r experiences. One was from private company while the other two were from for-hire companies. A detailed description of the focus group participants backgrounds is provided in Appendix E. 3.1.3 Focus Group Questionnaires For each focus group interview, several discussion topics were introduced to the participants by the moderator th rough several open-ended questi ons. Then, the participants talked about the topics amongst each other with a lit tle guidance of the moderator. An identical set of questions was presented for each meeting to compare and contrast the perceptions of truck drivers with those of truck company managers. Th e issues to be covered were selected according to the overall objectives of this focus group study, which is to inve stigate which factors transportation service providers should focus on to better accommodate truck traffic. Following four topics were considered as most relevant to this study, th erefore were covered during each focus group meeting. Truck travel route and departure time selection : Who is responsible for selec ting a truck travel route and departure time for a delivery? When selecting a travel route and departure time for a delivery, what factor are considered and what is their relative significance? Truck trip quality on various transportation facilities : When you drive a truck on Floridas roadway f acilities (i.e., freeways, arterials, and twolane highways) for a delivery, what factors a ffect the quality of a truck trip and how significant is each of those factors for it? (for truck driver groups) When you consider truck operations on Florid as roadway facilities (i.e., freeways, arterials, and two-lane highways), what factors affect the quality of a truck trip and how significant is each of those factors for it? (for truck company manager groups) Transportation service improvement priority for trucking industry : What types of transportati on facilities (e.g., freeways, urban arterials) would you emphasize most for improving truck operations in Florida?

PAGE 67

67 What are your top priorities for improving tr ip quality/travel c ondition for commercial trucks? Truck delivery schedule reliability : What factors affect the truck drivers ability to reach a destination on time? How often does a late delivery take place? What are the typical consequences fo r you/your company of a late delivery? The most important contributors to quality of a truck trip perceived by the trucking community were thought to be the factors that they consider fo r truck route and departure time decision, so they were asked in the first place. The participants provided their valuable insight about in what respect certain r outes and times of day are prefe rred or avoided by them and which specific factors contributes to each of those aspe cts. The performance levels of those factors have most significant impacts on their trucking bus iness and truck trip quality perceived by them. Secondly, the participants were di rectly asked to list the factor s affecting quality of a truck trip. The topic was introduced by each roadway type in that it was generally admitted in the first focus group meeting that the importance of a factor on truck trip quality vary by which type of a roadway it is on. For example, it was discusse d that the importance of shoulder width and condition on truck trip quality for two-lane highways was considered to be much bigger than that on freeways. The participants also indicated how and how much each factor influences truck trip quality based on their direct or indirect experiences. Improvement priorities among vari ous transportation issues and facilities were asked next. It was intended to search for the facilities or specific factors which are getting relatively less attention by transportation service providers compared to their re lative importance on truck trip quality. The participants comments on this issue will be a good reference for prioritizing transportation improvement plans.

PAGE 68

68 As the truck volume and the demand for just-in-time deliveries have increased in Florida, the importance of truck delivery schedule reliability ha s become critical. Thus, at the last part of the discussion, the participants were asked to list the factors contributing to the issue and indicate their level of impact on it. Truck company manage r participants explicitly mentioned that their customers assess the performance level of thei r truck companies based primarily upon on-time delivery performance. The factors affecting ontime performance, frequency and consequences of a late delivery were e xplored within this topic. The factors identified as important to any of the topics covered in the focus group discussion were used as a primary input for a fo llow-on survey so that the importance of each of those factors could be verifi ed by a larger audience and the relative significance among the factors on truck trip quality coul d be quantitatively investigated. 3.1.4 Conducting Interviews The focus group meetings were held at th e Civil Engineering Conference Room or Transportation Research Center Conference Room at the University of Florida. All the meetings were moderated by a researcher who is knowledgeab le to direct the discussions for the purpose of this study. Upon the arrival of the participants, they were asked to fill out an informed consent form and a two-page participant b ackground survey (Appendix F and G). During the main session, the moderator introduced the selected topics to the partic ipants with several general open-ended questions (Appendix D). Each question was displayed on a big screen to help keep the participants focu sed on the issue being discussed. The participants discussed each topic amongst each other with just a little guidanc e from the moderator. Although all the issues were planned to be covered within the two hour s, it turned out to not be enough time because they had so much to say about each topic. The truck driver focus groups were extended by about

PAGE 69

69 30 minutes with the permission of the participants. Participa tion in the focus group meetings was voluntary. The audio from the focus group meetings wa s recorded on a laptop computer through external microphones and a specialized software product that enabled every comment to be associated with the corresponding speaker. Th e recorded audio file s (.wav files) were transcribed into an electronic text format. Th e transcriptions were reviewed in detail by the research team to ensure their accu racy. After the transcriptions were complete and accurate, the focus group discussions were su mmarized and used as guidan ce in the development of the follow-on surveys. 3.1.5 Summary of Discussions The results of the focus group studies were summarized by each issue covered in the discussions. The participants did not always focus on the issue being discussed. They sometimes jumped onto the previously discussed issues or the issues to be discussed later. As long as the discussions remained on relevant topics, the moderator did not redirect the conversation. Thus, it was required to collect participants comments a bout each issue spread over the transcriptions. Some of the comments were paraphrased for clarity and brevity, but care was taken not to place any personal perceptions on the summary. The factors perceived to affect truck trip quality were categorized by each transp ortation facility type (e.g., freeways). Each of the factors was listed and describe d with the participants comment s about its contribution to the truck trip quality and their dire ct or indirect experiences with it. The perceptions of truck company managers were separately summarized to be compared with th ose of truck drivers. The focus group meetings covered many issues in a limited amount of time. The discussions were directed by the moderator to draw out a list of the factors important to truck trip quality, not spending too much time on one or two specific factors. Thus it was not appropriate

PAGE 70

70 to make quantitative implications of the discussi ons on the relative importan ce of each factor. It was investigated quantitatively in a follow-on survey, which was developed based on the focus group discussion summary. 3.2 Survey Studies The primary objective of this survey study wa s to verify the importance of each factor identified in the previous focus group study with a larger audience and to quantitatively measure the relative significance of each of those fact ors on truck trip quality on Floridas roadway system. Preference of the respondents on truck dr iving time of day was also investigated to explore how quality of truck driving environm ent varies by time of day. The background characteristics of the respondents that were corre lated with their perceptio ns on truck trip quality or preference on truck driving time of day were identified. The survey included following three parts: working and socio-economic backgrounds of the respondents; their perceptions on the relative importance of each factor on truck trip quality; and their opinions about the importance of each hypothetical truck LOS performance measure. Two sets of survey forms were distributed; one for truck drivers and the other for truck company managers. Some questions about the backgrounds of the respondents differed in the two survey forms, but identical sets of factors and hypothetical performance measures were evaluated in both surveys. They were carefully selected based on the previous focus group study results. Only truck trip quality determinants on the fo llowing three roadway types were investigated considering the lengths and comple xity of the surveys: freeways; urban arterials; and two-lane highways. A total of 459 truck drivers and 38 truck company managers responded to the written surveys collected at Florida Truck Driving Ch ampionship (FTDC) event or the postage-paid mail-back surveys distributed at four agricultural inspection stati ons. The survey responses were

PAGE 71

71 analyzed with various statistical methods such as descriptive statisti cs, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), multiple comparisons of the means, non-parametric tests, and chi-squared tests of independence. 3.2.1 Question Types When the issues to be questioned in the survey were selected, a questions type for each of those issues was carefully determined to effectiv ely carry out the study. It involved such various considerations as applicability of statistical analyses, res pondent burden, respondent error (or complexity level), measurement accuracy, etc. Following five question types were utilized in this survey study: interval-ra ting questions; ratio-s cale questions; forced-ranking questions; discrete-choice questions; and fi xed-sum questions. This sections describes characteristics (advantages and disadvantages) of those question types based on which the question types for each survey issue of this study were determined. 3.2.1.1 Interval-rating questions This question type is often used to ask for th e perceptions of the respondents. Respondents are asked to present their percep tions on the level of importance, satisfaction, or agreement for each item on an interval-rating scale (e.g., 1 = No t at all Important, 7 = Extremely Important). The accuracy of the participants opinions may be improved as the number of selectable points in a rating scale increases. However, more point s require the respondent to think about the differentiation along the extended scale, increasi ng response burden and time to complete the survey. It is typical to have at least five points on the scale, since fewer than five points generally do not generate normally distributed data which are usually obtained when the data are truly interval in nature. Se ven-and ten-point scales are most common. Even-numbered scale may be used when there is a need to force the re spondents to commit to one side or the other, but

PAGE 72

72 it typically creates a downward bias as they tend to choose five as a neutra l point in a ten-point scale. A critical differentiator between interval-rati ng and ordinal scale ques tions is that equal intervals exist between each ad joining pair of res ponse options. If all response options are literally presented (e.g., 1 = Not At All Important, 2 = Little Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Extremely Important), the differe nce between each adjoining pair of response options are not the same, resulti ng in ordinal scale da ta. Thus, the response values from an ordinal scale question do not have numerical meaning, and categorical or nonparametric statistical analyses can only be ap plicable to the data. It is also true for a forced-ranking question, which is one type of the ordinal scale questions The responses from an interval-rating scale question are appropriate for the numerical in terpretation (although not perfectly), enabling further statistical analyses (e.g., parametric stat istical analyses). However, an interval-rating scale question allows respondents to indica te that everything is almost equally important/satisfied, making the distinction among the factors difficult, while a forced-ranking question require them to make clear distinctions among the factors. 3.2.1.2 Ratio-scale questions Respondents are asked to provide their answer as a ratio to a basic unit of measurement (e.g., year, dollar, hour, etc.) assigned to each ques tion. The ratio scale of measurement is the most informative scale and widely used to obtain participants background data (e.g., age, number of children, how long their phone call was on hold, etc.). It has zero position indicating the absence of the quantity being measured and is an open-ended interval-rating scale, in that there is no designate d upper-end point. The use of a ratio-scale question for responde nts perceptions or opinions (e.g., perceived importance or satisfaction levels) may not be a good idea. It may decrease a response rate,

PAGE 73

73 increase respondent error, and bring about unreasonably large va riances among the responses or participants, rather than increase level of precision in their res ponses with numerous numbers of points in the scale. 3.2.1.3 Forced-ranking questions Respondents are given a number of factors and asked to plac e them in order based on a certain criterion (e.g., importance level). For ex ample, six factors might be presented and the respondent is asked to place a next to the mo st important factor, a next to the second most important factor, and so on. Again, the re sponse values from this scale do not have a meaning numerically, so the data should be analy zed categorically or nonparametrically. These data are often analyzed with a cumulative fre quency distribution for each factor. For example, percent of the respondents pe rceived that factor A is at le ast secondly important among the listed factors. This approach forces them to cl early distinguish one factor from others, usually producing a larger variance among the responses than an interval-rating scale question. A forced ranking question is heavily prone to respondent error. Respondents might interpret it as an interval-rati ng question, use the top and bottom rankings more than once, or rank the top and bottom items skipping the middle ones. In a telephone survey, you could train the interviewers to prompt the respondent for full and correct answ ers. For a web-based survey, you could insert an error feedb ack system, not letting the resp ondents move through the survey without completing the question correctly. These practices are as likely to annoy the respondent as to get real answers. It could also require the respondents to make a considerable effort to complete the survey as the number of factors to be ranked increases. Rank ordering of 10 factors is, in fact, extremely difficult.

PAGE 74

74 3.2.1.4 Discrete-choice questions Respondents are given a list of items and asked to choose one answer that best applies, or specific number of answers that best applies, or all the choices that apply. A survey developer decides which type of discrete-c hoice question is appropriate for a survey issue, considering the characteristics of the issue, study purpose, a nd respondents burden accompanied by the question. This question type is widely used in a survey to ask for the respondents background characteristics as well as thei r perceptions on certain issues. The responses are nominal (or categorical), so it is easier for the respondents to reply to the question than other question types. The discrete-choice data are often presented by (cumulative) frequency distributions of each option category. If the respondent s perceptions are asked with a discrete-choice question, logit modeling technique can be applied where the responses data are us ed as a response variable and other background characteristic data as explan atory variables. Relationships between the perceptions and background char acteristics of the respondent s are identified by the logit modeling technique, which provides an equation to predict the response once a set of background characteristics are given. This question type is often used to ask about the topics that may be potentially sensitive to the res pondents (e.g., income level) because it is less personally obtrusive than a ratio-scale question to the re spondents. In that case, the res ponse data can be used in logit modeling process as a potential explanatory variable. Multiple choices, multiple responses : Respondents are given multiple response categories and asked to select ei ther all the response choices th at apply, or specific number of response options that apply. The former question type is usually used for some background characteristics (e.g., choose all th e types of foods you can cook) a nd the latter is often used to investigate the perceptions of th e respondents (e.g., select 2 type s of foods you like the most). The response data are often analyzed by (cumulativ e) frequency distributions. When the former

PAGE 75

75 question type is used, the data are often convert ed to binary data for each response category and used as potential explanatory variables for variou s statistical modeling (e .g., logit, probit, or regression modeling). The latt er question type requires less respondent burden than other question types for respondents perceptions. The respondents only have to choose a certain number of factors (e.g., 2, 3, or 5 factors) from a list of factors according to their perceptions. Two or three factors are most co mmonly asked to be selected, but the number of factors to be selected basically should be determined based on the purposes of a study. One study by Washburn, et al. (2004) used this question type to identify most important user-perceived trip quality determinants on rural freeways. The resp ondents were asked to select 3 factors most important to their perception of trip quality among 16 listed factors. The importance of each factor was presented by the percent of the responde nts who selected the factor in their top 3 most important factors. Multiple choices, single response : Respondents are asked to select only one most appropriate response out of multiple response opti ons. A survey designer should be careful to direct the respondents to select only one most appropriate response, not just any responses that may apply. If the perceptions of the respondents are asked with this question type, the relationships between their perceptions and b ackground characteristics can be modeled by multicategory logit or probit modeling technique, wh ich provides a means of predicting response probability, given a set of background characteristics. This question type can also be used to ask for some background characteristics of the respondents (e.g., race). In that case, the responses are often converted to a set of bi nary data to be used as explanatory variables for other models. Binary choice : The respondent is asked to select one out of two choices. Typically, these choices are true or false, or yes or no (e.g., existen ce of any dependent). If the perceptions of the

PAGE 76

76 respondents are asked with this question type, th e relationships between their perceptions and background characteristics can be modeled by bina ry logit or probit modeling technique, which provides a means of predicting re sponse probability, given a set of background characteristics. This question type can also be used to as k for some background characteristics of the respondents (e.g., gender) and defined as an explanat ory variable for other models. In all cases, the data can be easily represen ted by frequency distributions. 3.2.1.5 Fixed-sum questions Fixed-sum or fixed-allocation questions are co mbination of the inte rval-rating scale and the forced-ranking questions. Respondents are given a set of factors and asked to allocate a total of 100 points to the factors for a certain aspect (e.g., importance level). They are encouraged not only to consider rankings of all th e listed factors before the allocat ions, but also to present level of each factor for the aspect by a number. This question type is also used to obtain some background characteristics of the respondents (e. g., percent of your trip purposes: business; leisure; social). The block of points to allot is typically 100 since most people are comfortable thinking in percentages, but allo cated scores often tend not to a dd up to 100 as the number of factors in question increa ses. Time-consuming data cleansing is required for the responses not summing to 100. For this reason, it is common to present not more than 10 factors and state what an equal weighting would be. Typically, 4, 5, or 10 factors are listed to be evaluated because the equal weighting (i.e., 25, 20, and 10) is easily recognized by the respondents. The response data are often presented with descriptiv e statistics and can be co nsidered as a response variable or an explanatory variable for various statistical analyses. 3.2.2 Survey Development The survey issues covered in this study were selected for the ultimate objective of this study which is to find out what should be focused on by transportation servi ce providers to better

PAGE 77

77 accommodate truck traffic on current roadway system s. They are presented in Table 3-1 with their corresponding question types an d analysis methods utilized in the survey to address those issues. Two different survey forms were prep ared (Appendix H for truck driver survey and Appendix I for truck company manager survey). Id entical sets of factors were evaluated in the two surveys to compare the pe rceptions of the two groups, bu t most questions regarding respondents background characteristics nece ssarily differed between the two surveys. Participants background : Background characteristics of e ach participant were asked in the first part of the survey. It was intende d to discover the relationships between their backgrounds and perceptions on truck trip quality. Thus, the characteristics suspected to explain the potential variances in their percepti ons were included in the first place. The background survey section includes the questions about socio-economic status and working characteristics of the respondents. Va rious question types were used for this section according to the characteristics of the selected issues. Discrete-choice questions were used to ask for socio-economic backgrounds (e.g., age, annua l income) to be less personally intrusive to the respondents than ratio-scale questions. All the response options for working characteristics questions (e.g., types of goods ha uled, truck types used, duties of truck company managers, etc.) were determined through extensive literature search and di scussions with members of Florida trucking industry to reflect the curren t state of Florida trucking industry. Preference on truck driving time of day : Truck driver respondents were asked to present current and preferred truck driving times of day, while only preferred truck driving times of day could be asked in the manager survey. It was intended to investig ate how quality of truck driving condition varies by time of day. This offered valuable in formation about the preference of the trucking community on night-time deliver y and how the preference of truck drivers on

PAGE 78

78 truck driving time of day is different by thei r background characteristics. Time of day was divided into 6 time periods and preference on each of the periods was asked with a binary choice question to reduce respondent burden. Relative importance/satisfaction of each factor on truck trip quality : Relative importance of each factor on truck trip quality was asked simultaneously with relative satisfaction of each factor on overall Florida ro adway facilities. Importance-satisfaction (or importance-performance) analysis approach is often used in the field of marketing research to prioritize attributes of a product for improveme nt (Martilla and James, 1977). That is, manufacturers should firstly focus on improving the attributes of a product that are perceived to be important, or are unsatisfied by the customers. In this study, this approach provided transportation service providers wi th valuable insights about what should be firstly focused on to improve LOS for trucks (i.e., th e factors that are perceived to be important, but are not well satisfied by truck drivers). Basically, the factors identified in the previous focus group st udies were presented in the survey to be evaluated, but a c ouple of other factors that the re search team considered to be important were also included (e.g., frequency of faster vehicles following your truck). Weather factors (e.g., thunder storms, heavy rain falls) we re excluded from this survey study even though they were perceived to be fairly important in the focus group studies, b ecause they cannot be controlled by transportation service providers. The relative significance/satisfaction of each factor on following three roadway facilities was evaluated: freeways; urba n arterials; two-lane highways. Truck trip quality issues on multilane highways were not covered in this study to keep the proper length of the surveys. It was indicated in the focu s group studies that the trucking community was least concerned about truck trip quality on multilane highways among

PAGE 79

79 those on various roadway facilitie s (i.e., freeways, urban arteri als, two-lane highways, and multilane highways). The importance/satisfaction of each factor wa s asked on a 7-point re lative interval rating scale ( 3 = Least Important (or Satisfied), 0 = As Im portant (or Satisfied) As Others, +3 = Most Important (or satisfied)). It wa s not appropriate to use typical in terval-rating scale, ordinal scale, or ranking scale types of questions As mentioned in a previous section, a typical interval-rating scale question allows respondents to indicate that everything is almost equally important, making the distinction among the factors difficult. An ordinal scale or forced -ranking questions do not allow mathematical interpretation of the survey re sponses, restricting the a pplicability of various statistical analyses. The number of factors to be evaluated range d from 18 to 19 by roadway type, so the use of a forced-ranking scale questi on was strongly discourag ed because it would significantly increase respondents burden and er ror, or decrease the response rate. Bubbleshaped option boxes were displayed for participants to reply to this survey question easily. A 7point scale was used for this question, balanc ing the precision in measuring respondents perceptions and the respondent bur den. A small number of points in scale decrease level of measurement precision, while a large number of scale increase the respondent burden. Improvement Priority Score ( IPS ) : Although not asked directly in the survey, improvement priority of each of the listed fact ors could be assessed through a combination of Relative Importance Score ( RIS ) and Relative Satisfaction Score ( RSS ). Improvement priority is proportional to RIS and inversely proportional to RSS That is, the more important or the less satisfied a factor was, the more the factor is in need of impr ovement. Based on this reasoning, Equation 3.1 was devised to calculate the Improvement Priority Score ( IPS ) for each factor.

PAGE 80

80 ) ( RSS RIS RSS RIS IPSa (3.1) where, IPS = Improvement Priority Score ( 42 +42) RIS = Relative Importance Score (1 7) RSS = Relative Satisfaction Score (1 7) a = +1 if RIS >= RSS otherwise 1 RIS and RSS of each factor collected on an interval-rating scale of 3 to +3 were converted to a scale of 1 to 7 for calculating IPS for each factor. The greater the IPS of a factor is, the more improvement on the factor is antic ipated. When the importance leve l of a certain factor is equal to the satisfaction level, IPS will be zero. A total of 49 (7 RIS 7 RSS ) possible responses and their corresponding IPS are tabulated in Appendix J. On e survey response presents one IPS for each factor. An average IPS of each factor from all the responses is used to estimate its relative need of improvement. Relative importance of each fact or on overall trucking business : Relative importance of each factor on Operating Cost ( OC ), On-time Performance ( OP ), and truck drivers Trip Satisfaction ( TS ) was asked individually on a 7-point relative interval rating scale ( 3 = Least Important, 0 = As Important As Others, +3 = Most Important) in the manager survey. The percent allocation of the managers concerns on each of these issues was also asked with a fixedsum question. OC OP and TS values were converted to a scal e of 1 to 7 and relative importance of each factor on Overall Trucking Business ( OTB ) was calculated by summing the OC OP and TS values weighted by their correspondi ng portion of the managers concerns.

PAGE 81

81 Relative importance of each category of factors on truck trip quality : All the listed factors for each roadway type were divided into four categories for each roadway type and the relative importance of each of the categories on truck trip quality was evaluated with a forcedranking question (1, 1 = Most Important, 4 = L east Important). This was intended to investigate which types of tran sportation service are relatively important to LOS perceived by truck mode users for each roadway type and how this importance priority varies for various roadway facilities. The relative importance of four identical categories were evaluated for freeway and two-lane highway facilities (i.e., physical roadway condition, traffic condition, traveler information systems, and other drivers behavior), but signal condition replaced traveler information systems category to be eval uated for urban arterial facilities. A forcedranking question was used for this issue to focus on the distinctions amon g the importance of the categories of factors. The use of an interval -rating scale question was not appropriate because there is much chance that most respondents simply state that every categor y is equally extremely important. Applicability of single hypothetical perf ormance measure to estimate truck trip quality : Based on the focus group studies, several hypothetical truck LOS performance measure were developed by the research team for each road way facility (e.g., Ease of Driving at or above the Speed Limit for freeways). This was intended to investigate whether it is possible to use only one or two performance measures to adequately ev aluate truck trip quality on each roadway type. The hypothetical performance measures for each road way type were selected in a way they are independent one another. That is, each performa nce measure presents different aspect of truck driving condition. Each performance measure ca n be considered as a function of multiple specific factors that were evaluated in a former part of the survey. The applicability of each

PAGE 82

82 hypothetical performance measure solely to eval uate truck LOS was asked on a typical 7-point interval-rating scale (1 = Not at all Applicable, 7 = Perfectly Applicable). It was expected to obtain large enough variances for th e distinction amongst the factors since it is not reasonable for the respondents to indicate that most of th e different performance measures are perfectly applicable solely to assess truck LOS. Agai n, a 7-point scale was used for this question, balancing the precision in measuring responde nts perceptions and the respondent burden. Relative improvement priority for each roadway type : The relative improvement priority among various roadway types was asked at th e last part of the surv ey. It was intended to find out which roadway facility types are more in need of improvement for the trucking community among the four roadway facility type s (i.e., freeways, urban arterials, two-lane highways, and multilane highways). A forced-ranking question was used for this issue to focus on the distinctions among the ro adway facility types while keep ing the respondent burden at a reasonable level (1, 1 = Most in Need of Impr ovement, 4 = Least in Need of Improvement). The survey data is beneficial for prioritizing the improvement n eeds of various roadway facility types for truck traffic. 3.2.3 Data Collection Truck drivers and truck compa ny managers, as the major truc k mode users on the Floridas SIS facilities, are the target population in this study. A truly random sample is impossible to obtain considering expected difficulties with recru itment, time, and budget. However, an effort has been made to get a reasonably re presentative sample for this study. Based on the review and considerations of truck driver survey methods discussed in Chapter 2, two different approaches were used for survey data collection of the truck drivers. The first method involved the distribution of the written surveys at the Florida Truck Driving

PAGE 83

83 Championship (FTDC) event. The second method consisted of distributing the postage-paid surveys at several agricult ural inspection stations. The first truck driver survey was conducte d at the FTDC event (on June 1, 2006 in Tampa). This event is co-sponsored by the FTA a nd they assisted the research team with the distribution of the surveys. They were given to the drivers while they were in a session where they were required to fill out other paper work as well. There were some concerns expressed by the rese arch team about the original length (six pages) of the survey, and the research team discussed this with the FDOT and the FTA. However, the FTA representatives felt that th e length would not be a problem because they would require the drivers to fill them out as part of their participation in the event, so it was decided to leave it at that length. The first two pages of the survey included th e questions regarding the socio-economic and working characteristics of the respondents. Th e relative importance/satisfaction of each factor on truck trip quality on freeways, urban arterial s, and two-lane highway s were asked on pages 3, 4, and 5 of the survey, respectively. The last pa ge was used to ask abou t the applicability of several different performance measures being su itable as a single performance measure to estimate truck trip quality on each roadway type (Appendix H for the truck driver survey form). As FTA recommended, a total of 220 truck driver survey forms were provided for distribution at the driving competition. This number was based on the number of registered participants in the even t. Of this total, 148 surveys were returned to the researchers. Unfortunately, only 38 respondents out of the to tal of 148 respondents ( 25.7%) completed all sections of the survey as directed. Most participants chose to not fi ll out the survey in its entirety, even though they were instructed to do so. Most respondents may have not taken the surveys

PAGE 84

84 seriously, or they might have thought that the surv ey was a bit long or hard for them to complete, especially the survey sections for relative importance/satisfacti on of each factor on each roadway type. Given these results, it was deci ded to also conduct an in-field survey data collection effort. With the assistance of FDOT personnel, postage -paid mail-back surveys were distributed at several agricultural inspection stations. For this survey effort, a reduced version of the surveys was prepared in hopes of obtaining a good response rate and a higher level of completion of the surveys. The response rate statistic from the FTDC survey data indicated that the survey sections for relative importance/satisfaction of each factor required the most amount of respondent burden among all the sections in the survey. Most su rvey participants did not have problems or difficulties filling out the last page on applicabil ity of a single performance measure. Thus, the survey was reduced to three pages in length; the first page for background information, the second page for relative importan ce/satisfaction of each factor on one of the 3 roadway types (freeways, arterials, or two-lane highways), and the last for app licability of a single performance measure. This survey (one with freeway rela ted factors on the second page) is included in Appendix K. A total of 4000 postage-paid surveys were supplied to the F DOT for distribution at the inspection stations. A total of 1000 survey s were distributed at each of four inspection stations. The four stations were located at northern border locations, and included: Pensacola station on I-10 (West) Suwannee station on I-10 (near Live Oak) Hamilton station on I-75 Yulee station on I-95 The previous focus groups indicated that most truck drivers concer ns are on freeways or two-lane highways as alternatives to freeways. A significant portion of their trips are also on

PAGE 85

85 freeways, distance-wise as well as time-wise. Thus, of the 1000 su rveys distributed at each site, 500 surveys were freeway related (i.e., the s econd page asked ques tions about relative importance and satisfaction of factors affecting freeway quality of service), 250 surveys were two-lane highway related, and 250 were arterial related. The research team was informed by FDOT that only about 3 percent of all the truck drivers trave ling on the Interstates could bypass the agriculture stations. These vehicles generally include pre-pass users, car haulers, and empty flat beds. The surveys were distributed dur ing the week of August 14, 2006. A return date of September 1st was put on the surveys. Most surveys were returned by that date, but some were still received up to a month later. Surveys received after October 1st were not included in the data set because data reduction was complete at that point and analysis had started. A total of 311 surveys were returned by October 1st, yielding a response rate of 7.8%. As shown in Table 3-2, the response rate for the freeway-related survey s was much higher than those for arterials or two-lane highways. It implies that this pa rticular population of tr uck drivers was more concerned or interested about tr ansportation services on freeways. The completion rate of these surveys was much higher than those from the FTDC It is likely that the reduced length and greater flexibility of when they could fill them out contributed to this. According to the advantages and disadvantages of the various survey methods reviewed and discussed in Chapter 2, the phone-based survey method was considered as the most efficient way to survey truck company managers. However, this method was not well suited for this study because it does not allow the respondents to comp lete the second section of the survey without bias. This section requires the respondents to present their perceptions on the relative importance/satisfaction of each fact or among a total of ~18 factors. It would be possible only when the respondents can skim thr ough all the factors simultaneously.

PAGE 86

86 With these considerations, truck company managers were surveyed with two different approaches. One method was the in-field survey duri ng the FTDC event. The other method was the postage-paid mail-back survey with a numbe r of trucking companies listed in the FTA membership directory. A survey data collection effort for truck company managers was made on June 1, 2006 at the Fairgrounds in Tampa, where the truck driv ing championship was taking place (Figure 3-2). There was a modest crowd present on this day, with a mix of company managers, other truck company employees, as well as family and friends. The research team set up a table with several chairs, covered by a large umbrella. A survey poster describing the pur pose and background of this research project was placed on the table to solicit participation of truck company managers (Figure 3-3). The announcers for the driving competition also made several announcements throughout the day about our effort. Eleven truck company managers filled out the surveys, with seven of them answering most of the survey questions as directed (Appendix I for the truck company manager survey form). For the second survey data collection effo rt of truck company managers, potential recipients were identified from the FTA membership directory, which contains a list of all carrier and allied members with their affiliation and cont act information. All the Florida-based carriers in the directory (a total of 180 trucking companies) were cons idered as potential survey participating trucking companies. All the al lied members were removed from consideration because they do not operate trucks. They support trucking companies by offering various services such as accident investigat ion, insurance, truck driver traini ng, truck sales or rentals, etc. In the FTA directory, the carriers can be divided into 5 chapters (geographical locations), or 6 conferences (carrier types). A total of 50 Florida-based carriers were selected for the survey

PAGE 87

87 using the stratified random sampling procedure th at preserves the proporti onal composition of all the Florid-based carriers in terms of conference and chapter (a total of 30 strata). A reduced version of the manager survey (one with freeway related factors on the second page) was used (Appendix L). The background sec tion of the manager survey is different from that of the driver survey. For th e rest of the sections, the same sets of roadway, traffic, and/or control factors are presented, but questioned differently. For instan ce, the relative importance of each factor on operating cost, on-time performance, and truck drivers trip quality were asked respectively in the manager survey, while the impor tance and satisfaction of each factor on truck trip quality were asked in the driver survey. Five postage-paid surveys were mailed to each of the 50 FTA carrier members (5 50 = 250 surveys) with a cover letter asking them to distribute the surveys to the managers (transportation, safety, dispatch, logistics, etc.) at their comp anies (Appendix M for the cover letter). As can be seen in the cover letter, it was mentioned that this study was being conducted with the cooperation of the FTA. It was hoped th at this would encourage managers to respond to the survey. Follow-up phone contacts were made to each of the companies to whom surveys were mailed (about one week later) to confirm that they received them and ask for their support in filling them out. Initially, a total of 300 surveys we re prepared in case some the 50 carriers do not receive the surveys. Of 50 additional surveys, 5 surveys were resent to one carrier that did not receive the survey and 45 surveys were mailed to 9 different newly-selected carriers. As a result, 27 surveys were obtained from all the Flor ida regions except for West Florida. Nineteen surveys were from common (for-hire) carriers, 6 fr om private carriers, and 2 from tank carriers. Table 3-3 shows the number of carriers that partic ipated in the survey from each conference by

PAGE 88

88 each chapter, out of the total of 59 carriers. Ta ble 3-4 indicates the number of surveys received from each conference by each chapter, out of the total of 300 surveys. 3.2.4 Data Reduction It turned out that most respondents completed only parts of the surv eys and there was also some evidence that some of the respondents did not pay enough attention to fill out the surveys as directed. The length, or the perceived co mplexity, of the survey may have kept the participants from completing them correctly. Considering that the purpose of this survey is to potentially identify ways of improving the working environments of the participants, there is no other source of non-response bias expected in this study. Thus given an overall low response rate, it was decided that in addi tion to complete surveys, partially completed surveys would be utilized for data analyses once surveys with unre liable responses were scr eened out according to certain criteria. The usability of survey respons es for data analysis was determined for each survey question. Survey data filt ering criteria were de veloped to assess the validity of the survey responses (Appendix N). However, for a few surveys, it was still difficult to determine their validity with the filtering criteria. The resear ch team had to make d ecisions in those cases through discussions. In that process, the resear chers were stricter on the validity of survey responses collected during FTDC than of the postage-paid surveys due to the larger respondent burden to complete the surveys distributed at the FTDC event. Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 illustrate the number of valid surveys out of total number of returned truck driver surveys from the FTDC event, the postage-paid surveys, and both comb ined. Table 3-8 describes the number of valid surveys out of the total number of returned mana ger surveys from all the survey data collection sources.

PAGE 89

89 3.2.5 Data Analysis A variety of statistical methods were used to analyze the survey data to satisfy the objectives of this study. All th e variables observed in the survey were first summarized by descriptive statistics and/or (cumulative) frequency distribution to investigate overall distributions of the responses. The following five statistical methods were applied to the survey data for further analyses: Exploratory Fact or Analysis (EFA); Games-Howell multiple comparison test; Kruskal-Wallis test; Mann-Whitney test; and chi-squared test. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performe d with Relative Importance Score ( RIS ) of all the factors to look for common latent factors that are important to truck trip qua lity. Each pair of the mean importance of hypothetical truck LOS performa nce measures for each roadway type was compared with Games-Howell tests to find out which performance measure is more important than others statistically. Potential relations hip between each background characteristics of the respondents and their perceptions on each poten tial truck LOS performance measure was investigated through nonparametric tests such as Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test. Chi-squared test, in particular was performed to discover pote ntial relationship between each background characteristics of the respondents and their preference on each truck driving time of day. 3.2.5.1 Descriptive statistics Two most important descriptive statistics were calculated fo r all the interval-rating and ratio-scale questions; mean and standard deviation. A central tendency of each variable was presented by its mean, while its standard devia tion was presented to measure a typical degree of spread of the variable. For nomin al (categorical) data, (cumulative) frequency distributions were presented to describe overall di stribution of the survey response s. Histograms and scatter plots were used to display the results.

PAGE 90

90 3.2.5.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a sta tistical method to expl ain a large number of metric variables in terms of their common, underlying dimensions, that is, latent factors. Latent factors are unobserved entities that influence a set of measures (v ariables) and are extracted from the correlations among the variables. EFA result s provide how the variab les are grouped into a small number of latent factors from the res pondents perspectives and how much each latent factor is correlated with each of the variables. Factor analysis is a multivariate interdependence technique with which all the variables are si multaneously considered, rather than multiple regression, discriminate or canonical analyses, in which one or more variables are explicitly considered as dependent variables (Hair, et al., 2005). This tec hnique is often used in social science research to summarize the data by identifying a set of latent factors that influence each set of variables, which correlate highly amongs t each other. The following seven steps are typically taken to perform EFA (Field, 2005). Calculation of correlation matrix : The starting point of factor analysis is to create a correlation matrix, in which the inter-correlations between each pair of observed variables are presented. A basic assumption of a factor analytic procedure is that a group of variables that significantly correlate with each other do so because they are measuring the same common, underlying dimension. Thus, if a group of variable s seem to correlate highly with each other within the group, but correlate very badly with variables outside of that group, they are considered to well measure a common, underlying di mension, which is called a latent factor. The ultimate objective of the EFA procedure is to reduce the correlation matrix to a factor matrix, which provides the correlations be tween the latent factors and each of the observed variables (i.e., factor loadings). This can be done by various fa ctor extraction methods th at are introduced later in this section.

PAGE 91

91 Factorability investigation : To identify common underlying dimensions that explain the patterns of collinearity am ong the variables, the observed variables have to be intercorrelated enough to be factorable, but they should not correlate t oo highly. It is important to avoid multicollinearity (i.e., variables that are very highly correlated ) and singularity (i.e., variables that are perfectly correlated) as thes e would cause difficulty in determining the unique contribution of the variables to a factor. The communality of a variable is the sum of the loadings of the variable on all extracted factors. This represents the proportion of the vari ance in that variable th at can be accounted for by all extracted factors. Thus, if the communality of a variable is high, the extracted factors account for a large proportion of the variables variance. This means that this particular variable is reflected well via the extracted factors, and he nce the factor analysis is reliable. When the communalities are not high, the sample size has to be large enough to compensate for this. To examine whether the sample is large enough to elicit a meaningful factor solution, the KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sa mpling adequacy is used. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 represents that the sum of partial correlations is large relative to the sum of correlations, indicating that factor analysis is likely to be in appropriate. A value close to 1 represents that patterns of correlations are rela tively compact, so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. Typically, a KMO statistic value of greater than 0.5 is acceptable to perform factor analysis. Bartletts test of spherity test s the null hypothesis that the orig inal correlation matrix is an identity matrix. When the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, ther e would be no correlations between the variables, eliminating the need for a fact or analytic procedure. Thus, this test has to

PAGE 92

92 be significant. A significance value ( p value) less than 0.05 is usua lly necessary to justify the factor analytic procedure. Multicollinearity and singularity problems can be detected by investigating the determinant of the correlation matrix. Usually, it is considered to not be a problem if the determinant is greater than 0.00001. Extraction of factors : A variety of statistical methods have been developed to extract latent factors from an inter-correlation matrix of the observed variable s. They include the principal component extraction method, the pr inciple axis extraction method, the maximum likelihood extraction method, the unweighted leas t-squares extraction method, the generalized least squares extraction method, the alpha extrac tion method, and the image factoring extraction method. The two most commonly used extraction methods are the principle component and principle axis methods. There are three types of variance in the variable s: common, specific, and error. Common variance is the variance in a variab le which is shared with all other variables in the analysis. Specific (unique) variance is the varian ce associated with only a specific variable. Error variance is the inherently unreliable random variation. The principle component method finds latent factors that maximize the amount of total variance (i.e., sum of common, specific, and error variances) that is expl ained, while the principle axis method finds latent factors that maximize the amount of common variance that is explained. The main difference between the two types of methods lies in the way the comm unalities are used. Co mmunality of a given variable is the proportion of its variance that can be accounted for by extracted factors. In the principle component method, it is assumed that a ll the communalities are in itially one (unities are inserted in the diagonal of the correlation matr ix). That is, the total variance of the variables

PAGE 93

93 can be accounted for by the extracted factors. On the other hand, with the principle axis method the initial communalities are not assumed to be on e (it does assume error variance). They are usually estimated by taking the squared multiple correl ations of the variables with other variables. These estimated communalities are then represen ted on the diagonal of th e correlation matrix, from which the eigenvalues are determ ined and factors are extracted. Theoretically, when the analyst is primarily concerned about determining the minimum number of factors needed to account for the maxi mum portion of the variance represented in the original set of variab les, and has prior knowledge suggestin g that specific and error variance represent a relatively small po rtion of the total variance, the principle component method is appropriate. In contrast, when the primary objective is to iden tify the latent dimensions or constructs represented in the or iginal variables, and the analyst has little knowledge about the amount of specific and error variance and theref ore wishes to eliminate these variances, the principle axis method is appropria te. Practically, however, both me thods are widely used and the solutions generated by each us ually do not differ significantly. Figure 3-4 shows an example of a path diagra m for an exploratory factor analytic model by the principle component extrac tion method. As discussed, this method finds latent factors that maximize the amount of total variance (of the observed variables) that is explained, and it is assumed that there is no error variance. An EFA model is constructed in the way that series of regression equations are set up to summarize its configuration. Equation 3.2 describes an EFA model by the principle component ex traction method. Each of the vari ables is defined as a linear combination of the factors (i.e., sum of the products of each latent factor variable and the factor loading of each observed variable on the corr esponding factor). Results from the EFA include derived loadings of each variable on each factor and calculated factor scores for each subject on

PAGE 94

94 each factor. The factor scores are a composite meas ure that can be used for subsequent analyses. When an orthogonal rotation method is used, the scor es of the factors can be considered to be independent of each other, and thus can be used as explanatory variables in a multiple regression analysis. k j j ij iF A V1) ( (3.2) where, iV = ith observed variable ( i = 1 to k k = number of observed variable s). These correspond to V1, V2, V10 in Figure 3-4. ijA = a factor loading of the ith variable on the jth latent factor jF = jth latent factor variable (a common, underlying dimension, j = 1 to k, k = number of observed variables). These correspo nd to F1, F2, and F3 in Figure 3-4. Determination of number of factors to be retained : The maximum number of factors that can be extracted is equal to the number of observed variables. However, the purpose of an EFA is to adequately explain a relatively larg e number of variables wi th a small number of factors. Thus, the analyst seeks to identify the smallest number of factors that explain a considerably large amount of vari ance in the observed variables. There are several criteria for the number of factors to be extracted, but these are just empirical guidelines rather than an exact quantita tive solution. In practice, most factor analysts seldom use a single criterion to d ecide on the number of factors to extract. Some of the most commonly used guidelines are latent root, percentage of variance, and scree test criteria. With the latent root (eigenvalue) cr iterion, only the factors having an eigenvalue greater than one are

PAGE 95

95 retained. It should be noted that the total sum of eigenvalues from the data is equal to the total number of variables and the varian ce of a single variable is consid ered as the eigenvalue of one. Thus, the rationale for the eigenvalue criteria is that any individual fact or should account for at least the variance of a single variable if it is to be retained for interpreta tion. The percentage of variance criterion is a different approach. Using this method, the cumulative percentages of the variance extracted by successive fact ors is the criterion. It is co mmon in social science research to consider a solution that accounts for at least 60% of the total variance as a satisfactory solution. Another common approach is the sc ree test criterion. The scree test is derived by plotting the latent roots (eigenvalues) agains t the number of factors in thei r order of extraction. The scree plot illustrates the rate of change in the magnitude of the eigenvalues for the factors. The rate of decline tends to be fast for the first few factors, but then levels off. Th e elbow, or the point at which the curve bends, is considered to indicate the maximum number of factors to extract. Rotation of factors : Once the number of factors to be retained is decided, the next logical step is to determine the method of rotatio n. The fundamental theorem of factor analysis is invariant within rotations. That is, the initial f actor matrix is not unique. There are an infinite number of solutions, which produce the same co rrelation matrix, by rotating the reference axes of the factor solution. A primar y objective of the rotation is to make each variable load highly on only one factor and have nearly zero loadings on the other factors. This simplifies the factor structure and helps to achieve a more meaningful and interpreta ble solution. The simplest case of rotation is an orthogon al rotation in which the angles between the refere nce axes of factors are maintained at 90 degrees. Thus, there is no corr elation between the extracted factors. A more complicated form of rotation allows the angle betw een the reference axes to be other than a right angle and is referred to as an oblique rotation. Th e factors are allowed to be correlated with each

PAGE 96

96 other in this type of rotation. Orthogonal rotation procedures are more commonly used than oblique rotation procedures because researchers ofte n try to obtain an independent set of factors to clarify the meaning of each factor. Th ree major orthogonal approaches are varimax, quartimax, and equamax rotation methods, and two major oblique approaches are direct oblimin and promax rotation methods. Criteria for the significance of factor loadings : If there are variables that load highly on two or more factors, or do not load highly on any factor, they are excluded from a factor solution because it is not clear which factor(s ) has an influence on th e variables and this ambiguous relationship between the factors and the variables blur the inte rpretation of a factor solution. Whether a factor loading of a variable is signi ficant or not depends on the sample size, the total number of observed variab les, and the total number of extr acted factors. The larger the sample size, the smaller the loading is considered to be significant. The larger the total number of variables, the smaller the loading is considered to be significant. The larger the number of factors, the larger the size of th e loading on latent fact ors is considered to be significant. As a rule of thumb, factor loadings greater than 0.5 are considered to be significant when the sample size is 120 or more, and factor loadings greater than 0.65 are considered to be significant when the samp le size is 70 or more. Naming of factors : Once the latent factors to be re tained, and the variables associated with each of those factors are identified, the an alyst attempts to assign some meaning to the factors based on the patterns of the factor loadings. It should be noted that the factor loadings represent the correlation, or linear association, be tween a variable and the latent factors. Thus, the analyst makes a determination as to what an underlying factor may re present, investigating all the variables loadings on the factor in terms of their size a nd sign. The larger the absolute

PAGE 97

97 magnitude of the factor loading for a variable, th e more important the variable is in interpreting the factor. The sign of the loadings also need to be considered in labeling the factors. It may be important to reverse the scoring of the negatively worded items in Likert-type instruments to prevent ambiguity. That is, in Likert-type inst ruments some items are often negatively worded so that high scores on these items actually reflect low degrees of the attitude or construct being measured. As the importance level of each traffic, ro adway, and/or control variable was evaluated on a 7-point interval-rating scale, EFA was applied to search for a set of latent factors that accounts for the patterns of collinearity among the variables. The extrac ted factors and their correlations with observed variables reflect in what respect each vari able contributes to truck trip quality and the degree to which the importance of each variable is explained by the underlying latent factors. The principle component extrac tion method was used to find the set of latent factors that accounts for the maximum amount of va riance of the observed variables. The results of the EFA presented a set of extr acted latent factors, the percent of trace, that is, the portion of the total variance (of the observe d variables) that is explaine d by each latent factor, and the correlations between each observed va riable and latent factor (i.e., factor loadings). It was not possible to apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) statistical techniques to the surv ey data because no previous hypothetical model construct exists for the truck trip quality issue. 3.2.5.3 Multiple comparison test When an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test ve rifies that the means of multiple variables (i.e., more than two) are statistically different, multiple comparison procedures are widely used to determine which means are different from one another. Fishers Least Significance Difference (LSD), Tukeys W, Student-Newman-Keuls (S-N-K ), and Duncans tests are often used (Ott and

PAGE 98

98 Longnecker, 2006), assuming each sample from the groups is selected from a normal population with an equal variance. However, if it is no t reasonable to assume e qual variance, pair-wise multiple comparison procedures such as Tamh anes T2, Dunnetts T3, Games-Howell, or Dunnetts C tests can be used (Dunnett, 1980). As the importance of each hypothetical perfor mance measure was evaluated in a 7-point interval rating scale, the Games-Howell pair-w ise multiple comparison test was performed to investigate if the differences among the mean impor tance levels of the pe rformance measures are statistically significant. Normal Quantile-Quan tile (Q-Q) plots showed that each sample was approximately normally distributed (Figure 3-5) but the equal variance assumption did not hold according to Levenes tests (Levene, 1960). Thus, it was necessary to perform the multiple comparison tests with methods that do not rely on the equal variance assumption. The Games-Howell test was performed among the multiple comparison tests with unequal variance s to investigate every possible statistical difference in the pair-wise mean comparisons among the groups. The Games-Howell test is the most liberal, meaning that diffe rences between group means are id entified as being significant more readily with this test than the other tests. The Games-Howell test is a modification of S-NK procedure, using the q test statistic (i.e., stude ntized range statistic). Equation 3.3 is used to calculate the test statistic, reflecting heterogeneous variances and sample sizes in the error term in the denominator. 22 2 j j i i j in s n s q (3.3) where,

PAGE 99

99 q = studentized range test statistic i = calculated mean of the group i is = calculated standard deviation of the group i in = sample size of the group i Equation 3.4 is also used to calculate the degr ees of freedom for each pair-wise comparison to adjust the error term. The calculated test statistics are compared with critical q values with the corresponding degrees of freedom found in the studentized range tables. 1 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 j j j i i i j j i in n s n n s n s n s df (3.4) where, df = degrees of freedom for each pair-wise comparison 3.2.5.4 Non-parametric test The survey respondents backgrounds were co llected from various question types (i.e., ratio-scale, discrete choice, forced ranking, etc. ) and their perceptions on the importance of each hypothetical performance measure were evaluated on a 7-point interval rating scale. Thus, ordered probit modeling technique (Greene, 2000) was first applied in an attempt to explore respondents backgrounds that may explain the vari ance in their pe rceptions. However, with the ordered probit modeling, only a small number of pot ential explanatory va riables were found to be statistically significant, resulting in genera lly poor model fits. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test (non-parametric versi on of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-test) were

PAGE 100

100 applied to the data. The use of parametric ANOVA and the t-test was not appropriate even though it is more powerful, because it was not reasonable to assume normality and equal variances with the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test (Conover, 2001) is a non-parametric one-way ANOVA by ranks. It is used with k independent groups, where k is equal to or greater than 3, and measurement is at least ordinal. The sample sizes across the groups can vary because the samples are independent. The null hypothesis is that the k samples come from the same population. The alternative hypothesis states that at leas t one sample comes from a different population. Following H test statistic is used to test the hypothesis. k i i iN n R N N H1 2) 1 ( 3 ) 1 ( 12 (3.5) where, H = Kruskal-Wallis test statistic N = total sample size k = number of independent samples iR = sum of the ranks of group i in = sample size of group i The calculated H test statistic approximately fo llows a Chi-Squared distribution ( 2) with k 1 degrees of freedom. Thus, for a specified value of the null hypothesis is rejected when calculated H value exceeds the critical value of 2 for k 1 degrees of freedom. The Mann-Whitney test (Conover, 2001) is a non-parametric t-test by ranks. It is used specifically with two independent groups, and measur ement is also at least ordinal. The sample sizes between the two groups can vary because the samples are independent. The null hypothesis

PAGE 101

101 is that the two samples come from the same population. Following z test statistic is used to test the hypothesis. 12 ) 1 ( 22 1 2 1 min N n n n n U z (3.6) where, z = Mann-Whitney test statistic iU = minUnumber of independent samples minU = minimum of 1U and 2U (iU = sum of the ranks of group i) 1n = sample size of group 1 2n = sample size of group 2 N = total sample size (= 2 1n n) The calculated z test statistic follows a nor mal distribution. The null hyp othesis is rejected when the calculated z value exceeds the critical value of z for a specified value of 3.2.5.5 Chi-squared test The perceptions of the respondents on the pr eferred truck driving times of day were investigated with a binary choi ce question type. Binary logit m odeling technique was first tried to explore respondents backgrounds that are correlated with th e perceptions on their preferred truck driving times of day. However, only a small number of potential explanatory variables were statistically significant, again yielding poor model fits. A chi-squared test (Ott and Longnecker, 2006) was performed for each indivi dual background characteris tic to investigate whether their perceptions are dependent on it. The null hypothesis is that the respondents background and their perceptions are independent. The alternative hypothesis is that they are

PAGE 102

102 dependent; that is, the perceptions of the res pondents on truck driving time of day preference vary by their specific background. The two variab les are categorized in a two-way frequency table, and then the 2 test statistic is calcul ated to test the hypothesis as shown in Equations 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9. j i ij ij ijE E n, 2 2 (3.7) where, ijn = observed number of meas urement in the cell for the ith row and the jth column ijE = expected number of meas urement in the cell for the ith row and the jth column 1 1 c r df (3.8) where, df = degrees of freedom r = number of rows in the two-way table c = number of columns in the two-way table N C R Ej i ij (3.9) where, iR = total sum of the number of measurements in the cells of the ith row jC = total sum of the number of measurements in the cells of the jth column N = total sum of the num ber of measurements in the two-way table The null hypothesis is rejected when the calculated 2 value exceeds the critical value of 2 for a specified value of

PAGE 103

103 3.3 Truck LOS Measurement The ultimate objective of this study is to r ecommend effective methodologies to develop a mathematical model to estimate LOS for trucks on Florida roadways. This section describes what steps are required to satisfy the object ive and how each step could be performed to complete the study. The first step is to determine one or two performance measures, or multiple factors, upon which truck LOS on a specific roadwa y type can be adequately assessed. It is preferable to specify just one or two perfor mance measures to simplify truck LOS estimation methodologies, but if it is not possible, divers e important factors should be simultaneously factored into the development of the methodologies. The focus group and survey studies of this study were conducted for this purpose. Once the truck LOS determinants are identified for each roadway facility type, some experimental data are required to develop mathematical truck LOS estimation models through appropriate statistical analysis methods. Several different approaches can be considered to for the data collection. Gi ven the data, the correlations between the truck LOS determinants and the truck drivers percep tions of LOS could be measured by appropriate statistical modeling techniques to develop truck LOS estimation models, which will then be used to predict truck LOS on a specific route. The final truck LOS estimation models should reflect perceptions of most truck drivers working in Florida and be easily ap plicable to most Florida roadways. It is preferable to select explanatory variables, which are simply measurab le with the data obtaine d from the performance monitoring system of FDOT. 3.3.1 Truck LOS Service Measures It was indicated in the focus group studies that what is important for LOS perceived by the trucking community varies by different roadway types. This means that truck LOS service measures (or truck LOS determinants) should diffe r according to the type of roadway that truck

PAGE 104

104 drivers travel on as current HCM represents (Tab le 3-9). This study id entified the truck LOS service measures (or truck LOS determinants) for each roadway type from the focus group and survey study results. The two different approa ches were considered to perform this task. 3.3.1.1 Single performance measure approach It may be possible to represen t overall perceptions of truck drivers on truck trip quality only by one or two important truck driving or traffic c ondition effectively. As shown in Table 39, the current HCM uses one or two performance measures to determine LOS on a specific roadway type for all the vehicles in a traffic st ream. Several important truck driving conditions for each roadway type were postulated from the previous focus group studies and evaluated in the survey study as to how each of these conditions is solely applicable to assess truck trip quality. It was intended to investigate if there are any one or two perfor mance measure(s) that may be used as truck LOS service measure(s) on a specific roadway type. Such performance measures may be measured from the field di rectly, or derived from data obtained by the performance monitoring system of FDOT. 3.3.1.2 Multiple variable approach If the perceptions of truck mode users on truck trip quality have multidimensional characteristics; that is, it is not appropriate to represent them with just one or two performance measures, the truck LOS estimation model should reflect various natures of truck operations. The model may be expressed as a function that yields an LOS index value based upon a number of independent variables (e.g., flow, speed, number of lanes, pavement condition, etc.) and their corresponding coefficients. The experimental data to calibrate truck LOS estimation model should include the factors identified as important in the focus group and survey studies as well as LOS perceptions of a sample of truck drivers. The final model may use only the variables showing significant effects on truc k LOS in the experimental data.

PAGE 105

105 3.3.2 Truck LOS Estimation Model Once the truck LOS performance measure(s) (o r truck LOS determinants) are identified, experimental data are required to calibrate truck LOS estimati on model for each roadway type. The following four different approaches can be considered to collect the experimental data: video simulation; vehicle simulator; in-field dr iving experiment; and truc k operational data from a trucking company. In the experiments, various scenarios with different levels of the factors should be tested with a representative sample of truck drivers in Florid a. The selected truck drivers experience maneuvering a truck directly or indirectly in each of the scenarios, and then rate it in terms of their trip quality. The results of the experi ments should be analyzed with appropriate statistical modeling techniques to develop truck LOS estimation models, which will be used to predict LOS on a specific route for trucks. 3.3.2.1 Data collection Experimental data to calibrate truck LOS estimation models can be collected by video simulation, vehicle simulator, in -field driving experiment, or truck operational data from a trucking company. In a video simulation experime nt, a truck driver view s are video-recorded while he/she is actually experien cing various driving conditions in th e field. It is required to prepare enough number of video clips reflecting various traffic and roadway conditions for the experimental purposes. The collect ed videos are displayed to a sa mple of truck drivers so that they rate each video clip in terms of their trip quality. It may be impossible for the drivers to experience the pavement quality of a road with this method. A driving simulator may also be used for the same purpose, but it is not known wh ether any truck driving si mulator exists. Most driving simulators are designed to mimic passenger ca r driving environment. If available, it may reflect more realistic driving environments in th at the participants are able to manipulate their vehicle speed and directions, but programming e nough number of scenarios to be displayed may

PAGE 106

106 pose a challenge and a pavement quality is difficult to be simulated. The in-field driving approach probably provides a best set of data because participants are exposed to the actual truck driving environment before evaluating LOS on the transportation facility. However, replicating field conditions is very difficult, and it is dangerous to be in the field. Huge recruiting efforts are required as well. It was indi cated from the focus group discussi on that some truck companies collect truck operational data (e.g., travel time) from a GPS system equipped in their trucks. The data are regularly updated and used to reflect current truck driving condition for future truck route and departure time selec tion. If possible, the data s upplemented by other traffic and roadway field data may be used to calibrate tr uck LOS estimation model. In this case, the perceptions of the truck drivers on LOS of their trip should be asked at their arrival. Advantages and disadvantages of the four experimental data collection methods are summarized as follows. Video simulation: This approach has shown promise in other studies. However, it may be more difficult to implement from a truck dr ivers perspective. This approach also has limitations with regard to accura tely reflecting pavement condition, which is a major concern for truck drivers. Vehicle simulator, using truck cab: Pavement quality could be simulated. Motion sickness a significant issue for participant recruiting. Programming the required number of scenar ios to be displayed may be very costly. In-field driving experiment: May provide most accurate feedback from participants. Difficult to replicate desired traffic cond itions for each participant at each location It can be difficult to find all the variou s experimental conditions in the field. Huge recruiting e ffort is required.

PAGE 107

107 Having a truck company allow researchers to tr avel along on previously planned trips, and ask questions during the trip, ma y be a potential data source. Truck operational data from a truck company: It was indicated from focus group discussions that some truck companies use an onboard recording system for speed da ta to regularly update expect ed travel time on the routes. Truck driver focus group particip ants stated that most truc ks are equipped with GPS and controlled by computers. It may be possible that some truck operational data required to develop LOS models can be obtained while truck driver s make real deliveries. However, some supplemental data will probab ly still need to be collected along the specific truck routes, such as general tr affic stream variables (e.g., speed, volume). 3.3.2.2 Statistical modeling The contemporary transportation community has widely adopted LOS estimation procedures provided by HCM as the primary mean s of measuring system performance of each type of facility. The six LOS values defined th rough the procedures range from A to F, with A representing very good operating conditi ons and F representing very poor operating conditions. To be consistent with this re presentation, truck driver s participating in the experiment should be asked to rate their trip qua lity with one letter desi gnation from A to F (or an equivalent numerical scale, such as 16). Statistical modeling involves correlating the response variables (i.e., LOS values) with multiple factors contributing to truck trip quality. Given the fact that the values of the response va riables are ordered, and di screte, ordered discrete choice modeling techniques (i.e., ordered logit or ordered probit modeling) may be appropriate to develop the truck LOS estimation models. Was hburn and Kirschner (2006) used ordered probit modeling technique to develop rural freeway LO S estimation models. The final models should provide truck LOS predictions on va rious roadways as single lett er designations, given all the necessary explanatory variables.

PAGE 108

108 : : :Development of Guidelines for LOS Analysis of Truck Mode Development of Guidelines for LOS Analysis of Truck Mode Survey Questionnaire Development Survey Distribution Survey Distribution Analysis of Survey Responses Focus Group Questionnaire Design Focus Group Meetings Focus Group Meetings Analysis of Focus Group Discussions Figure 3-1. Research Approach Table 3-1. Survey Development Survey Issues Question Types Analysis Methods Background Characteristics Various Question Types Descriptive Statistics, Frequency Distributions Preference on Truck Driving Times of Da yDiscrete Choice Frequency Distributions, Chi-squared Tests Relative Importance/Sa tisfaction of Each Factor on Truck Trip Quality Relative Interval Rating Descriptive Statistics, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors on Truck Trip Quality Forced Ranking Descriptive Statistics, (Cumulative) Frequency Distributions Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance Measure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality Interval Rating Descriptive Statistics, Multiple Comparisons of the Means, Non-parametric Tests Relative Improvement Priority for Each Type of Roadway Facility Forced Ranking Descriptive Statistics, Frequency Distributions

PAGE 109

109 Table 3-2. Postage-Paid Tr uck Driver Survey Response Rates (number of surveys returned/number of surveys distributed) Roadway Types Issues on the Second Page of the Survey Freeways Urban Arterials Two-lane Highways Response Rate for Each Type of Survey 187/2000 (9.35%) 66/1000 (6.6%) 58/1000 (5.8%) Overall Response Rate 311/4000 (7.78%) Figure 3-2. Truck Drivi ng Competition Course

PAGE 110

110 Figure 3-3. Survey Table Set up at Truck Driving Competition Table 3-3. Survey Participation of the Sele cted Carriers by Each Conference and Chapter (number of carriers from whom the survey s were received/number of carriers to whom the surveys were distributed) Chapter Conference Central West North Florida South Florida Central East West Florida Total Dump Truck Carriers 0/0 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/3 Common Carriers 5/8 3/7 1/5 2/3 0/2 11/25 Household Goods Carriers 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 Private Carriers 2/9 1/5 2/2 1/3 0/3 6/22 Special Riggers 0/0 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/3 Tank Carriers 1/2 0/1 1/1 0/1 0/0 2/5 Total 8/19 4/16 4/10 3/9 0/5 19/59

PAGE 111

111 Table 3-4. Survey Collection by Each C onference and Chapter (number of surveys received/number of surveys distributed) Chapter Conference Central West North Florida South Florida Central East West Florida Total Dump Truck Carriers 0/0 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/0 0/15 Common Carriers 9/40 5/35 2/25 3/15 0/10 19/125 Household Goods Carriers 0/0 0/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/5 Private Carriers 2/50 1/25 2/10 1/15 0/15 6/115 Special Riggers 0/0 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/0 0/15 Tank Carriers 1/10 0/5 1/5 0/5 0/0 2/25 Total 12/100 6/80 5/50 4/45 0/25 27/300 Table 3-5. FTDC Truck Driver Survey Data Us ability (number of valid surveys / total number of surveys received) Roadway Types Issues Freeways Urban Arterials Two-lane Highways Relative Importance of E ach Factor 58/148 43/148 36/148 Relative Satisfaction of E ach Factor 66/148 56/148 43/148 Relative Importance & Sa tisfaction of Each Factor 54/148 39/148 33/148 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category 40/148 34/148 37/148 Applicability of Hypothetic al Single Performance Measure 116/148 115/148 116/148 Relative Transportation Servi ce Improvement Priority 25/148 Table 3-6. Postage-Paid Truck Dr iver Survey Data Usability ( number of valid surveys / total number of surveys received) Roadway Types Issues Freeways Urban Arterials Two-lane Highways Relative Importance of E ach Factor 108/187 33/66 33/58 Relative Satisfaction of E ach Factor 121/187 41/66 35/58 Relative Importance & Sa tisfaction of Each Factor 105/187 29/66 31/58 Applicability of Hypothetic al Single Performance Measure 273/311 272/311 269/311

PAGE 112

112 Table 3-7. Overall Truck Driver Survey Data Us ability (number of vali d surveys / total number of surveys received) Roadway Types Issues Freeways Urban Arterials Two-lane Highways Relative Importance of E ach Factor 167/335 76/214 69/206 Relative Satisfaction of Each Factor 187335 97/214 78/206 Relative Importance & Sa tisfaction of Each Factor 159/335 68/214 64/206 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category 40/148 34/148 37/148 Applicability of Hypothetic al Single Performance Measure 389/459 387/459 385/459 Relative Transportation Servi ce Improvement Priority 25/148 Table 3-8. Overall Truck Company Manager Survey Data Usability (number of valid surveys / total number of surveys received) Roadway Types Issues Freeways Urban Arterials Two-lane Highways Relative Importance of Each Factor on Operating Cost 33/38 7/11 7/11 Relative Importance of E ach Factor on On-Time Performance 34/38 8/11 8/11 Relative Importance of Each Factor on Truck Drivers Trip Satisfaction 36/38 9/11 8/11 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category 7/11 6/11 5/11 Relative Importance of Each Aspect of Truck Driving Condition 35/38 33/38 34/38 Relative Transportation Servi ce Improvement Priority 5/11

PAGE 113

113 Travel Time (F1) Travel Safety (F2) Driving Comfort (F3) Shoulder Width and Condition (V7) Availability of Clear Signage (V8) Pavement Condition (V9) Lane Width and Condition (V10) Accident ot Incident Frequency (V1) Availability of Alternative Route (V2) Construction Frequency (V3) Level of Congestion (V4) Lighting Conditions at Night (V5) Other Drivers' Road Etiquette (V6) Figure 3-4. Example of a Path Diagram for an EFA Model by Principl e Component Extraction Method Figure 3-5. Normal Q-Q Plot of the Importance of Ease of Obtaining Useful Traveler Information on Freeways

PAGE 114

114 Table 3-9. Current HCM Service Meas ures used for LOS Determination Roadway Types Service Measure for all the vehicles in a traffic stream Freeway (Basic Segment) Density Multilane highway Density Two-lane highway Average Speed, Percent-Time-Spent-Following Urban arterial Average Speed

PAGE 115

115 CHAPTER 4 FOCUS GROUP STUDY RESULTS This chapter summarizes the findings from the three focus group meetings held for this study. The perceptions of drivers and managers are presented separa tely to be compared to each other. The factors important to the following four issues are listed and di scussed in order: truck route and departure time selec tion, truck trip quality, improveme nt priority of transportation services and truck delivery schedule reliability. The factors contribu ting to quality of a truck trip are clustered by each type of transportation facility. 4.1 Perceptions of Truck Drivers The following section describes the study results from the two focus group meetings with truck drivers. A total of nine drivers participated in the meeti ngs; one with five drivers and the other with four. Seven drivers were from th e for-hire Less-than-Truck Load (LTL) carriers delivering various types of goods while the other two were fr om private Truck Load (TL) operators carrying mainly foods. They all have truck driving experience of more than 15 years, with their ages ranging from 40 to 59 years. Se ven of the participants were FTA Road Team members. The Road Team members, in particular were very concerned with safety issues, as one of their important duties is to give safety demonstrations to the public. The socio-economic and working characteristics of the participan ts were collected through a background survey (Appendix E for the survey results). The text pr esented in this section only includes summaries and paraphrasing of the comments made by th e focus group participants. Thus, all the statements are a reflection of the focus group part icipants perceptions, not the personal opinions of the author.

PAGE 116

116 4.1.1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection For most truck drivers, truck route and depart ure time decisions are made by the managers at their trucking companies, based primarily on trav el safety, time, and distance. However, when truck drivers run into adverse weather or abnormal traffic or roadway conditions (e.g., severe congestion, low overpasses) on desi gnated routes, they may call the central dispatch office to obtain permission to change routes Some drivers select their ow n routes to meet the delivery times set up by their trucking companies. They choos e what they believe to be the best route for the times. City drivers, especially P&D (Pic k-up and Delivery) drivers pick the routes by themselves for the most efficient delivery. Th ey try to minimize back tracking situations by coordinating the order in which th eir trailers are loaded with the delivery times appointed for each customer. Some owner-operators (independe nt truck drivers) have designated routes by which they get paid. They need permission to de viate from the designated routes in order to still get paid for those different routes. Truck company managers typically use a rout ing software program to find the shortest route with respect to either time or distance. They also consider overall truck operating cost, travel time variability, driver comfort, etc. to ultimately choose the most efficient route for their trucking business. That is, the shortest routes may not be selected if signif icant chances of safety problems (e.g., narrow lane or shoulder widths, pe destrians or wildlife crossing) or excessive cost (e.g., fuel, toll) are involved in traveling the routes. Truc k drivers usually are not allowed to change designated routes to travel on toll roads unless they have a really important shipment, or the designated routes are complete ly blocked at the time of delivery (e.g., I-4 shut down due to crash investigation activities). It may be more important for LTL drivers than for TL drivers to stay on the designated routes. They have other potential destinati ons along the routes that their trucking companies may want them to reach dur ing the deliveries. Th e new reduced hours of

PAGE 117

117 service (amounts of time truck drivers can travel per day) also discour age the LTL drivers from changing routes. Drivers that d ecide on their own to change rout es can be held responsible if they were not able to make deliveries and come back to the base within the hours of service. Truck company managers also like to keep their drivers on routes that keep them within cell phone communication range. Most truck drivers prefer to tr avel on freeways as much as possible because of their shorter travel times and better perceived safety level. They try to stay off back roads (e.g., two-lane highways, arterials), unless they happen to be mu ch shorter in traveling distance. From hub to hub, most trucking facilities are locat ed on or near the interstates, reducing the need of truck drivers to travel on the back roads. A lot of back roads are not well suited for accommodating large, heavy trucks, especially double trailers. Truck drivers can get stuck on those back roads when they have to back up or turn around. They sometimes get a little nervous with low bridges, small towns (e.g., short turning radii), animals, fre quent stop lights, or unexpected pedestrians. Nevertheless, they will definite ly utilize the back roads when there is an accident or other unexpected event on the freeway that brings about considerable delay. Back roads serve a vital role today in the transportation system due to the increasing delays caus ed by the ever growing traffic volume and construction activities on Florida s interstates. Of the back roads, most truck drivers prefer traveling on multilane highways rath er than two-lane highways due to a perceived higher level of safety. Trucking companies set up the lo ads to be delivered at a specific time or within a time window. Truck company managers typically use an average speed of 47 mph in their calculations for travel time. This speed takes into account the various stops (e.g., fuel) that a driver may make during their trip, as well as occa sional slow downs due to traffic congestion. If

PAGE 118

118 traffic conditions are not severe, use of this sp eed value usually result s in ample time for the drivers to reach their destination on time. 4.1.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality The three most important concerns of truck driv ers for evaluating the quality of a truck trip are the perceived safety level, dr iving comfort, and total travel tim e. The factors contributing to those concerns vary by which type of roadways truck drivers travel on (e.g., freeways, 2-lane highways, etc.). Truck lane restrictions, speed differential between trucks and cars, motoring publics attitudes, level of congestion, and constr uction activities affect th eir perception of truck trip quality on freeways the most, while physical roadway conditions such as shoulder widths and condition, curb radii, lane widths, pavement condition are the most important determinants on their perceived truck trip quality on arterial s or two-lane highways. The motoring publics knowledge and attitude about trucks and truck drivers are important to truck drivers regardless of the roadway type, but their effects on the perceive d quality of a truck trip is greater on freeways than on the other facilities. Truck drivers are also sensitiv e to the potential presence of pedestrians, wildlife, or farming equipmen t on two-lane highways for safety reasons. 4.1.2.1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways Consistently good traffic flow and safety are th e two major factors considered to determine truck trip quality on freeways. Truck lane restrictions, speed differential between trucks and automobiles, the motoring publics attitude and knowledge of truck driving, etc. influence the traffic flow and safety condition of a freeway. Most truck drivers are very satisfied with the lighting conditions on Floridas fr eeways, especially at the interc hange areas. The frequency and timing of construction activ ities are other major con cerns of truck drivers. Truck lane restrictions: No trucks are allowed in the left-most lane on some interstate highways in Florida. Truck drivers feel that th e truck lane restriction makes the overall traffic

PAGE 119

119 flow worse and is also an unfair policy for truc k traffic. Truck driv ers have difficulty in consistently maintaining a desired speed in the ri ght-side lanes. They often have to drive in a traffic stream where some passenger cars travel much slower than other cars or others cut in their way to merge into or diverge from the freeway. It is difficult for drivers of large trucks with low acceleration and deceleration capabili ties to travel comfortably within the traffic flow with all the slow vehicles and merging or di verging traffic, especially with the maneuverability of passenger cars being much better. In addition, much of the motoring public does not know how to drive around trucks safely. Truck drivers need to always be attentive to their often abrupt behaviors. On the other hand, large trucks traveling in the right -side lanes make it more difficult for the passenger car drivers to find a safe gap to merge on to or off of the freeway. When a line of large trucks are formed behind slow vehicles, mane uverability of the passenge r cars is limited to a great degree. During the peak hours, traffic in the right-side lanes is extremely congested with a considerable amount of onand off-ramp traffi c. Some independent truck drivers get really impatient and go around the right-side lanes by usi ng the left-most lane to maintain their high desired speed even though it is no t allowed. They usually get paid by every mile and/or for a drop. Shortening travel time and di stance would be more important for them than for other truck drivers. Those drivers run right behind other truc k drivers, flashing their lights to get them move out of their way. Speed differential between trucks and autos: The major truck companies restrict the maximum speed of their trucks for safety and fu el economy through the use of engine governors. This maximum speed is usually around 65 mi/h. Independent truck drivers typically do not use speed governors; thus, their maximum speed is us ually much higher than 65 mi/h. Additionally, some states, though not Florida, have implemen ted a lower posted speed limit on the freeways

PAGE 120

120 for trucks than passenger vehicles This truck speed limit is usually 5 or 10 mi/h lower than the passenger vehicle speed limit. Whether by engine governing or speed limit posting, truck drivers strongly oppose these speed differentials. They f eel that a safe and efficient traffic flow is greatly hampered by the speed differential between tr ucks and other vehicles. It is hard for truck drivers to consistently maintain a safe following distance with the restricted speed limit. They often get tailgated or meet other drivers cutting in front of them. Motoring publics attitudes: The motoring public often has a negative impression of trucks and truck drivers even though they are carrying goods necessary for the publics lives. Courteous driving behavior by the motoring public is important to the quality of a truck trip. Passenger vehicle drivers often get aggressive around large trucks, not kn owing or ignoring the characteristics and limitations of truck driv ing. They should be cautious and knowledgeable enough to mingle with large trucks in a traffic stream safely. In this respect, it is important to publicize the importance of the tr ucking industry to our society and educate the motoring public about how to safely drive around large trucks in the traffic stream. Many passenger car drivers just want to go faster than ev erybody else. A big crash often occurs with their unpredictable aggressive driving be havior around trucks. Truck-only lanes: The designation of truck-only lanes is a good idea only if they are in the left-hand lanes. When truck-only lanes are designated to the right-hand lanes on freeways, it may just result in restricting the truck drivers us e of all the other lanes on the left side. Other types of vehicles still have to use the right-hand lanes for getting on and off the freeways, and this weaving activity aro und the trucks can pose a significant safety hazard. A couple of drivers provided a specific exampl e in Chicago on I-94. Along this freeway is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction. The right two la nes are for trucks only. Truck drivers cannot use

PAGE 121

121 the 3 or 4 lanes on the left side (the penalty for using them is $250 and 3 points). Truck drivers travel at a low speed of about 30 miles per hour constantly in the right two lanes on the freeway because of the number of merging and diverging drivers and th eir aggressive driving behavior, and increased truck density. They tr y to maintain a safe following distance. As a result, many truck drivers try to avoid th is section of the fr eeway if possible. Truck drivers would like to have more alterna tive routes, preferably some that only allow trucks on them. The truck-only routes could relieve the congestion on the freeways, improving traffic flow to a great degree by separa ting trucks from other vehicle types. Frequency of rest areas: Long-haul drivers often need to take a rest or get some sleep at rest areas or truck plazas. However, there are generally not enough rest areas or truck parking spaces along the freeways. In South Florida, the nearest place for drivers to park is at a mile marker 130. There is no truck parking f acility south of this mile marker. Frequency and timing of construction activities: More and more construction activities are being planned and conducted on major Interstates in Florida. Truck drivers choose to save travel time by taking back roads rather than tr aveling on the freeways with frequent construction activities. This makes the transportation serv ice improvements on the ot her facilities (e.g., twolane highways, multilane highways, or arterials) more important. They also want construction activities to be scheduled to avoid holidays or major activities like ra cing days in Daytona. Traveler Information Systems (TIS): Truck drivers appreciate the availability of TIS such as Variable Message Signs (VMS), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Citizen Band Radio (CBR), XM radio (a satellite ra dio service), 511 (Americas trav eler information phone number), etc. However, they would like to hear more th an just current traffic and roadway conditions or expected travel time on their route or greeting me ssages. They want to be informed of better

PAGE 122

122 ways to reach their destination when the driving condition on their traveli ng route is expected to be poor, considering travel time and/or safet y. The extensive use of XM radio for TIS is recommended in that a significant portion of truc k drivers listen to the traffic channels on the radio. Additionally, truck drivers look forward to using the 511 servic e all over the state of Florida, not just in the Tampa region. 4.1.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials The perceived quality of a truck trip on ar terials primarily depends on physical roadway conditions, in terms of safe and efficient through or turning movements of trucks. These factors generally include curb radii, la ne and shoulder widths, locations of trees, poles, street hardware, and utility lines. The roadway infrastructu re in some old towns was not designed to accommodate many of the larger trucks on the road today. Truck drivers also want to minimize stops and delays while traveling along an arterial. The control factors such as traffic signal spacing, yellow interval signal timing, traffic si gnal responsiveness and coordination were all mentioned by the drivers as influencing their percep tion of the quality of their trip. Availability and condition of signage and marking are importa nt for guidance to thei r destination. Other drivers behavior is also cons idered to have an impact on truck trip quality on arterials. Ease of turning maneuvers: The main concern of truc k drivers on arterials is the difficulty in making turning movements. Inadeq uate curb radii, misplaced trees and poles on corners, improper locations of stop lines at inte rsections, and the motoring publics poor attitudes about trucks and truck drivers ar e the primary factors affecting th is concern. The new areas of a town usually have wide enough roads and intersec tions for P&D (Pick-up and Delivery) drivers to make a turning maneuver, but most old part s of a town are not physically suitable to accommodate truck traffic. It is easier for truck dr ivers to make a left turn with a protected left turn traffic signal than to make several right turn s to go left. If a left turn signal phase operates

PAGE 123

123 as permitted only, it is hard for truck drivers to find a large enough gap to clear the intersection. When there is a very wide median along an arte rial, they could do a two-stage maneuver to make a left turn instead of waiting long for both ways to be cleared. Inexperienced drivers are much more likely to have an accident making a left turn than a right turn because they are naturally inclined to thinking that left turns are not difficult They are relatively easier than right turns, but still not easy. At many intersec tions, there is not enough room on th e right side of a truck for a safe right turn to be made. It is also hard for truck drivers to notice bicyclists or pedestrians crossing on the right side of a truck. Truck driver s will not attempt to make a U turn unless it is absolutely necessary. It is considered to be a very high-risk maneuver. Truck drivers are generally opposed to closing medians for access ma nagement purposes, as this usually increases the odds of having to make a U-turn. They woul d much rather have a ccess to and from their destination driveway th rough a traffic signal. Level of congestion: The congestion level of an arterial is closely re lated to the quality of a truck trip. As the roads get cr owded with cars, bikes, or pedest rians, truck drivers have more difficulty driving safely at a desired speed. They experience more delay and stop-and-go conditions. It also gets hard for them to change lanes or make turns. As the congestion level of a road goes up, the more concerned truck drivers beco me with the safety conditions of the arterial. Number of stop-and-go conditions: It requires a lot more atte ntion and effort to stop and re-maneuver a truck than any other vehicle on th e road. Thus, truck drivers are reluctant to travel on an arterial with heavy tr affic or short intersection spacing. Familiarity of the roads: Truck drivers are more likely to run into problems when they travel on arterials they have never been on. They might encounter such p hysical constraints as

PAGE 124

124 inadequate curb radii, low overhanging trees, mispl aced poles and trees at the corner, etc, or may have difficulty locating th eir delivery destination. Signage conditions: Missing or poorly mainta ined street name or truck route signs are a source of concern for truck drivers. Also, sign positioning can restrict sight distance in some instances. One driver gave a specific example of being stopped at the end of an exit ramp and a street sign blocking their view of oncoming traffic from the left. If the ramp is not signalized, they are forced to pull further in front of the sign and put th eir bumper out into traffic. Motoring publics attitudes: The general motoring public are either unaware of the characteristics of truck driving or just ignore them when they are driving on arterials. The majority of them do not know that there is a blind spot on the right side of trucks when truck drivers are making a right-turn maneuver. They just try to sneak in every space they can find around the trucks in order to ge t by them as fast as possible. The motoring public sometimes stops beyond the stop lines at in tersection approaches, either through ignorance or indifference, and thus making it very difficulty for trucks to make a turning maneuver from an adjacent approach. In these cases, a truc k driver will often find themselves needing to back up at some point during the turning maneuver. However, it is very dangerous for truck drivers to back up and many drivers will not do it, inst ead opting to just wait for the other vehicle drivers to make space, even if their truck is blocking the inte rsection. The motoring public should understand the limitations of truck driving and give trucks plenty of room, but they often try to use all the space around the trucks to go faster. Educating th e motoring public to understand and support truck operations on arterials is essentia l as the volume of truck traffic continues to grow in Florida. Trees, electrical lines: Truck drivers need to be more alert for overhead and side objects, such as low hanging trees, power lines, TV lines, telephone lines, and street furniture, on arterials

PAGE 125

125 than on the open highway. Trees seem to be beco ming a more popular arteri al roadside feature, but are just problematic for truck drivers, as they often damage their trailers by colliding with branches. Truck drivers are especi ally not fond of tree canopy roads. Length of yellow interval signal timing: Truck drivers prefer to have longer yellow intervals for clearing the signalized intersections sa fely. They are apt to be in a predicament if they decide to run through the intersections at the moment when the light changes to yellow. Stopping before entering the inte rsection is difficult with the poor braking capabilities of the truck, and clearing the intersection with the larg e size of their vehicles before the conflicting movements begin takes several s econds. Additionally, very short green intervals (of just a few seconds) are very undesirable. Unless they are fi rst in queue, there is little chance for them to accelerate in time to clear intersection. At signa lized intersections near highway-railroad grade crossings, truck drivers often have to run the re d light to avoid stopping on the tracks. The loop detectors are usually located at the clear storage distance areas that can only accommodate passenger cars. Thus, trucks cannot be in the right position to trigger a green signal. Traffic signal responsiveness: During the late night hours, drivers sometimes have to wait a long time at an intersection approach for the green signal even when there is no other traffic on the other approaches. The traffic signa ls need to respond to th e approaching vehicles to eliminate unnecessary delay. It is also impor tant to assign green sign als fairly to all the vehicles approaching an intersec tion. Truck drivers are likely to get more impatient when the green signal assignment seems unfair to them. Truck lane restrictions: Trucks are restricted to the right-hand lanes at many towns in Florida. When traffic is backed up and trucks are lined up in the right hand lane at a signalized intersection, only 2 or 3 trucks can get through the inte rsection within one tr affic signal cycle due

PAGE 126

126 to their low acceleration cap abilities. The passenger car driv ers behind the trucks probably get frustrated, especially the right turners. 4.1.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways Truck drivers generally do not like to travel on two-lane hi ghways. It usually exposes them to additional safety hazards, while not saving them any travel time relative to the freeways. However, they do often use two-lane highway s when there are accidents or construction activities on the freeways. They also use them to go around some routinely congested stretches of freeways. Sometimes, they are the only rout e to their destination. The importance of twolane highways is increasing with th e increase of growth and interstate traffic in Florida. Truck drivers are most concerned with the physical road way conditions for the quality of a truck trip on two-lane highways. The lane and/or shoulder widths are often too na rrow to provide truck drivers with much room for error. Even 12-feet of lane width (the st andard lane width) are considered narrow for these roadways. And if th ey should encounter a problem and need to pull off the road, many two-lane highways have either no shoulder or a narrow shoulder. Even for locations with a shoulder, it is often not paved, a nd in wet weather, will be too soft to support the weight of a loaded truck and tr ailer. Some truck drivers r outinely encounter pedestrians, bicyclists, farming equipment, or wildlife cros sing on two-lane highways that pose a safety hazard. Additionally, when a low speed vehicle is encountered, the only way to pass is usually in the oncoming lane, which truck drivers are very reluctant to do. Thus their perceived trip quality deteriorates rapidly in this situation. Shoulder width and condition: Many stretches of two-lane highway contain no shoulder at all. For other locations that include a shoulder, it is often no t wide enough to park a truck on (in case of emergency) without partially blocking the travel lane. This can be a very dangerous situation for both the truck driv er and passing passenger vehicles. Additionally, paved shoulders

PAGE 127

127 are strongly preferred. Some driv ers recalled stories of when they pulled their truck off onto an unpaved, wet shoulder. In some instances, the shoul der was so soft that their truck tipped over, and thus two trucks were needed to remove it; one to stand it up and the other to pull it out. Many two-lane highways also have large drainage ditches on the side of the road. Truck drivers feel it is less risky to travel on multilane highways than on two-lane highways because the shoulders on most multilane highw ays are wider and better paved. Crowning condition: Some roads are reverse crowned or have a significant side slope, which makes it more challenging for the driver to keep the truck from st eering onto the shoulder or into the opposing lane. Pavement condition: Some roads are grooved and not ma intained properly. There is only a little pavement or patches al ong the roads. The poor pavement condition makes the tires wear out faster and inhibits the safe delivery of fragile goods or hazardous materials. Lane widths: Most roadway lanes are tight fo r truck movements. Even though a significant portion of them have the standard lane width of 12 f eet, it does not allow truck drivers much room for error. This problem gets bigg er on roads with constr uction activities, where travel lanes are often narrowed. Unexpected pedestrians, wildlife, or others: Pedestrians, wildlife, or others in close proximity to two-lane highways can pose a safety hazard. For some truck drivers, it is a major deterrent to traveling on two-lane highways. It is not rare to encounter some folks out there on the roads that are sleepy, tired, or drunk in the very early morning, late evening, or in the summer. Wildlife such as deer, opossums, or raccoons of ten shows up on two-lane highways. On a twolane highway in a farming community, truck drivers need to be careful not to conflict with farm trucks, peanut wagons, cotton hoppers, or the like.

PAGE 128

128 Passing maneuvers on two-lane highways: When truck drivers encounter somebody who is going at a considerably lower speed than the roadway speed limit, most of them usually try to pass him/her even though they have to take significant risks due to the large size and low acceleration capability of their truck. If a passing lane is upcoming, they will usually wait for that, but many two-lane highways do not provide passing lanes. If a l eading vehicle is only going a little slower than the tr uck drivers desired speed, they usually will not try to pass. However, their trip quality is definitely negatively affected. 4.1.2.4 Factors affecting truck tr ip quality on hub facilities The perceived safety level and operation of access to a hub facility are the two major concerns of the truck drivers using hub facili ties. There are some access highways that are routinely congested. Those roads need traffic sign als or wide medians for truck drivers to get in and out of the traffic streams eas ily. It is good to have hub facili ties at some locations where the access of truck traffic is easy. Truck drivers so metimes have to wait for a long time for their freight to be unloaded at so me hub facilities because of overbooked appointments. Some receivers or receiving department s at retail stores are not suppor tive to get their shipments from truck drivers at a scheduled time. It is a si gnificant problem for truc king companies and truck drivers, especially the drivers who get paid by the miles because they are not paid for waiting there. Some trucking companies stipulate how to compensate for the delay into the contracts with their customers. The old and deteriorated pavement condition at some old hub facilities is another problem. 4.1.3 Improvement Priority of Transportation Services It was inferred from the focus group discussions that the order of roadway types in which more improvements are needed, are two-lane highways, freeways, multilane highways, and urban arterial facilities, from the truck drivers perspective. The increasing traffic volume and

PAGE 129

129 construction activities on freeways lead truck dr ivers to take two-lane or multilane highways more often than ever. The main subjects of im provement on those facilities are narrow lane and shoulder widths and deteriorated pavement condition, which mostly do not provide them adequate room for error. Although the partic ipants were mostly satisfied with freeway conditions in Florida, they are still very important for truck drivers as th ey spend most of their time on them. Truck drivers do not want the left la ne restricted from truck use or a lower speed limit only applied to truck traffic. They also indicated that educating the motoring public, in addition to truck drivers, would be one of th e key factors for improving driving conditions on freeways. Given the fact that much less of truck drivers travel mileage occurs on arterials, they were thought to be least in need of improvement among the listed f acility types. However, truck driving environment on arterials ar e important exclusively to LTL or short-haul drivers. Some arterial facilities, especi ally in old towns, were considered to be in need of renovation in terms of physical roadway conditions (e.g., curb radii, placement of trees or light poles, etc.) to accommodate trucks whose sizes are larger than they used to be many years ago. The participants indicated that the best m easures for better truck operations would be constructing more alternative routes, preferably truck-only routes. They believe that designated truck routes would not only help them cope with the ever increasing number of cars in Florida, but also eliminate possible safety hazards caused by inconsistent tra ffic flow with all the vehicles having different operating characteristics (e.g., acceleration or deceleration capability, braking distance, etc.). 4.1.4 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability Unexpected traffic congestion incurred by accide nts, construction, etc. is the major cause of a late delivery. The impact of road cons truction activities on on-time delivery performance is greater for the long-haul drivers than for the shorthaul drivers in that they usually do not travel

PAGE 130

130 on regular routes, so they often have no idea where the construction zones are. Long-haul drivers are more likely to jeopardize themselves by speeding up to meet the arranged time for a delivery. If they are late for a delivery, there is a possibility that they are not paid for the long trip and also fail to pick up other loads for b ack-hauling on their way back. Independent truck drivers also are sensitive to on-time performan ce. They often try to set up more delivery appointments to earn more money, and then they have to speed up on roadways to meet their tightened delivery schedules. They may also need some time to change the loading sequence of the goods by themselves according to the newly set up delivery appointments. Owner-operator truck drivers have difficulty delivering the goods as scheduled if their trucks are not ready. They cannot start their trip unt il their trucks are fixed. That is not the case for company-hired drivers whom their companies provide with a wide collecti on of trucks. Most longhaul truck drivers in Florida are rarely late for their deliveries (almost 100% early or ontime delivery). It is mainly because they are given enough time to make on-time deliveries. An average speed of 47 mi/h is typically used by truck company managers to calcu late the total delivery travel time. Managers often use an average speed less than 47 mi/h to allow more travel ti me for the drivers that have to travel through some routinely congested areas. Some impatient drivers try to save a signifi cant amount of time by driving fast. Also, new drivers will often not admit th at they are sleepy and pull over, as they want to make a good impression to their employers. Thus, they would have a higher likelihood of being involved in an accident than others. On-time delivery perf ormance is important, espe cially at the seaport facilities. Some receivers there will not take the freight even if it is only 5 minutes late. 4.2 Perceptions of Truck Company Managers The following section describes the results from a focus group session held with three truck company managers. They were all from the major Truck Load (TL) carriers operating

PAGE 131

131 more than 400 trucks. One manager was from a private company primarily carrying groceries. The other two were working for for-hire companie s delivering various types of goods. One of these two was involved in a company dealing w ith hazardous materials, mostly using multilane or two-lane highways. The information on th e socio-economic and working characteristics of the participants is summarized in Appendix E. It was noted by the participants that some portion of their perceptions was formed by the communica tions with the truck drivers working for their trucking business. Again, the text presented in this section only contains summaries and paraphrasing of the comments made by the focus group participants. It is not necessarily the opinions of the researchers. 4.2.1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection Typically, dispatch managers or driver mana gers at the trucking companies decide on a truck travel route and de parture time. They usually use routing software to choose a shortest or quickest route. However, they are also open to the suggestions (e.g., traffic or clearance conditions on a route) their drivers make. When the problems of a route are thought to negatively affect their trucking business (in terms of overall operating cost, on-time performance, or drivers trip satisfaction) they occasionally change the route or manipulate the routing software to reflect those problems. Sometimes, truc k drivers try to take alternative routes instead of the routes designated by thei r managers. Managers normally allow them to do it as long as they are legal routes, but they get paid by the di spatched routes. Commer cial for-hire carriers discuss with customers to figure out what time is the best for delivery, while private carriers operate various delivery windows for their own goods. Once a freight arrival time is set up, truck departure time is normally calculated with a 45 mi/h average truc k speed (47 mi/h is most often used) considering DOT hours of service, time to rest, and all the possible situations truck drivers may encounter.

PAGE 132

132 Truck travel route and departure time are sele cted primarily based on shortest travel time or distance, using routing software. Although th e software saves much time for managers, it does not always make the best decisions. Thus, ma nagers also take into account perceived safety risks, time of day congestion, cons truction activities, pavement c onditions, operating cost, etc. of potential routes. Driving on two-lane highways may be cons idered dangerous due to the intermittent unexpected presence of pedestrian s and no amount of room for error (e.g., no shoulder, narrow lane width). School zones, in particular, are avoided by hazardous material carriers and it is also often noted in the delivery contracts with thei r customers. Some routes are avoided at certain times of a day (e.g., AM peak hours) due to routinely congested traffic conditions. Construction activitie s sometimes cause unexpected delays, so are considered in the decision. Pavement conditions are important to the truck drivers hauling fragile goods such as glass bottles. Managers sometimes also try to avoid roadways requiring high tolls, unless the travel time savings is relatively very large. Although some truck drivers would prefer to travel on freeways for time savings, there are some other drivers, who would rather drive on mu ltilane highways because of the congestion and safety hazards on freeways. The major cause of congestion is frequent construction activities currently in place on many freeways in Florida. Most trucks in major carriers are governed at certain speeds lower than the speed limits on freew ays for travel safety and fuel economy. Some truck drivers prefer to drive on multilane highways to avoid the speed differential between trucks and passenger cars caused by the governed truck speeds. The moto ring public generally does not have much respect for trucks and are also not knowledgeable about how to drive around trucks safely. Many truck drivers hate driving on some two-lane highways with a lot of tourists and people passing. On the other hand, they are more comfortable on some other two-lane highways

PAGE 133

133 with double solid yellow lines for good stretches, even though th ere may be many traffic lights along the highway. 4.2.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality Managers generally believe that travel time and safety are the two most important issues for determining truck trip quality perceived by tr uck drivers. On-time delivery performance is considered to be significantly affected by tra ffic volume, construction activities, and traffic signal controls on various transportation facilities Driving safety is thought to be mostly affected by the motoring publics negative attitudes about trucks and truck drivers and their lack of knowledge about truck drivi ng characteristics. Physical roadway conditions are also considered to be important for accommodating truc ks with their large si zes and low acceleration and deceleration capabilities. 4.2.2.1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways Truck company managers prefer to route their drivers to freeways for continuous and fast traffic flow. However, this advantage has been di minished with the significant increase in traffic volume and construction activities on freeways in Florida. Truck drivers consistently complain about the motoring publics unfavor able attitudes about trucks a nd the speed differential between trucks and other vehicles on freeways. Those i ssues negatively affect the perceptions by truck drivers of the quality of a truck trip with respec t to driving safety and comfort. Some drivers often try to travel on multilane highways instead of freeways for these reasons. Ideally, truckonly routes would be provided to separate truck traffic from others and reduce the congestion level. Speed differential between trucks and autos: Many truck drivers are restricted to travel at a maximum speed ~5 miles lower than the posted speed limit of a freeway by the engine speed governors. The speed differential betwee n speed-governed trucks and other vehicles

PAGE 134

134 deteriorates the overall traffic flow on freeways. However, it is required to support safe driving behavior by the truck drivers. Ability of the driver to cope with a dangerous moment drops significantly as the truck speed in creases above a certain level. For many truck companies, this level is 65 mi/h. According to one manager, his drivers believed that the safety level would be enhanced if they could travel as fast as the others in a traffic stream, but it was disproved statistically with the safety reco rds of their company. On the ot her hand, the slow trucks are the main obstacle for the motoring public. They keep the other drivers from consistently maintaining a desired travel speed. In addition, truck drivers often travel next to each other to talk while driving, sometimes blocking more than three lanes simultaneously. Motoring publics attitudes: The motoring public is a significant deterrent to the safe driving performance of truck drivers in a traffic stream. They generally have little respect for trucks and truck drivers, and also are not knowledgeable about how to drive around large trucks safely. The motoring public does not usually ma intain a safe following distance and they often cut off in front of trucks or pass by them with a high speed while their movements are unexpected or sometimes even unnoticeable by the truck drivers. Many managers would route their truck drivers to multilane highways rather than freeways if it took a similar amount of time to reach the destination. Level of congestion: The main benefit of using freeways is a lower travel time. However, the traffic volume on Floridas freeways has incr eased significantly in the past several years, while the roadway capacities have not changed much. This increases the travel time of the users and aggravates the safety level on freeways. Ther e are not many alternative routes in Florida to avoid the traffic congestion. Thus, truck compan y managers always try to schedule a delivery during non-peak hours. Most truck drivers and managers prefer a night-time delivery. The

PAGE 135

135 trucking community often utilizes multilane highways in case of congestion, accidents, or construction activities on freeways. However, two-lane highways are hardly considered as alternatives due to their longer tr avel time, potential safety hazard s, inadequate shoulders, etc. Frequency and duration of construction activities: Construction activities on Florida interstates have significantly increased over the pa st few years. They have become so frequent and long in duration as to have a significant ne gative impact on trucking business with respect to on-time delivery performance and truck operating cost. Poor temporary pavement surface during construction periods is another concern for keeping the freight in good condition. Truck lane restrictions: It was thought by all three managers that left-lane truck restrictions (i.e., trucks are not allowed to travel in the left-mos t lane) are not a big concern to truck drivers as long as more than two travel lanes are provided to them in each direction. This was based on the reasoning that there is almost no possibility of truc k drivers passing other vehicles through the left-most lane because the maxi mum speed of most trucks is restricted under the posted speed limit by the engine speed governors of their truck companies. However, they felt that truck drivers need to be allowed in th e left-most lane on a roadway with only two lanes in each direction. Traveler Information Systems (TIS): Truck drivers and truck company mangers are always welcomed to use the TIS. However, it is not really beneficial to the trucking community due to the lack of alternative rout es in Florida. Its value will be much higher if more alternative routes are provided. It is best to have truck-on ly routes with at least two travel lanes in each direction. Weigh stations: The passage of truck drivers thr ough weigh stations is not much of a concern for the Truck Load (TL) trucking communit y. Nearly all weigh stations in Florida allow

PAGE 136

136 most truck drivers to pass by the stations without being weighed at all, once the safety records of their truck companies verify their good performa nce regularly. Only one out of seven passing trucks gets stopped for a weight in spection. It is very rare that total weight (the sum of weights of vehicle, equipment, and freight) is over th e maximum limit allowed by law (80,000 pounds). The only situation that truck compan ies are eligible to carry above the limit is when they deliver necessities (e.g., frozen foods) to areas of imp act during a state of emergency declared by the governor. Truck company managers sometimes encounter some customers at ports with international containers weighing more than 80,000 pounds coming from overseas. They need a permit before delivering the freigh t from the port to the destination. Thus, they try to have the permit obtained by who is responsible for it. The weigh stations at the st ate borders investigate the axle distribution as well as the total weight For this reason, the tr uck drivers frequently crossing the state lines may have some different concerns about the weigh station facilities. One manager complained about the location of a weigh station in Florida. The weigh station is located in the median area on highway 60. The speed limit of the roadway is 65 mi/h and the acceleration lane is only 100 yards long. Truck driver s have difficulty accelerating their trucks to safely merge into the left-most lane (the fastest travel lane). There were some rear-end accidents at this site. 4.2.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials Managers mainly talked about physical roadwa ys and traffic conditions not suitable for trucks turning movements. The influencing factors are curb radi us, stop line position, existence of protected turning phases, motoring publics knowledge and attitudes about trucks turning maneuvers. They mentioned that length of ye llow signal timing and tra ffic signal coordination along an arterial would also aff ect truck trip quality perceive d by truck drivers. Level of congestion on Florida arterials has gone up to a great degree by a consiste ntly increasing number

PAGE 137

137 of cars and traffic signals. The increased c ongestion level has a direct negative impact on efficiency in truck operations. Thus, managers always take into account time-of-day congestion (at AM or PM peak) when selecting truck routes and departure times for deliveries. Ease of turning maneuvers: Truck drivers sometimes have difficulty making turning movements. A considerable number of inte rsections do not provide adequate space and appropriate traffic signal control for the turning movements of trucks. The turning path of a truck is often partially blocked by the curbs with sm all radii at intersection corners. The vehicles waiting for a green signal at an intersection some times obstruct the turning movement of a truck. Many drivers stop beyond the stop line in a turn lane on an adjacent approach, which reduces the available turning area. Thus, shaving off a sectio n of a corner to make an angled corner or placing the stop lines further back would be bene ficial. When truck drivers get stuck in the middle of turning at an intersec tion, managers advise them to not back up and re-maneuver, as there are great risks of them conflicting with other drivers, bicyclists, or pedestrians. They want the driver to wait until the potentially obstructi ng traffic clear their wa y. Additionally, light poles, and electrical wires at th e edge of the curbs were not relocated for truck turning movements in some renovations for old downtown ar eas. This should be always considered for the development of a new town as well as the future renovation of an old town. Most commercial carriers have a company policy against U-turning movement because it has been one of the major causes of accidents. Sa fety managers regularly remind their drivers of the danger of making a U-turn and demonstrate to them how to reach destinations without a Uturn when they miss a leftor ri ght-turn. Some carriers use a r outing database to eliminate the need of their drivers for U-turn maneuvers by guiding them to other routes on which no U-turn maneuver is necessary. Many car riers prohibit a U-turn maneuve r exclusively in residential

PAGE 138

138 areas because of the possibility of trucks collidin g with pedestrians, elect rical lines, or something else. The managers felt that trucks need much mo re time and space for turning maneuvers than other vehicle types. It is preferable to turn at controlled intersections with enough curb radii and shoulder width. Truck drivers pref er the existence of exclusive turning signals (e.g., left turn arrow signals) with no permitted vehicle moveme nts (e.g., no right turn on red signs) during turning maneuvers due to the difficulty in finding an adequate traffic gap and space. McCord (2006) reported that UPS now has an of ficial policy that instruct their drivers to avoid making left turns as often as possibl e. Steve Goodrich, U PS Community Relations Manager, indicated that UPS cannot eliminate left turns entirel y, but the idea is to reduce the number as much as possible. He stated that its benefits are threefold. First, it saves travel time by not having to wait for a large traffic gap and space. Second, it also saves fuels as truck drivers idle waiting the left turn opportunity. Third, left turns are not as safe to make as right turns. Level of congestion: Congestion levels on Florida arterials have been increased significantly over the past a few years. Additional traffic lights are added to the existing roadway infrastructure to control the increased number of cars, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians on many arterials. Th is makes it harder than ever fo r truck drivers to travel along arterials or through intersections. The increased levels of cong estion just lead to poor on-time performance, upward truck operating cost, and unhappy truck drivers and customers. During AM or PM peak hours, driving through an urban arte rial is often an ordeal. Thus, truck drivers are directed to travel during nonpeak hours in every possible case.

PAGE 139

139 Number of stops versus overall delays through signalized intersections: It is difficult to discern which one of the two aspects is more im portant to the quality of a truck trip. However, the importance of number of stops is certainly gr eater for truck drivers than for the passenger car drivers, in that it takes much more time and effo rt for truck drivers to decelerate and accelerate their vehicles. They also need to pay special at tention to keep all the equipment and goods safe, so it is a big concern especially for fra gile or hazardous material carriers. Motoring publics attitudes: Automobile drivers need more etiquette or knowledge about the characteristics of truck turning movements. They often pull thei r cars beyond the stop lines, or drive around a truck making a turning movement at intersections, ignor ing its wide turning radius. When a truck driver gets stuck at an in tersection in the middle of a turning maneuver, the cooperative attitude (i.e., yieldi ng behavior) of other drivers is sometimes crucial for the truck driver to get out of the predicament safely. Length of yellow interval signal timing: The lengths of yellow signal timings at signalized intersections are somewh at short for trucks to clear th e intersections safely before conflicting traffic signals turn green. This is because the long lengt h, heavy weight, and poor acceleration and deceleration capabili ties of trucks. At a signalized intersection, drivers are often placed in a dilemma zone where they can neit her stop before the stop line nor clear the intersection. In this situation, they are forced to choos e between abruptly stopping and running the red light. Length of the dilemma zone is usually much longer for large trucks than for passenger cars. There are even some signalized intersections where the dilemma zones only exist for trucks, not for passenger cars. The d ilemma zones for trucks may be eliminated if traffic signal clearance intervals (yellow and re d intervals) are timed properly. Expansion of yellow interval signal timing ma y contribute to this issue.

PAGE 140

140 Traffic signal coordination: Truck drivers are well aware th at even when there is some congestion, they can still go through an arterial wi thout having to stop too mu ch if traffic signals are properly coordinated. Again, it takes much more time and effort for truck drivers to stop and re-maneuver than it does for passenger car drivers. It is important for truck drivers to stop as little as possible along their delivery routes. 4.2.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways As noted at the truck driver focus gro up meetings, shoulder width and condition are exclusively important for truck dr ivers to deal with potentially unexpected situations such as breakdowns, flat tires, etc. Another important concern is routinely encountered pedestrians along two-lane highways, causing safety hazards. Managers have very negative opinions about passing maneuvers of trucks (safety concerns), considering their acceler ation and deceleration capabilities inferior to other ve hicles and much longer length. Shoulder width and condition: A wide and firm shoulder is essential for truck drivers in a case of emergency. Long continuous shoulde rs placed at least every 35 miles may be required for the drivers to deal with emergenc y situations without disturbing the two-way, twolane traffic flow and get back on the road later safely. Moreover, widths of travel lanes on many two-lane highways are not enough for truck driver s to maneuver comfortably. Their travel path is not in the center of travel lanes, but often skew ed to the right. Truck drivers tend to travel on some parts of shoulder. Thus, use of rumble st rips on the boarder of travel lane and shoulder may be beneficial for bicyclists or pe destrians, but can disturb truck driving. Passing maneuvers: Managers generally discourage their drivers from passing other vehicles in any case due to the significant risks accompanied by it. However, many truck drivers still try to do it. One manager commented that his truck drivers would pass a vehicle running at 40 mi/h if they were traveling at 55 mi/h or more. The safety departments at most truck

PAGE 141

141 companies use such educational programs as Value-Driven or Ethics and Techniques by Smith Systems, to make them realize the importa nce of safe driving. The potential hazards of passing and U-turn maneuvers are we ll demonstrated by those programs. Frequency of pedestrians: Managers prefer to not rout e their drivers to pedestriancrowded areas for safety reasons. It usually increases travel tim e and asks the drivers for an additional effort to pay attention to those pedestrians. A truck-pede strian collision is apt to lead to severe pedestrian injury or fatality, soaring recovery and insurance fee, and potentially loss of sales. Traveling on two-lane highways around ma ny tourist spots in Florida is often avoided. 4.2.2.4 Factors affecting truck tr ip quality on hub facilities Post 9/11, port facilities statew ide reinforced their security levels, increasing time and cost for truck operations. Truck drivers are requi red to pass background and security checks for every visit. The truck companies are charged for their use of the port faci lities. Additional cost is imposed to the companies on updating the bac kground information of thei r drivers. The port facilities in Florida have grow n consistently, but access roads fr om FIHS (Florida Intrastate Highway System) to the facilities have not been accordingly upgraded with respect to roadway capacity and safety level. 4.2.3 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability A primary determinant of on-time delivery performance is the existence of unexpected congestion along the route. In th is respect, accidents, incidents, construction activities, or bad weathers are the main causes of late deliveries. Construction activit ies and bad weathers on delivery routes may be predictable in a short te rm to some degree. However, it is always difficult for long-haul drivers or independent drivers to obtain and update reliable information about construction and bad weather conditions al ong their long routes. Even though they are properly informed of the conditions, they are not ra re and there is often no alternative route as

PAGE 142

142 efficient (primarily time-wise) as their originally desi gnated route. In many cases, they have no choice but to go through the conditions. Travel time through some routinely congested area s is hard to predict. That is, the more congested a delivery route is, the more difficult it is to estimate accurate freight arrival time. Variability of on-time delivery performance (the per cent of the expected travel time by which the actual arrival time is different from the scheduled arrival time) largely depends on the expected level of congestion along the trav eling areas. For example, in th e Sarasota region, variability of on-time performance is within 2 per cent, while it is about 30 percen t in Atlanta. Other than the congestion issues, delivery is sometimes late beca use of problems with shi ppers facilities. This occurs when they are not ready for the goods to be carried. Managers consider roadway capacity increases for trucks as the most efficient way to improve on-time delivery service. This capacity increases may be accomplished by constructing a lternative routes or designating truck only routes. The managers at the meeting agreed that late delivery rarely occu rs, so it is not a major concern for now. However, the importance of on-time performance is on the rise with an increasing demand for just-in-time deliveries and low inventory c ontrols. Managers generally prefer night-time deliveries because truck driv ers can run more efficiently without much congestion. However, the night-time truck deliv eries are uncommon for now. Some shippers only operate Monday through Friday, 6 AM to 6 PM It is also usually difficult for truck companies to save enough money for receivers to employ night crews by delivering just a few truck loads. One manager from a for-hire compa ny stated that truck companies may be able to offer discounts to the receivers for the night cr ews by making a profit by operating each of their trucks day and night by different drivers (day shift and night shif t). The other manager from a private company actually considered night-time delivery as the only way to remain competitive

PAGE 143

143 for its trucking business. Earl y deliveries also cause problem s for both for-hire and private trucking companies. Customers often do not accep t early deliveries and for-hire truck companies still pay for the truck drivers wa iting time. There is a lot more flexibility for private companies than for-hire companies in terms of early deliver ies because they can reallocate labor to pick up their own goods delivered earlier than scheduled. However, it is sometimes difficult to do that especially when unloading crews are busy perfor ming other tasks at the time of early delivery. On-time delivery performance is critical in the trucking busin ess because it is the primary determinant of the delivery serv ice performance level of a tr uck company. Some customers evaluate the trucking service based totally on it. Some other customers rate it primarily on ontime delivery and include billing errors, load co ndition, claims, etc. to evaluate the overall service performance. Impact of late de liveries on trucking business should not be underestimated since they aggravate service le vel of a truck company, which may lead to penalties and loss of sales, not to mention unhappy customers. 4.3 Perceptional Difference between Truck Drivers and Truck Company Managers Truck drivers and truck company managers both believe that quali ty of a truck trip largely depends on three factors such as tr avel safety, travel time, and driv ing comfort. The travel safety aspect of a truck trip is very important for th e two groups, given the fact that truck drivers are mostly graded by their accident history and freq uency of accidents has a great effect on trucking business operated by truck company managers. Trav el time aspect of a truck trip is more important for truck company managers than for tr uck drivers. Truck company managers always have to focus on the on-time delivery performance of their drivers, which is a primary measure for customers to evaluate the overall performan ce level of their truck company. On the other hand, most truck drivers are given enough time to make a delivery on time, and thus it is rare that they are late for a delivery. Even when a late delivery occurs, truck company managers are often

PAGE 144

144 responsible for it since they typically select the travel route and departur e time for deliveries. Truck drivers have more concerns on driving comfort aspect of a truck trip than truck company managers. It is because they are the ones who sp end most of their time dr iving their truck on the road as a job, and thus they are very sensitive to this aspect. Out of th e factors perceived to be important to driving comfort by truck drivers, truck company managers are concerned mainly with the factors affecting their trucking busine ss with respect to overa ll operating cost and ontime delivery performance. Most of the factors perc eived to be important to quality of a truck trip by the two groups were overlapped, but the perceptions of truck drivers on the relativ e importance of those factors were different from those of tr uck company managers. Truck lane restriction, in particular, was not perceived to be a problem by the manager gr oup as long as there are at least two or more lanes in each direction allowed for truck traffic. However, it was perceived to be very important to quality of a truck trip by the truck drivers. It was considered to have a significantly negative effect on both safety and maneuverab ility aspects of their truck trip.

PAGE 145

145 CHAPTER 5 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS A total of 459 truck drivers and 38 truck comp any managers responded to the survey effort of this study. The survey responses were anal yzed statistically to in vestigate their general perceptions on the importance of the traffi c, roadway, and control factors on various transportation facilities. This chapter provides th e findings from the survey data analysis. The relative importance, satisfaction, and improvement priority of each factor on truck trip quality was examined from the truck driver survey re sponses, while the relative importance of each factor on operating cost, on-time delivery perfor mance, truck drivers trip satisfaction, and overall trucking business was examined from the truck company manager survey responses. The perceptions of the both groups on the improvement priority of various roadway types and the preference on truck driving times of day were also explored. 5.1 Backgrounds of the Participants This section describes the ge neral background characteristics of the survey respondents. The background characteristics of the driver respondents from FTDC event and from postagepaid mail-back surveys are presented separately as well as in a combined form, while those of the managers are presented only in a comb ined form, given the small sample size. 5.1.1 Truck Driver Participants The socio-economic and working characteristics of a total of 459 driver survey respondents are shown in Table 5-1. About 32 percent of the respondents (148/459) were from the FTDC event, while almost 68 percent of them ( 311/459) were postage-paid mail-back survey respondents. About five percent of all the respondents were wo men and most respondents (95%) were at the age of 30 years. The average truck driving job experience was more than 17 years and the number of respondent s from for-hire carriers was more than three times that from

PAGE 146

146 private carriers. The ratio of the respondent s from TL carriers to those from LTL carriers was 54:19. About one fourth of them were independen t truck drivers. More than 75 percent of the respondents were long-haul drivers and more than 80 percent of th e drivers operate trucks that are speed-governed. The average governe d speed of the respondents was 68.4 mi/h. More than half of the respondents from FTDC ev ent were short-haul drivers, but a majority of the postage-paid mail-back survey respondents ( 92%) were long-haul driv ers. It is because the surveys were distributed at the agricultural inspection stations on freeways which are mostly used by long-haul drivers. This explains the differences in several other background characteristics between the two respondent groups. The postage-p aid survey respondents consisted of more percent of TL drivers, owner/op erator drivers, and drivers getting paid by the mile than the respondents from the FTDC event. Their average one-way truck driving distance and average governed truck speed were also higher. More background questions were asked only to the FTDC respondents. The summary of the additional backgrounds of the respondents is shown in Table 5-2. A majority of the respondents (70%) were caucasian and about 76 percent were edu cated up to the level of high school. More than half of the respondents earn between 50,000 and 69,000 dollars annually as truck drivers. Their truck comp any fleet sizes and type of goods they carry varied. The drivers use freeways most often among various roadway types. An average of 51 percent of their truck trips is made on freeways and they spend about 52 percent of their truck driving hours on freeways. They spend the average of 1.3 nights away from their home per week. 5.1.2 Truck Company Manager Participants The backgrounds of a total of 38 manager su rvey respondents are s hown in Table 5-3. Twenty seven of them were postage-paid survey re spondents and the rest were the participants at the FTDC event. The participant background info rmation from the two recruitment sources was

PAGE 147

147 combined and investigated as a whole due to the small sample size. Most respondents were male with their age ranging from 30 to 59 years. A high er percentage of them were for-hire and/or TL carriers than private and/or LTL carriers. They were mostly transportation/logistics or safety managers at truck companies and their main job duties included management of truck operation safety, truck travel route selec tion and scheduling for deliveries. The fleet sizes of their truck companies varied. An average of about 45 per cent of their concerns was on the operating cost aspect of truck operation, while 30 percent of their concerns were for on-time delivery performance and 25 percent on tr uck drivers trip quality. Table 5-4 summarizes the additional backgr ounds of the 11 respondents at the FTDC event. More than half of the respondents indi cated that truck travel route and departure time decisions are made only by the managers at their companies. The income levels of the respondents varied with almost 30 percent of them earning 50,00060,000 dollars annually as truck company managers. Thirty six percent of the respondents were educated at more than a high school level. The truck type s their companies operate varied, but straight truc ks, 4-axle and 5-axle tractor semi-trailers were more often used than other tr uck types. The type of goods carried by their companies also varied. 5.2 Perceptions on the Relative Import ance of Each Factor on Freeways The relative importance and sati sfaction of each factor on the quality of a truck trip was asked in the driver survey, while the relative im portance on operating cost, on-time performance, and truck drivers trip satisfac tion was asked in the manager su rvey. The relative improvement priority of the listed factors was elicited from the importance and satisfaction scores of each factor. The relative importance of each factor on the overall trucking industry was also postulated from the manager survey data. Explor atory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on the relative importance of each factor to determine if there are some common factors that

PAGE 148

148 adequately explain the variances of the items. The relative significance of each aspect of the truck driving environment is described at the end of this section. The analyses were performed for each of the three roadway facilities (i.e., freew ays, urban arterials, and two-lane highways). 5.2.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor The average Relative Importance, Satisfact ion, and Improvement Priority Scores (RIS, RSS, and IPS) of each factor on the quality of a truck tr ip on freeways are presented in Table 5-5. As discussed in chapter 3, the Improvement Priority Score (IPS) is higher for the factors perceived to be relatively more im portant and/or le ss satisfied. The IPS was calculated for each factor for each respondent and the average IPS of each factor is also shown in Table 5-5. The rankings of each factor relative to RIS, RSS, and IPS are marked as superscripts with the five most important factors for each issue marked in bold. Based on average RIS, RSS, and IPS, other drivers behavior (i .e., Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Ch aracteristics on Freeways and Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette) were found to be most important and least satisfied, thus most in need of improvement. The factors relative to physic al roadway conditions (e.g., Availability of Signage, Pavement Condition, Lane Widths, et c.) were perceived to be relatively fairly important, but the respondents were relatively well satisfied with the factors on freeways in Florida. Level of Congestion ranked the fifth in relative importa nce and the fourth in relative satisfaction. Interestingly, the factors concerning truck traffi c restrictions (i.e., Lane(s) Restricted from Truck Use, Lower Speed Limit Only Applied to Truck Traffic, and Governed Truck Speed Lower than Speed Limit) were perceive d to be relatively less important. However, the respondents were definitely opposed to those re strictions, thus the fact ors were perceived to be in need of significant improvement. A vailability/Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems (TIS) was considered to be least important and least in need of

PAGE 149

149 improvement. It is probably partly because there are not many alternative routes the truck drivers can take to detour in Florida, or ma ny truck drivers may be regular drivers, who are already familiar with time-dependent traffic and other conditions on thei r potential routes in Florida, not admitting the importance of TIS. Table 5-6 shows the results of the truck company manager surv eys. The average relative importance scores of each factor on Overall Trucking Business (OTB), Operating Cost (OC), Ontime Performance (OP), and Truck drivers trip Satisfaction (TS) are presented. As explained in chapter 3, the relative impor tance of each factor on OTB was calculated for each respondent by weighting the values of relative importance of OC, OP, and TS by their corresponding percents of the respondents concern. Again, the five most important factors for each issue are marked in bold. Based on average OTB, OC, OP, and TS, Level of congestion was most important in all the aspects of trucking business. Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities and Availability of alternative Routes followed next. It implies that construction activities are a significant constraint to their tr ucking business (probably with re spect to increased travel time) and availability of alternative routes is important to avoid congested sections of freeway. The two factors representing other drivers behavior ranked sixth and seventh for on-time performance, but they ranked between second and fifth for all other issues. Pavement Condition was perceived to be relatively more impor tant for truck drivers trip satisfaction than for any other issues. Number of Lanes and Availability and Condition of Signage were perceived more important to on-time performance than other drivers behavior. The truck company managers may believe that many signs on freeways are misplaced or not appropriately designed or maintained; thus they often negative ly affect the on-time pe rformance of a delivery

PAGE 150

150 by keeping the drivers from finding their way ea sily. Availability/Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems (TIS) was perceived to be least important for most of the issues in the managers perspectives as well. The RIS and TS were compared to discover the per ceptional differences between drivers and managers on the relative importance of each fact or on freeway truck trip quality. The factors concerning travel time (or traffic capacity) were perceived to be more important by the managers, while the factors regarding other dr ivers behavior and physical roadway condition were perceived to be more important by the driver s. Both groups stated that TIS-related factors are least important. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied to find common factors that account for the patterns of collinearity among the variable s. The analysis was executed with a total of 147 truck driver surveys by the principle component extraction method and varimax rotation in SPSS version 15 (SPSS Inc., 2006). The varimax rotati on was specifically used to obtain a clear separation among the factors. Bartletts test of sphericity was found to be significant ( = 867.8, df = 171, < 0.01) and the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.77, justifying application of the factor-analytic procedure. Th e five factors with latent roots (eigenvalues) greater than one were retained. A scree plot also supported the decision. Table 57 displays the latent factors and the rotated fa ctor loadings and communalities of their allied items. A factor loading is the correlation betwee n an item and a factor that has been extracted from the data and the communality of an item indicates how much of the variance in the item is accounted for by the five factors extracted. Cons idering the sample size of 147, the items with a loading at 0.5 or above on one factor and le ss than 0.35 on others were first identified (the loadings on the factor are in bold print). Th e three items (Pavement Condition, Number of

PAGE 151

151 Lanes, and Amount of Merge or Diverge Traffi c) with a factor loading of 0.5 and above on one factor, but equal to or more than 0.35 on the other(s) were considered as loading highly on two or more factors. The othe r item (Availability of Alternative Routes) without loadings at 0.5 or above was noted as not loading highly on a ny factor. In a conventional EFA procedure, those items are excluded from the analysis, but this survey study purpor ted to evaluate the relative importance of all the items. Thus, it was not intended to exclude any item in the analysis. The four items were assigned to one of the factors with respect to the perceptional correlations between the items and factors, or the levels of the factor loadings. The communalities of most items were 0.5 or more, denoting that at leas t half of the variance in each of the items is explaine d by the factor solution. For quality of a truck trip on freeways, 58.4% of the total vari ance of the observed variables was explained by five latent factors (17.6% by factor 1, 10.5% by factor 2, 10.4% by factor 3, 10.0% by factor 4, and 9.9% by factor 5), resulting in 41.6% unexplained or lost variance. The first five factors extracted, in order of proportion of variance explained, were labeled physical roadway component s, passenger car dr ivers behavior, t raveler information usage, truck travel restrictions , and volume/capacity ratio to reflect the meaning and context of the corresponding items. Basic summated-scale descriptive statistics were calculated for each latent factor to assess its relative importance to the freeway truck trip quality. The mean RIS of each item was recalled to compare the relative importance of the items w ithin each factor to the freeway truck trip quality. These results are presented in Table 5-8. Factor 2 (Passenger Car Drivers Behavior) included two items and was exclusively most important for freeway truck trip quality among a ll the factors. Factor 1 (Physical Roadway

PAGE 152

152 Components) and its allied items were second most important. This factor was correlated with the most number of items, which generally ranked high in mean RIS score. The signage and pavement were most significant items within this factor. Factor 5 (Vol ume/Capacity Ratio) was third most important. Most items associated with th is factor were also fairly correlated with the other factors. The primary items of this factor were construction and co ngestion. The two least important factors were Factors 3 (Traveler Info rmation Usage) and Factor 4 (Truck Travel Restrictions), and the items relative to those factors were also least important among all the items. The other three factors were relatively much more important than the two factors, according to the factor summated means. The EFA results indicate th at the respondents did not gi ve out one or two common factor(s) that can potentially be used as performance measure(s) by which truck trip quality on a freeway can be sufficiently evalua ted. However, they suggest th at potential freeway truck LOS performance measure(s) should be strongly correl ated with Passenger Car Drivers Behavior and also be associated with Physical Roadwa y Components and Volum e/Capacity Ratio to some degree. 5.2.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Perf ormance Measure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality The relative importance of each hypothetical performance measure on freeway truck trip quality was asked on the last page of both the tr uck driver and truck company manager surveys. A total of four performance measures were pres ented identically to the two distinct groups of participants, but were questioned differently. Th e drivers were asked to assess applicability of each performance measure solely to estimate thei r truck trip quality, while the managers were asked to evaluate the relative importance of each performance measure for their trucking

PAGE 153

153 business with respect to overall operating cost, on-time performance, and truck drivers trip satisfaction. The opinions of 389 driver respondents a nd 35 manager respondents are summarized in Table 5-9 and Table 5-10, respectively. The two most important measures for each group are marked in bold. A Consistently Good Ride Quality ranked first by the drivers and third by the managers, based on the average scores. This factor description pr imarily corresponds to pavement quality and may also be correlated with other drivers poor driving behavior to some degree. The effects of pavement condition on trip quality are not considered in the current HCM, but it is evident from this survey that this f actor is very important to truck drivers trip satisfaction. Poor pavement condi tion may result in an uncomfortable riding experience, damage to the equipment (e.g., tires), or condition of goods (e.g., fragile goods, hazardous materials). Unpleasant driving interactions betw een trucks and other vehicles ma y also negatively affect ride quality experienced by the truck drivers, by requir ing them to accelerate or decelerate their truck more frequently. Given the heavy weight and large size of trucks, tr uck drivers are more sensitive to ride quality than th e drivers of other type s of vehicles. This factor, however, was not perceived to be that important to the trucking busine ss by the managers. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, wh ether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit ranked second by the driv ers and first by the managers. This factor description corresponds to what the researcher s considered as speed or acceler ation variance. That is, the longer a truck driver can travel at a constant speed wit hout needing to accelera te or decelerate the truck, the more satisfied the driver will be. It requires more ti me and effort to accelerate or decelerate trucks than any other vehicle. The frequent or abrupt acce leration or deceleration activities may also increase th e likelihood of an accident. This acceleration variance factor was

PAGE 154

154 perceived very important to bot h the drivers and managers. Th e specific elements contributing to the factor may include other drivers drivi ng behavior, congestion le vel, and frequency of construction activities, incidents, or accidents. Th is factor may be regarded as traffic flow in a larger sense. Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Condition In formation ranked third by the drivers and fourth by the managers. This factor was percei ved relatively less important to both drivers and managers. As stated in the focus groups, Travel er Information System (TIS) may not be useful in Florida due to the lack of alternative routes The congestion level of Floridas freeways may be not so serious that the trucking community does not need to use TIS much, or many truck drivers may be regular drivers, who think that they are highly inform ed about their potential routes enough to not recognize the need of TIS. Level of conge stion, frequency of construction activities, and availability of alternative r outes may be correlated with this factor. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Sp eed Limit ranked four th by the drivers and second by the managers. This factor description corresponds to what the researchers considered as the percent of free-flow speed factor. Free -flow speeds are typically higher than the posted speed limit, and thus truck drivers may be dissatisf ied with a situation where they have to travel at a speed less than the posted speed limit. A considerable number of trucks on the roads are engine speed-governed to travel at a speed less than th e posted speed limit. This factor may have been recognized as ability to travel at the highe st possible speed by the drivers of those trucks. An overall effect of this factor on the trucking community is best de scribed as total travel time. This factor was regarded as the least importa nt by the drivers, but more important by the managers, who operate the trucks and th eir drivers to do the trucking business.

PAGE 155

155 Pair-wise multiple comparisons were perfor med to investigate if there is a mean difference among the importance of each hypothetical freeway performance measure statistically from truck drivers perspectives. Games-Howell Po st Hoc test was used for this purpose because sample sizes and variances of th e importance of the performance m easures were not equal, even though Q-Q plots showed that the data are approximately normal. The Games-Howell Post Hoc test results for freeway performance measures are shown in Table 5-11. The mean difference between the importance levels of Factor A and B was not significant. However, the mean importance levels of Factor A and B was significa ntly different from (greater then) those of Factor C and D. 5.3 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Urban Arterials The same analysis procedure as in the prev ious section was performed to evaluate the relative importance of each factor on quali ty of a truck trip on urban arterials. 5.3.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor The average Relative Importance, Satisfact ion, and Improvement Priority Scores (RIS, RSS, and IPS) of each factor on the quality of a truck trip on urban arterials are presented in Table 5-12. Again, the rankings of each factor relative to RIS, RSS, and IPS are marked as superscripts with the five most importa nt factors for each issue marked in bold. Other drivers behaviors (i.e., Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette and Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characte ristics on Urban Arterials) were found to be most important and least satisfied, thus most in need of improvement. Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections was perc eived to be next most important and fairly less satisfied by the drivers, indicating significant need of improveme nt. Pavement Condition and Availability and Condition of Signage were fourth and fifth most important, but the respondents satisfaction levels over the factors were relatively high. Thus, those factors were at mo st moderately in need

PAGE 156

156 of improvement among all the factors. Level of Congestion and Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities ranked eighth and ninth with respect to mean RIS, respectively, but, the respondents were strongly dissatisf ied with those factors. Theref ore, the factors were perceived to be significantly in need of improvement. Traffic Signal Coordination was perceived to be sixth most important, but fourth le ast satisfied, ranking fourth in the IPS. Level of Bicycle or Pedestrian Congestion was least important and relatively very hi ghly satisfied, being found to be least in the need for improvement. Table 5-13 shows the results of the truck comp any manager surveys. The average relative importance scores of each factor on Overall Trucking Business (OTB), Operating Cost (OC), Ontime Performance (OP), and Truck drivers trip Satisfaction (TS) are presented. Again, the five most important factors for each issue are marked in bold. Frequency and Timing of Constr uction Activities was most important in all the aspects of trucking business. Pavement Condition was perceived second most important to overall trucking business, but not that important to on-t ime delivery performance. Level of Vehicle Congestion and Existence of Left Turn Signal Phase at Intersections ranked third and fourth, based on the average OTB scores. Roadway Striping Conditi on ranked fifth. Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections wa s perceived to be fairly importa nt to operating cost and truck drivers trip satisfaction, but al most least important to on-time performance. Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characte ristics on Urban Arterial s ranked fifth in average OC score and sixth in average OP score, but its importance levels to OTB and TS were found to be much less. Coordinated Traffic Signa l Timings at Intersections along the Arterials was fourth most important to on-time performan ce, but not that important to operating cost or truck drivers trip satisfaction. It should be not ed that the results presen ted here should be much

PAGE 157

157 less focused than the other parts of this docum ent because they came from a small sample size (6). It was also not worth comparing the RIS with TS, given such a small sample size. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied to find common factors that account for the patterns of collinearity among the variables. The analysis was executed with a total of 64 truck driver surveys by the principle component extraction method and varimax rotation in SPSS version 15. Bartletts test of spheri city was found to be significant ( = 554.7, df = 153, < 0.01) and the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampli ng adequacy was 0.77, justifying application of the factor-analytic procedure. The four factors with latent roots (eigenvalues) greater than one were retained. A scree plot also supported the decision. Table 5-14 displa ys the latent factors and the rotated factor loadings and communalities of their allied items. Considering the sample size of 64, the items with a loading at 0.6 or ab ove on one factor and less than 0.45 on others were first identified (the loadi ngs on the factor are in bold prin t). The five items without any loading at 0.6 or above (Availability and C ondition of Signage, Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities, Roadway Striping Co ndition, Level of Vehicle Congestion, and Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections) were noted as not loading highly on any factor. They were assigned to one of the factors with respect to the percepti onal correlations between the items and factors, or the levels of the factor loadings. The communalities of most items were above 0.5, denoting that more than half of the vari ance in each of the items is explained by the factor solution. For quality of a truck trip on urban arterial s, 62.5% of the total variance of the observed variables was explained by four latent factors (18.7% by factor 1, 17.2% by factor 2, 13.7% by factor 3, and 12.9% by factor 4), resulti ng in 37.5% unexplained or lost variance. The first four factors extracted, in order of pr oportion of variance explained, we re labeled roadway and traffic

PAGE 158

158 components, intersection crossing constraints, passenger car driv ers behavior, and physical driving deterrents to reflect the meani ng and context of th e corresponding items. The basic summated-scale descriptive statistics were calculated for each latent factor to assess its relative importance to the arte rial truck trip quality. The mean RIS of each item was recalled to compare the relative importance of the items within each factor to the arterial truck trip quality. These results are presented in Table 5-15. Factor 3 (Passenger Car Drivers Behavior) included two items and was exclusively most important for arterial truck trip quality among all the factors. Factor 1 (Roadway and Traffic Components) and its allied items were second most important. This factor was correlated with the most number of items, which ranked from fourth to twelfth in mean RIS scores. The pavement and signage were most significant items within this factor. The Factor 2 (Intersection Crossing Constraints) was third most important. The primary items of this factor were curb radii and coordinated traffic signal timings. The l east important factor wa s Factors 4 (Physical Driving Deterrents) and the items associated with this factor we re also least important among all the items. The importance of this factor was much less than the other thr ee factors, according to the factor summated means. The EFA results indicate th at the respondents did not gi ve out one or two common factor(s) that can potentially be used as performance measure(s) by which truck trip quality on an arterial can be sufficien tly evaluated. However, they suggest that potential ar terial truck LOS performance measure(s) should be strongly correl ated with Passenger Car Drivers Behavior and also be associated with Roadway and Traffic Components a nd Intersection Crossing Constraints to some degree.

PAGE 159

159 5.3.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Perf ormance Measure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality The relative importance of each hypothetical pe rformance measure on arterial truck trip quality was asked on the last page of both the tr uck driver and truck company manager surveys. A total of seven performance measures were pres ented identically to the two distinct groups of participants, but were questioned differently. Th e drivers were asked to assess applicability of each performance measure solely to estimate thei r truck trip quality, while the managers were asked to evaluate the relative importance of each performance measure for their trucking business with respect to overall operating cost, on-time performance, and truck drivers trip satisfaction. The opinions of 387 driver respondents and 33 manager respondents are summarized in Table 5-16 and Table 5-17, respectiv ely. The two most important measures for each group are marked in bold. A Consistently Good Ride Quality ranked fi rst by the drivers and f ourth by the managers, based on the average scores. Again, this factor description primarily corresponds to pavement quality and may also be somewhat correlated with other drivers poor driving behavior. Similar to the freeway EFA results, this factor was percei ved to be most important by the drivers (highest mean and lowest standard deviation), but not that important by the managers. Ease of Changing Lanes ranked second by the drivers and third by the managers. This factor description corresponds to what the researchers considered as dens ity factor. As the traffic volume in a given section of a roadway in creases, drivers ability to change lanes is aggravated. Truck drivers are more sensitive to this factor than the drivers of other vehicle types due to the large size, heavy wei ght, and poor acceleration and deceler ation capabilities of trucks. Truck drivers often need much la rger traffic gap and yi elding behavior of ot her drivers to make

PAGE 160

160 lane changes. Congestion level and other trav elers driving behavior (road etiquette or knowledge about limitations on truck driving) prob ably have a great effect on this factor. Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers ranked third by the driv ers and first by the managers. It requires much more time and effort to make turning maneuvers with trucks than the other vehicle types considering their physical an d operational characteristic s. This factor is primarily influenced by physical roadway conditi on of an intersection (e .g., shoulder width, curb radii), but traffic signal operati on (e.g., existence of a protected left-turn signal) and other drivers behavior also have an impact on it. Th is factor was perceived to be most important to the trucking business by the managers. The manage rs at the focus group meeting indicated that it creates a serious safety hazard on a truck get stuck in the middle of making a turn and this issue is one of the biggest considerat ions for their arterial route choice. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, wh ether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit ranked fourth by the drivers and second by the managers. This factor description corresponds to what the researcher s considered as speed or acceler ation variance. This factor was relatively more important for the managers than for the drivers. The major elements contributing to this factor may include the leve l of congestion, inters ection spacing, and traffic signal conditions (e.g., signal co ordination, signal responsivene ss) along the arterial. The importance of this factor was much less for arteri al truck trip quality than freeway truck trip quality. Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersec tions along the Arterial ranked fifth by both the drivers and managers. This factor description corre sponds to what the re searchers considered as number of stops or delay factor. Base d on the previous focus group discussions, truck drivers are more sensitive to number of stops than overall delay experienced while traveling

PAGE 161

161 along an arterial. The specific el ements contributing to this f actor include intersection spacing and traffic signal conditions such as signal coordination, signal re sponsiveness, length of yellow interval timing at signalized intersections. This factor was perceived to be much less important than ease of turning maneuvers, wh ich implies that they are more concerned with making a safe and easy turning maneuver than reducing number of stops or delay experienced during through movements at intersections. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit ranked sixth by both the drivers and managers. This factor description corresponds to what the researchers considered to be a percent of free-flow speed. The level of this factor directly affects average travel time, which is currently used by the HCM to define level of service on urban arterials. This factor, however, was perceived to be much less important than most other factors by bot h the drivers and the managers. This factor primarily depends on th e level of congestion on an arterial route. Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers was perceived to be least important by both the drivers and managers. According to the focus group discus sions, given the high potential safety risks associated with the U-turn maneuvers, many truck drivers are reluctant to make a U-turn unless it absolutely is necessary and most major carriers have a company policy against it. Pair-wise multiple comparisons were performed to investigate if there is a mean difference among the importance of each hypothetical arterial pe rformance measures statistically from truck drivers perspectives. The Games-Howell Post Hoc test results for arterial performance measures are shown in Table 5-18. There was no significant mean difference among the importance levels of Factor B, C, and D. The im portance of Factor A was greatest, but the mean of the importance of Factor A was barely significan tly different (greater) from those of Factor B, C, and D at 95% confidence level. The mean di fference between the importance of Factor E and

PAGE 162

162 F was not significant. The mean of the importan ce level of Factor G was significantly lower than those of other Factors. Overa ll, the test results s uggest that potential arterial performance measure(s) should address various aspects of truc k driving conditions such as Factor A, B, C, and D. 5.4 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Two-Lane Highways The same analysis procedure as in the prev ious section was performed to evaluate the relative importance of each factor on quali ty of a truck trip on two-lane highways. 5.4.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor The mean Relative Importance, Satisfac tion, and Improvement Priority Scores (RIS, RSS, and IPS) of each factor on the quality of a truck trip on two-lane highways are presented in Table 5-19. Again, the rankings of each factor relative to RIS, RSS, and IPS are marked as superscripts with the five most important fact ors for each issue marked in bold. Other drivers behavior (i.e., Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Two-Lane Highways and P assenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette) was found to be most important and least satisfied, thus most in need of improvement. Availability and Condition of Signage and Pavement Condition were perceived to be third and fourth most important, but fairly well satisfied by the truc k drivers, so their improvement priority was mediocre among all the factors (e leventh and ninth in the mean IPS rankings). Lighting Conditions at Night ranked fifth in the mean RIS and IPS. Its importance was much greater for two-lane highways than freeways in that it ranked fourteenth and fifteenth in the mean RIS and IPS for freeways. Shoulder Width and Condition ranked sixth in the mean RIS, but third in both the mean RSS and IPS. It is noted that its importance on travel safety and operation was emphasized in the focus group meetings. Frequ ency and Timing of Co nstruction Activities were considered to be fourth most in need of improvement. Level of Congestion and

PAGE 163

163 Frequency of Passing Lanes ranked tenth and eleven in the mean RIS respectively, but the respondents were so dissatisfied with these factors that their re lative need of improvement was fairly high (sixth and eighth in the mean IPS rankings). Similar to the freeway results, TISrelated factors were perceived to be least important and least in need of improvement. Table 5-20 shows the results of the truck comp any manager surveys. The average relative importance scores of each factor on Overall Trucking Business (OTB), Operating Cost (OC), Ontime Performance (OP), and Truck drivers trip Satisfaction (TS) are presented. Again, the five most important factors for each issue are marked in bold. Roadway Striping Condition ranked first in the mean OTB and OC scores, but was perceived to be not that important to OP and TS. Level of Vehicle Congestion and Pavement Condition were perceived to be fairly important to every trucking business issue, ranking second and third in the mean OTB scores, respectively. Passenge r Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics ranked fourth in the mean OTB, but was perceived to be second most important to OP and most important to TS. Shoulder Width and Condition ranked fifth in the mean OTB scores and third in the mean OC scores. Frequency a nd Timing of Construction Activities ranked sixth in the mean OTB scores, but was perceived to be most important to Ontime Performance (OP). Sight Distance at Horizontal Cu rvatures and Frequency of Vehicles much Slower than Your Truck were pe rceived to be much more important for TS than for the other issues. The importance of Availability and Condition of Signage was much less for twolane highways than for freeways or arterials. F requency of Faster Vehicl es Passing Your Truck was least important in the managers perspectiv es. Again, it should be noted that the results presented here should be much less focused than the other parts of this document because they

PAGE 164

164 came from a small sample size (4). No comparison was made between the RIS with TS, given such a small sample size. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied to find common factors that account for the patterns of collinearity among the variables. The analysis was executed with a total of 64 truck driver surveys by the principle component extraction method and varimax rotation in SPSS version 15. Bartletts test of spheri city was found to be significant ( = 485.2, df = 171, < 0.01) and the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampli ng adequacy was 0.59, justifying application of the factor-analytic procedure. The five factors with latent roots (eigenvalues) greater than one were retained. A scree plot also supported the decision. Table 5-21 displa ys the latent factors and the rotated factor loadings and communalities of their allied items. Considering the sample size of 64, the items with a loading at 0.6 or ab ove on one factor and less than 0.45 on others were first identified (the loadi ngs on the factor are in bold prin t). The five items without any loading at 0.6 or above (Shoulder Width and C ondition, Frequency of Faster Vehicles Passing Your Truck, Level of Vehicle Congestion, F requency and Timing of C onstruction Activities, and Lane Widths) were noted as not loading hi ghly on any factor. The one item (Availability and Condition of Signage) with a factor loading of 0.6 and above on one factor, but equal to or more than 0.45 on the other(s) was considered as loading highly on two or more factors. The six items were assigned to one of the factors with respect to the percepti onal correlations between the items and factors, or the levels of the factor loadings. The communalities of most items were above 0.5, denoting that more than half of the vari ance in each of the items is explained by the factor solution. For quality of a truck trip on two-lane hi ghways, 61.0% of the total variance of the observed variables was explained by four latent factors (15.1% by factor 1, 13.4% by factor 2,

PAGE 165

165 12.2% by factor 3, 11.2% by factor 4, 9.2% by factor 5), resulting in 39.0% unexplained or lost variance. The first five latent factor s extracted, in order of pr oportion of variance explained, were labeled travel safety elements, travele r information usage, travel speed constraints, physical roadway components, and passenger car drivers behavior to reflect the meaning and context of the co rresponding items. The basic summated-scale descriptive statistics were calculated for each latent factor to assess its relative importance to the two-la ne highway truck trip quality. The mean RIS of each item was recalled to compare the relative importance of the items within each factor to the twolane highway truck trip quality. Thes e results are presented in Table 5-22. Factor 5 (Passenger Car Drivers Behavio r) included two items and was exclusively important for two-lane highway truck trip qual ity among all the factors. Factor 4 (Physical Roadway Components) and its alli ed items were second most important. All the items of this factor ranked relativ ely high in the mean RIS. The signage and paveme nt were the two most significant items within this factor. Factor 3 (Travel Speed Constraints) was third most important. The primary items of this factor we re construction and conges tion level. Factor 1 (Travel Safety Elements) was sec ond least important, but the mean RIS of Lighting Conditions at Night and Shoulder Width and Condition were fairly high (fifth a nd sixth in the mean RIS). The least important factor was Factors 2 (Travele r Information Usage) and the items relative to those factors were also least important among all the items. The importance of this factor was much less than the other four factors, according to the factor summated means. The EFA results indicate th at the respondents did not gi ve out one or two common factor(s) that can be potentially used as performance measure(s) by which truck trip quality on a two-lane highway can be sufficien tly evaluated. However, they suggest that potential two-lane

PAGE 166

166 highway truck LOS performance measure(s) should be strongly correlated with Passenger Car Drivers Behavior and also be associated with Physical Roadway Components such as signage, pavement, lighting, and shoulder conditions It is probably true that Travel Speed Constraints begin to matter as the traffic vol ume gets close to roadway capacity due to congestion, construction, or accident. 5.4.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Perf ormance Measure to Estimate Truck Trip Quality The relative importance of each hypothetical performance measure on two-lane highway truck trip quality was asked on the last page of both the truck driver a nd truck company manager surveys. A total of seven performance measures were presented identically to the two distinct groups of participants, but were questioned di fferently. The drivers were asked to assess applicability of each performance measure solely to estimate thei r truck trip quality, while the managers were asked to evaluate the relative importance of each performance measure for their trucking business with respect to overall operating cost, on-time pe rformance, and truck drivers trip satisfaction. The opinions of 385 driver respondents and 34 manager respondents are summarized in Table 5-23 and Table 5-24, respectiv ely. The two most important measures for each group are marked in bold. Probability of Bing Passed or Followed by Fast er Vehicles ranked firs t by the drivers and fifth by the managers, based on the average scores. This factor description corresponds to what may be considered as Percent-Time-Being-followe d (PTBF) as the current HCM uses PercentTime-Spent-Following (PTSF) as one of the serv ice measures to determine level of service on two-lane highways. That is, the perceptions of truck drivers on truck tr ip quality become poor, as more drivers try to follow their trucks in a close proximity or pass them. The perceptional

PAGE 167

167 difference between the two groups on this factor was so obvious that this factor was considered to be most important by the drivers, but least important by the managers. A Consistently Good Ride Quality ranke d second by the drivers and fourth by the managers. This factor description primarily corresponds to pavement quality and may also be correlated with other drivers poor driving behavior to some degree. This is a factor that was identified, in the previous section, as most impor tant for truck drivers traveling on freeways or arterials. The importance of th is factor was perceived to be greater by the drivers than by the managers. Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type ranked th ird by the drivers and first by the managers. This factor description corresponds to what the focus group participants considered to be amount of room for error fact or. That is, truck driv ers are uncomfortable on a two-lane highway where travel la nes and shoulders are not wide or solid enough for them to deal with an emergency situation wit hout hampering the two-way traffi c flow. This was the hottest issue regarding two-lane highway truck trip quali ty in the focus group discussions. This factor was perceived to be most important by the mana gers, but not that important by the drivers. Probability of Encountering Possible Conflicts ranked fourth by the drivers and third by the managers. This factor contributes to travel safety aspect of truck operation. Ability of truck drivers to deal with unexpected obs tacles is inferior to that of the drivers of other vehicle types due to the low acceleration and deceleration capabili ties of trucks. As mentioned in the focus group study, truck driving safety is a huge concer n for the trucking community. In addition to the damage to the drivers, equipment, and the goods, an accident brings about the considerable increase in truck operating cost (e.g., insurance cost loss of sales, or loss of the contract with the

PAGE 168

168 customers). The importance of this factor was pe rceived to be at most average among the factors by both the drivers and managers. Opportunity for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes ranked fifth by the drivers and second by the managers. This f actor is highly correlated with Percent-Time Spent-Following concept that is used to defi ne level of service on two-lane highways by the current HCM. The more frequent is the pass ing opportunity, the less time is spent to follow slower vehicles. Given the long length and lo w acceleration and deceleration capabilities of trucks, passing maneuver is much more difficult a nd dangerous for truck dr ivers than the drivers of other vehicle types. This factor was percei ved to be second most important by the managers, but least important by the drivers. The managers may have thought that truck travel time is affected by this factor to a considerable degree. Pair-wise multiple comparisons were performed to investigate if there is a mean difference among the importance of each hypothetical two-lane highway performance measures statistically from truck drivers perspectives. The Games-Ho well Post Hoc test results for two-lane highway performance measures are shown in Table 5-25. The mean difference between the importance of Factor A and B was not significant. The mean im portance level of Factor C was not significantly different from that of Factor D as well. Howeve r, the mean importance levels of Factor A and B were significantly different (greater) from those of Factor C and D. The mean importance level of Factor E was significantly lower than those of any other Factors. 5.5 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors to Quality of a Truck Trip Four categories of factors on each roadway type were compared amongst each other in terms of their contributions to truck trip qual ity. The same set of categories (i.e., traffic conditions, roadway conditions, trav eler information systems, and other drivers behavior) were evaluated for both freeway and two-lane highway facilities, while traffic signal conditions were

PAGE 169

169 included in the four categories in stead of traveler information systems to be appraised for urban arterial facilities. 5.5.1 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors for Freeways The perceptions of 40 drivers on the relative importance of the four categories are shown in Figure 5-1. Based on the mean ranking values, th e order of the categories, in order from most important to least important, was traffic condition s, other drivers behavior, roadway conditions, and traveler information systems. The difference in the importan ce levels between the first two categories was small. The importance level of roadway conditions was average in that about half of the respondents (21/40) considered the third category to be most important or second most important, while a significan t portion of the respondents ( 28/40 or 70%) perceived that traveler information systems are least important. The perceptions of 7 truck comp any managers were similar to those of the drivers. The order of the factor categories in order of their importance based on the mean ranking values, were other drivers behavior (mean rank = 1.9) traffic conditions (mean rank = 2.0), roadway conditions (mean rank = 2.1), and trav eler information (mean rank = 4.0). 5.5.2 Relative Importance of Each Cate gory of Factors for Urban Arterials The perceptions of 34 drivers on the relative importance of the four categories are shown in Figure 5-2. Based on the mean ranking values, th e order of the categories, in order from most important to least important, was traffic condition s, other drivers behavior, roadway conditions, and signal conditions. The differences in the im portance levels among the first three categories were relatively small. However, a consider able portion of the respondents (23/34 or 68%) perceived other drivers behavior to be either most or leas t important, while the frequencies of the importance ranks of roadway conditions we re almost uniformly distributed. Only 3 respondents (3/34 or 9%) perceived that si gnal conditions were most important.

PAGE 170

170 The perceptions of 6 truck comp any managers were similar to those of the drivers. The order of the factor categories in order of their importance based on the mean ranking values, were traffic conditions (mean rank = 1.5), other drivers behavior (mean rank = 2.7), roadway conditions (mean rank = 2.8), and signal conditions (mean rank = 3.0). 5.5.3 Relative Importance of Each Categor y of Factors for Two-lane Highways The perceptions of 37 drivers on the relative importance of the four categories are shown in Figure 5-3. Based on the mean ranking values, th e order of the categories, in order from most important to least important, was roadway conditi ons, traffic conditions, ot her drivers behavior, and traveler information system s. The difference in the impor tance levels among the first two categories was small. Less than half of the respondents (18/37) considered other drivers behavior is either most or second most important while more than half (20/37 or 54%) perceived that traveler information systems were least important. Five truck company managers perceived traffic conditions to be most important (mean rank = 1.6). The order of the rest of the factor categories, in order of their importance based on the mean ranking values, were other drivers behavior (mean rank = 2.2), roadway conditions (mean rank = 2.6), and traveler information (mean rank = 3.6). 5.6 Comparisons of the Importance of Each Factor Category on Various Roadway Facilities The importance levels of each factor categor y were compared across the three roadway facility types (i.e., freeways, urban arterials, a nd two-lane highways) to investigate the relative importance of each factor categor y between facilities. This co mparison is shown in Figure 5-4. The importance of roadway conditions was gr eater for two-lane highways than for the other two facilities. The importa nce levels of roadway conditions for freeways and arterials were somewhat similar, but only 10 percent of the re spondents (4/40) considered this factor for

PAGE 171

171 freeways to be least important wh ile almost 25 percent of the res pondents (8/34) considered this factor for arterials to be least important. The relative importance of traffic conditions fo r the three roadway facilities is shown in Figure 5-5. The importance of tr affic conditions was much more significant for freeways than for the other two facility types. Almost 70 pe rcent of the respondents (2 7/40) considered this factor to be at least s econd most important and only 10 percent (4 /40) considered this factor to be least important. The importance of this factor fo r two-lane highways was little greater than that for arterials in that 65 percent of the respondents (24/37) consider ed this factor for two-lane highways to be at least second most important while 53 percen t (18/34) did for arterials. The relative importance of other drivers behavi or for the three roadway facilities is shown in Figure 5-6. The importance of this factor was less for two-lane highways than for the other two facilities. The importance of this factor for freeways was somewhat bigger than that for arterials in that only 13 percent of the respondents (5/40) considered this factor for freeways to be least important while more than 30 percent (11/ 34) considered this factor for arterials to be least important. 5.7 Perceptions on the Improvement Priority of Various Roadway Types Twenty-five truck drivers answered the quest ion about the improvement priority of the four types of roadway facilities (i.e., freeways, urban arterials, rural multilane highways, and rural two-lane highways). Figure 5-7 shows the distributions of the responses on the relative improvement priority. Based on the mean ranking values, the order of the roadway types, in order from highest to lowest, identified as most in need of improvement was urban arterials, rural multilane highways, rural two-lane highways, and freeways. The differences in the need for improvement rankings among the first three facility types were small. Rural multilane highways, overall, were identified as only mo derately in need of improvement. Eighty-eight percent of the

PAGE 172

172 respondents (22/25) indicated that th is facility type is either s econd or third most in need of improvement. The rankings on the relative improve ment need of freeways varied the most. Out of the total of 25 drivers, seven drivers (28%) perceived the freeway facility to be most in need of improvement and twelve drivers (48%) perceived it to be least in need of improvement. The perceptions of 5 truck company managers also showed similar results. Based on the mean ranking values, it turned out that urban arterials were perceive d to be most in need of improvement (mean rank = 2.0). Rural multilane and two-lane highways followed next (mean rank = 2.6). Again, freeways were perceived to be least in need of improvement (mean rank = 2.8). 5.8 Relationships between Truck Drivers Ba ckgrounds and Their Perceptions on the Applicability of Each Hypoth etical LOS Performance Measure Potential correlations between truck driver s working and socio-economic characteristics and their perceptions on applic ability of each hypothetical perfo rmance measure for truck LOS estimation (hereafter referred to as just im portance of each performance measure) were investigated with non-parametric statistical tests. Each backgr ound characteristics of the drivers (a potential explanatory variable) was individually tested with th eir perceptions, in order to find out whether their perceptions sign ificantly varied by the levels of the background characteristics. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test ( non-parametric version of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-test) were applied to the truck driv er survey data. The truck drivers background characteristics used in these analyses are presented in Table 5-26 and 5-27. The variables with only two levels were evaluated wi th Mann-Whitney test to investigate if the two samples came from the same population. The variable s with three levels we re evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test to investigate if they came from the same population. For the variables that

PAGE 173

173 were significant in the Kruskal-Wallis test, they were evaluated again with the Mann-Whitney test for the pair-wise comparisons to find out which items were different one another. 5.8.1 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explai n Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Freeways The correlations between each background ch aracteristics of the drivers and their perceptions on the importance of each freeway performance measure were investigated. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests are shown in Table 5-28 and 5-29. The perceptional difference by truck kinds and the type of goods carried was not statistically significant, so it was not tabulated. The perceptions on the importance of A C onsistently Good Ride Quality (Factor A) differed by recruitment sources, earning methods, and current truck driv ing time of day. The postage-paid survey respondents considered this factor to be more important than the FTDC respondents. It is noted that over 90 percent of the postage-p aid respondents were long-haul drivers, while more than half of the FTDC res pondents were short-haul dr ivers. Truck drivers getting paid by miles driven perceived this f actor more important, wh ile those paid by hours driven perceived it less important. It is typi cal that long-haul driver s normally get paid by the mile, but short-haul drivers usually get paid by the hour to get compensated by the delay they often experience in traveling urban environments Truck drivers currently driving between noon and 3 PM perceived this factor to be less important than others di d. The results show that truck drivers having some general char acteristics of long-haul driv ers (frequent freeway users) perceived this factor to be more important than others did. They travel at a much higher speed than short-haul drivers, so are likely to be more sensitive to ride quality. The perceptions on the importance of Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, Whether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit (Fact or B) varied by race and level of education.

PAGE 174

174 African American truck drivers, in particular, perceived this f actor to be less important, but drivers educated at least up to co llege level had more preference on this factor than others did. The importance of this factor may be more no ticeable by drivers educated more than others. The perceptions on the importance of Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information (Factor C) differed by recruitmen t sources, earning methods, maximum governed truck speed, and level of educati on. The postage-paid survey res pondents considered this factor to be more important than the FTDC respondents. Truck driver s getting paid by miles driven perceived this factor more important than ot hers did. Truck drivers whose truck is speedgoverned at more than 65 mi/h considered this factor to be more impor tant than others did. Truck drivers educated at least up to college level perceived this factor to be more important. Again, the truck drivers having some general ch aracteristics of long-haul drivers (frequent freeway users) perceived this factor to be mo re important than others did. Truck drivers educated more than other drivers may be mo re concerned with various TIS technologies. The perceptions on the importance of Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (Factor D) differed by recruitment sources earning types, company types, primary load types, hauling distance, maximum governed tr uck speed, and truck driving time of day. The postage-paid survey respondents considered this factor to be more important than the FTDC respondents. Truck drivers getting paid by hours perc eived this factor less important than others did. Truck drivers from for-hire or TL carriers perceived this fact or to be more important than the others did. Long-haul drivers were more sens itive to this factor than short-haul drivers. Truck drivers whose truck is speed governed at more than 65 mi/h considered this factor to be more important than others did. Truck driver s currently driving in the morning time (9AM noon) were less sensitive to this factor. It is ju st natural to consider that long-haul drivers

PAGE 175

175 (frequent freeway users) are more concerned about this factor than shorthaul drivers, because it will be much more frustrating to not be able to drive at or above the posted speed limit on a freeway than on an arterial. 5.8.2 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explai n Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Urban Arterials The correlations between each background ch aracteristics of the drivers and their perceptions on the importance of each arterial LOS performance measure were investigated. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests are shown from Table 5-30 to 5-34. The perceptional difference by truck ki nds was not statistically signifi cant, so it was not tabulated. The perceptions on the importance of A Cons istently Good Ride Quality (Factor A) varied by maximum governed truck speed and truc k driving hours per day. Truck drivers whose truck is speed-governed at more than 65 mi/h per ceived this factor more important than others did. Truck drivers traveling at a higher speed are likely to be more concerned about the ride quality. Truck drivers driving more than 8 hours pe r day were less sensitive to this factor. Truck drivers working more hours per day may ge t relatively numb about the ride quality. The perceptions on the importance of Ease of Changing Lanes (Factor B) differed by earning methods, truck driving hours per day, and types of goods carried. Truck drivers who get paid by the load considered this factor to be le ss important than the other drivers. Truck drivers driving more than 8 hours per day were less sensitive to this factor. Long-haul drivers may drive more hours per day than short-haul drivers, and those frequent freeway users may be less concerned with lane changing movements than dr ivers often traveling in urban environments. Truck drivers carrying food, auto pa rts, textiles, metals, paper a nd allied products, chemicals and allied products, equipment, furniture, or hazar dous materials were more concerned about this factor than other drivers. The truck driver s delivering those damage-sensitive goods, probably

PAGE 176

176 by operating relatively large trucks may be more sensitive to a potential conflict with other vehicles, feeling more difficulty in changing lanes. The perceptions on the importance of Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers (Factor C) differed by earning methods, company business types, truck driving hours per day, and types of goods carried. Truck drivers who get paid by the load perceived this factor to be less important than other drivers. Truck drivers from companies operating both for-hire and private businesses had less concerns on this factor than ot her drivers from either private or for-hire truck companies. Truck drivers driving more than 8 ho urs per day were less sensitive to this factor. Again, long-haul drivers may drive more hours pe r day than short-haul drivers, and those frequent freeway users may be less concerned w ith those turning movements than drivers often traveling in urban environments. Truck drivers carrying paper or allied products considered this factor to be important mo re than other drivers. The perceptions on the importance level of e ither Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, Whether Higher or Lower than Posted Sp eed Limit (Factor D), or Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the arte rial (Factor E) did not vary by any background characteristics of the survey respondents. The perceptions on the importance level of Eas e of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (Factor F) differed by recruitment sources earning methods, primary load types, hauling distance, maximum governed truck speed, percent of late delivery, and truck driving days per week. Long-haul drivers or truck drivers ha ving some general charact eristics of long-haul drivers (i.e., postage-paid survey respondents, drivers operating a truck with more than 65 mi/h of a maximum engine-governed speed, TL drivers, and truck drivers working more than 5 days per week) perceived this factor to be more important than othe rs did. Again, this factor is

PAGE 177

177 important for the drivers traveling longer time an d distance for deliveries. They mostly drive on freeways to save their travel time and those fr equent freeway users will get relatively easily frustrated for not being able to travel at a free-flow speed. Truck drivers who get paid by hours (mostly short-haul drivers) were less sensitive to this factor. T hose at most 5 percent of whose truck trips are late were more sensitive to this fact or. This factor is highly associated with travel time aspect of a truck trip. They may be so much concerned with travel time that they rarely are late for their deliveries. The perceptions on the importance level of Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers (Factor G) varied by recruitment sources, age, earning met hods, company business type s, hauling distance, percent of late delivery, truc k driving hours per day, truck driving time of day, and types of goods carried. Postage-paid survey respondents perc eived this factor to be less important than FTDC respondents. Middle-aged truck drivers we re more concerned about this factor than young drivers. Truck drivers who get paid by hour s were more sensitive to this factor, while those paid by the load were less sensitive to this factor. Truck drivers from private carriers perceived this factor to be more important than others did. Shorthaul drivers or those more than 5 percent of whose truck trips ar e late were more concerned about this factor. Truck drivers working more than 8 hours per day or those cu rrently driving at the time period between 6AM and 9AM considered this factor to be less impor tant than others did. Truck drivers carrying food, in particular, were more concerned about this factor. Overall, shor t-haul drivers or truck drivers having some general charac teristics of short-haul drivers (i.e., FTDC survey respondents, drivers getting paid by the hour, drivers with more than 5 percent of their trips late, and drivers carrying foods) perceived this factor to be more important than othe rs did. They are the primary truck mode users on urban arterial facilities.

PAGE 178

178 5.8.3 Truck Drivers Backgrounds that Explai n Their Perceptions on the Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performa nce Measure on Two-Lane Highways The correlations between each background ch aracteristics of the drivers and their perceptions on the importance of each two-lane highway LOS performance measure were investigated. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests are shown from Table 5-35 to 5-37. The perceptions on the importance of Probabi lity of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles (Factor A) differed by recruitment sour ces, gender, level of tr uck driving experience, percent of empty truck trips, race, current truc k driving time of day, type of goods carried, and truck types. Postage-paid survey respondents considered this factor to be important more than FTDC respondents did. They mostly are long-h aul drivers, probably using two-lane highways more often than short-haul driver s. Male drivers or Hispanic dr ivers were concerned with this factor more than others did. They may be more likely to get impatient when being passed or followed by other vehicles than other truck driver s may. Truck drivers with at least 15 years of job experience were less concerned with this fact or than others were. They may have become less sensitive to this factor, having plenty of experience with this factor. Truck drivers with more than 25 percent of their truck trips empty perceive d this factor to be less important than others did. When they drive an empty truck, it is a lot easier for them to maneuver (i.e., accelerate or decelerate) due to its lighter weight and no possi ble freight damage, being less sensitive to the other vehicles following or pa ssing their truck. Truck driver s traveling at the time period between noon and 3PM perceived this factor to be more important than others did. Truck drivers carrying auto parts, stone, clay, or concrete prod ucts perceived this factor to be more important than the others did, while the drivers carrying unknown packages (FedEx packages) or drivers operating a straight (single unit) tr uck, in particular, were less con cerned about this factor. It is

PAGE 179

179 likely that truck drivers carrying heavy or damage -sensitive goods, or driv ing larger trucks are more concerned with this factor because their mane uverability is much more inferior to that of other truck drivers. The perceptions on the importance of A Cons istently Good Ride Quality (Factor B) differed by percent of late deli very, annual income level, numbe r of working days per week, types of goods carried, and truck types. Truck dr ivers more than 5 percent of whose truck trips are late perceived this fa ctor to be less important than others did. It is possible that drivers who are more punctual on deliveries drive at a hi gher speed than other drivers do, being more concerned with the ride quality. Truck drivers with annual income between $50,000 and $70,000 were more concerned about this factor. Tr uck driver carrying grai ns/feed perceived this factor to be more important than other did. They may be afraid of their grains/feed falling out of their truck, being more concerned with the ride qu ality than other truck dr ivers. Truck drivers working more than 5 days per week were mo re concerned about this factor, while those operating turnpike double were le ss concerned about this factor. The perceptions on the importance of Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type (Factor C) varied by annua l income level and types of goods carried. Truck drivers with annual income between $50,000 and $70,000 were more concerned about this factor. Truck drivers carrying grains/feed or haza rdous materials were more sensit ive to this factor. They may often need more spaces (i.e., part of shoulder width) than just one narrow lane to feel safe to travel with those collision-sensi tive materials, or the importance of an adequate shoulder width and good shoulder condition (i.e., hard pavement) is greater for those driver s to park their truck safely in case of emergency (e.g., a tire-blowout ) than for other truck drivers, due to worse consequences accompanied by a potential conflict with other vehicles in the main traffic stream.

PAGE 180

180 The perceptions on the importance of Proba bility of Encountering Possible Conflicts (Factor D) varied by recruitment sources, level of truck driving experience, primary load types, percent of truck trips that are no t made on familiar roads, truck dr iving time of day, and types of goods carried. Postage-paid survey respondents consid ered this factor to be more important than the FTDC respondents. Most of them were longhaul drivers, who trav el two-lane highways more often than short-haul driv ers. Truck drivers with less than 5 years of truck driving experience considered this factor to be more important than ot hers. They have less experience traveling on two-lane highways, thus may be more cautious a bout potential conflicts on the roads. Truck drivers from a truck compa ny which operates both TL and LTL were more concerned about this factor than those from a company operating either TL or LTL. Truck drivers who travel on a familiar road less often were more concerned about this factor. Truck drivers will be more likely to be afraid of a pot ential conflict when they travel on an unfamiliar road. Truck drivers traveli ng during the time period between 7PM and midnight were less concerned about this factor, wh ile those carrying waste and scrap were more concerned about this factor. The perceptions on the importance of Oppor tunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes (Factor E) vari ed only by truck types. Truck drivers operating truck/trailer perceived this factor to be more important than other drivers did. They were more concerned with this factor probably because it is more difficult for them to find a chance to pass other vehicles due to the large le ngth of their truck than for straig ht truck, or tractor semi-trailer truck drivers. 5.9 Perceptions on Truck Driving Environment by Time of Day A total of 147 truck drivers answered the ques tions pertaining to the time of day that they currently drive their truck and the time of day th at they would prefer to drive it. A multiple-

PAGE 181

181 response question was utilized for this issue, so the response frequencies exceeded the number of respondents. The response frequencies of current and preferred truck driv ing times of day were observed to explore how the quality of truck dr iving environment may differ by time of day. The intent of these questions was to determine whet her drivers perceive conditions to be better at other times of day than the times that they actu ally travel, since many dr ivers do not have control over their driving times. The relationships between the drivers backgrounds and their preference on truck driving time of day were also investigated. 5.9.1 Current and Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day The distribution of the current and preferred truck driving time of day of the drivers are presented in Figure 5-8. A cons iderable number of the drivers (34/147 or 23%) were not driving at specific times of day regularly. The time peri od most used and preferre d for truck driving was from 9AM to noon, while a small portion of the driv ers were driving or pr eferred to drive their truck between 7PM and midnight. The time pe riods between 6AM and 9AM, noon and 3PM, and 3PM and 7PM were used for truck driving to a similar degree, but more drivers (56/147 or 38%) preferred to drive between 6AM to 9AM while fewer driver s (33/147 or 22%) preferred to drive between 3PM and 7PM. Ten percent more drivers (51/147 or 35% versus 37/147 or 25%) preferred to drive from midnight to 6AM than were actually driving during that time period. Overall, most of the drivers were driving dur ing the day time (6AMPM). The time period from midnight to noon was relatively more pref erred by the drivers than that from noon to midnight. The preference on truck driving times of day was also examined from another perspective. It was examined whether the drivers who curren tly drive during each time period still preferred to drive during that same time interval. These pr oportions are shown in Figure 5-9. This was to observe how much portion of the dr ivers using each time frame still prefers to drive on the time

PAGE 182

182 period. The time periods between midnight a nd 3PM were generally preferred by about 80 percent of the current users, while the time peri ods between 3PM and midnight were preferred by only about 55 percent of the current users. A total of 38 truck company managers identif ied their preference on truck driving time of day as shown in Figure 5-10. Most of the resp ondents preferred nighttime deliveries. A significant portion of them (22/38 or 58%) preferred their drivers to travel between midnight and 6AM, while day time (from 9AM to 7PM) was ha rdly preferred as truck driving time by the respondents. 5.9.2 Relationships between Truck Drivers Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day Potential correlations between truck driver s working and socio-economic characteristics and their preference on different tr uck driving times of day were i nvestigated with a categorical data analysis method. Each background charac teristics of the respondents was individually tested if their prefer ences on truck driving times of day vary by the levels of the background characteristics. Chi-squared test of independe nce were applied to the survey data. When a variable (i.e., background charac teristics) with three levels was significant in the test, Chisquared test was performed again for each pair of the levels of the variable to observe how the perceptions differed by different levels of the variable. The Chi-squared test results are presented from Table 5-38 to 5-41. The preference of truck driving time of da y between midnight and 6AM (Time Period A) varied by truck company types, primary load t ypes, hauling distance, number of working days per week, fleet size, type of goods carried, and tr uck types. Truck drivers from private truck companies, long-haul drivers, TL drivers, or drivers working more than 5 days per week preferred to travel during this time period more than others did. Truck drivers whose truck

PAGE 183

183 company operates between 500 and 10,000 trucks had more preference on this time period than those working for a company with at least 10,000 or less than 500 trucks. The preferences on this time period of truck driver s carrying grains/feed, household goods of stationary, auto parts, vehicles, machinery, textiles, metals, manufactur ed goods, waste and scrap, equipment, furniture, wood products, stone, clay, and concrete products glass, and hazardous materials was less than those of other truck drivers. Truck drivers operati ng twin trailer, 3or 4-axle semi-trailer less preferred to travel during this period, while those operating larger trucks such as 5-axle semitrailer or rocky mountain double more preferred to travel during this period. Overall, the results show that truck drivers traveling more distan ce, carrying heavier frei ght, or operating larger trucks more preferred to travel during this time period. They may more prefer to travel at between midnight and 6AM to avoid traffic cong estion more frequently occurring during day time. The maneuverability of their truck is likely to be much more restrict ed than that of other trucks, due to the more wei ght or size of their truck. The preference of truck driving time of day between 6AM and 9AM (Time Period B) varied by earning methods and truck types. Truck drivers who get paid by the mile less preferred to travel during this time period, while truck dr ivers operating 3-axle se mi-trailer preferred to drive during this time period more than others. Most truck drivers getting paid by the mile will try to avoid this AM peak time (6AM 9AM) becau se they cannot travel as much farther as they can travel during other times of day. The preference of truck driving time of day between 9AM and noon (Time Period C) varied by earning methods, primary load types, hauling distance, number of working days per week, type of goods carried, and truck types. Truck drivers who get paid by the mile less preferred to travel during this time period, while those who get paid by the hour had more

PAGE 184

184 preference on this time period. LTL drivers more preferred this time period than TL drivers. Short-haul drivers had more preference on this time period, while drivers working more than 5 days per week less preferred to travel during this time period than others. The preference on this time period of truck drivers carry ing grains/feed, household goods of stationary, auto parts, vehicles, machinery, textiles, metals, manufact ured goods, chemicals and allied products, paper and allied products, coal and pe troleum, equipment, furniture, wood products, stone, clay, and concrete products was more than those of other truck drivers. Truck dr ivers operating 3or 4axle semi-trailer more preferred to travel during this period than others. Overall, the results show that short-haul drivers or drivers having so me general characteristic s of short-haul drivers (i.e., truck drivers getting paid by the hour, truck drivers carrying lighter freight) more preferred to travel during this time period. Short-haul drivers usually get paid by the hour to get compensated for traffic delay experienced on the ro ads unintentionally. Most of them travel in relatively urbanized areas during day time, so are much more likely to experience traffic delay. However, they may not feel the need to avoid th e delay by traveling at night time since they get paid by the hour. It is also tr ue that their delivery schedule is set up during day time that they have no choice but to travel during day time. Most shippers and receivers will not be available at night time for shor t-haul deliveries. The preference of truck driving time of day between noon and 3PM (Time Period D) varied by earning methods, primary load types, ha uling distance, percent of late delivery, number of working days per week, type of goods carried, and truck types. Truck drivers who get paid by the mile had less preference on this time peri od. LTL drivers more preferred this time period than TL drivers. Short-haul driv ers, or drivers working at most 5 days per week more preferred to travel during this time period than others di d. Truck drivers more th an 5 percent of whose

PAGE 185

185 deliveries are late had more preference on this time period. The preferences on this time period of truck drivers carrying grains/feed, household goods of stationary, auto part s, vehicles, textiles, livestock, metals, manufactured goods, chemicals, pa per and allied products, coal and petroleum, waste and scrap, equipment, furniture, stone, clay, and concrete products, and glass were greater than those of other truck drivers. Truck driver s operating 4-axle semi-trailer preferred to travel during this period more. Again, short-haul driver s or drivers having some general characteristics of short-haul drivers (i.e., truc k drivers carrying lighter freight, tr uck drivers more than 5 percent of whose deliveries are late) more preferred to travel during this tim e period than other drivers. Short-haul drivers relatively often travel in urbanized areas, so th ere is more chance of being late for a delivery. The preference of truck driving time of day between 3PM and 7PM (Time Period E) varied by number of working days per week a nd type of goods carried. Truck drivers working more than 5 days per week less pr eferred to travel during this tim e period than others did. Truck drivers carrying textiles, coal a nd petroleum, equipment, stone, clay, and concrete products, or glass had more preference on this time period. The preference of truck driving time of da y between 7PM and midnight (Time Period F) varied by independence, earning methods, maximu m governed truck speed, and truck types. Truck drivers having some genera l characteristics of long-haul drivers (i.e., independent truck drivers, truck drivers who get paid by the mile, or drivers whose truck is governed at more than 65 mi/h) had more preference on th is time period. There is less traffic during this time period than during day time, so they can go a longer di stance by driving faster. Truck drivers operating straight (single unit) truck or tw in trailer had more preference on this time period as well. It is not clear why they preferred to travel during this time period.

PAGE 186

186 5.10 Other Transportation Service Issues for Truck Drivers The survey respondents were asked to list any other factors that might be important to truck trip quality in addition to th e ones presented in the surveys. The driver survey participants at the FTDC event did not provide inputs on this matter, probably due to the long length and complexity of the survey. However, various ot her factors were pointed out by the postage-paid mail-back driver survey respondents. Each of t hose factors is listed with its frequency (i.e., the number of respondents who mentioned the factor) in this section. Most manager respondents did not list any other factor. Some respondents repeated the factor(s) that were already given in the surveys. It was intended to not in clude those factors in the lists. 5.10.1 Freeway Truck Operations The other factors contributing to truck trip quality on freeways are listed in Table 5-42. Availability and security of tr uck parking facilities, frequenc y of scale/inspection stations along a route, and accessibility or location of truck stops were mentioned by more than one respondents. As far as other dr ivers behavior is concerned, a number of specific factors were identified, and thus separately summarized in Table 5-43. The respondents were sensitive to slow vehicles in the left-most or center lane. This issue is obviously correlated with the implementation of left-lane truck restriction. Education of motoring pub lic about truck driving characteristics, other drivers improper use of turn signals, and other drivers use of cell phones without hands-free device s were pointed out by more than one respondent. Many respondents also showed their re peated concerns about truck la ne restriction, frequency and timing of construction activities, and speed di fferential between cars and trucks, even though they were evaluated in the prev ious sections of the surveys.

PAGE 187

187 5.10.2 Urban Arterial Truck Operations The other factors contributing to truck trip quality on urban ar terials are listed in Table 544. Various aspects of signage condition were id entified by four respondents. Availability, size, and law enforcement of truck parking space s were mentioned by three respondents and two respondents were concerned with n ight-time lighting condition. W ith respect to other drivers behavior, frequency of the driver s cutting off in front of trucks and frequency of the drivers speeding up not to allow trucks to change lanes were mentioned by two respondents, respectively. 5.10.3 Two-Lane Highway Truck Operations The other factors contributing to truck trip quality on two-lane highways are listed in Table 5-45. Availability of turning maneuvers was identified by two respondents. Unlike passenger car drivers, truck driver have di fficulty turning their truck when they happen to travel in the wrong direction on a two-lane highway, due to its big size. They may have to wait until they reach an intersection wide enough for them to turn. Two respondents were concerned with frequency of school buses. When truck driver s travel behind a slow school bus on a long stretch of a two-lane highway, they are not allowe d to pass it, having to fo llow it for a long time. Traffic signal operational characteristics in small towns on a route was identified by two respondents as well. Truck driver s often have to pass small town s on two-lane highway routes. They want to minimize delays and number of st ops experienced in the small towns as they do on urban arterial routes.

PAGE 188

188 Table 5-1. Truck Driver Survey Re spondent Background Summary Statistics Variable Surveys collected at FTDC event Postage-paid Mail-back Surveys Total Surveys Gender (%): male/female/NA(1) 99/1/0 90/7/3 93/5/2 Age in years (%): 209/30/409/50/60+/NA 4/24/48/21/3/0 4/17/36/28/13/2 4/19/40/26/10/1 Existence of dependents (%): yes/no/NA 92/7/1 77/21/2 82/16/2 Average truck driving job experience in years (standard deviation in parenthesis) 18.1 (8.9) 17.3 (11.5) 17.6 (10.7) Company type (%): private/for-hire/both/NA 36/55/7/2 14/71/13/2 21/66/11/2 Load type (%): TL/LTL/both/NA 36/42/21/1 63/8/27/2 54/19/25/2 Owner-Operator truck driver (%): yes/no/NA 7/93/0 32/67/1 24/75/1 Average one-way truck driving distance for a delivery in miles (standard deviation in parenthesis) 298 (479) 856 (625) 674 (637) Truck travel route and departure time determination (%): Driver/manager/both/NA 9/62/28/1 39/25/35/1 29/37/33/1 Hauling distance (%): short haul/long haul/both/NA 55/42/2/1 6/92/0/2 22/76/1/1 Truck speed governed (%): yes/no/NA 96/3/1 74/24/2 81/17/2 Average governed truck speed in miles per hour (standard deviation in parenthesis) 65.5 (3.3) 70.1 (5.5) 68.4 (5.3) Earning methods (multiple choices, %): by mile/hour/salary/drop/load/other 34/42/4/14/4/2 64/6/2/11/16/1 53/20/3/12/11/1 Average percent of truck trips that are empty (standard deviation in parenthesis) 16.2 (16.7) 17.8 (16.1) 17.3 (16.3) Average percent of truck deliveries that are late (standard deviation in parenthesis) 6.2 (12.2) 2.0 (4.5) 3.3 (8.1) Average percent of truck trips that are made on unfamiliar roads (standard deviation in parenthesis) 8.7 (12.9) 17.4 (19.9) 14.6 (18.5) (1) Not Available survey responses (the respondents did not answer the question.)

PAGE 189

189 Table 5-2. Additional Truck Driver Survey Respondent Background Summa ry Statistics (only from the respondents at FTDC event) Variable Surveys collected at FTDC event Race (%): Caucasian/Native American/African American/Hispanic/Others 70/5/6/17/2 Education level (%): Some or no high school/High school diploma or equivalent/ Technical college degree (A.A.)/Co llege degree/Post-graduate degree/NA(1) 6/76/ 9/7/1/1 Annual income level in thousand dollars (%): 254/35/509/70/100+/NA 2/20/54/18/3/3 Company fleet size in number of trucks (%): <50/5099/10099/500999/1,000,999/5,0000,000/10,000+/NA 5/3/14/13/12/21/31/1 Average truck driving days per week (standa rd deviation in parenthesis) 5.1 (0.6) Average truck driving hours per day (standa rd deviation in parenthesis) 9.9 (2.1) Average number of nights per week away from their home for a delivery (standard deviation in parenthesis) 1.3 (2.1) Average percent of number of tr uck trips on each roadway type: freeway/rural multilane highway/rural 2-lane highway/urban arterial 51/17/14/17 Average percent of truck driving hours on each roadway type: freeway/rural multilane highway/rural 2-lane highway/urban arterial 52/16/15/17 Truck types (multiple choices, %): Straight truck/Truck trailer/Twin trailer or Doubles/ 3-axle tractor semitrailer/4-axle tractor semitrailer/5-axle tractor semitrailer/ Truck double trailer/Turnpike double/Tank truck/Flat bed 6.3/3.9/19.1/ 11.7/19.1/33.2/ 0.4/2.0/2.0/2.3 Type of goods carried (multiple choices, %): food/grains, feed/household goods or stationary/auto parts/vehicles/ machinery/textiles/livestock/metals /manufactured goods/chemicals/ paper and allied products/c oal or petroleum/chemic als and allied products/ waste and scrap/equipment/furniture /wood products except furniture/ stone, clay, and concrete products/glass/hazardous materials/ unknown packages (LTL)/flower 7.6/4.1/7.6/6.3/1.8/ 4.7/5.7/0.4/4.9/6.9/5.7/ 6.5/1.1/3.7/ 1.4/4.8/5.7/4.6/ 4.9/4.7/5.7/ 0.6/0.2 (1) Not Available survey responses (the re spondents did not answer the question.)

PAGE 190

190 Table 5-3. Truck Company Manager Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics Variable Total Surveys Gender (%): male/female 89/11 Age in years (%): 20/30/4049/50/60+ 3/21/26/37/13 Average truck company manager job experience in years (standard deviation in parenthesis) 12.8 (10.9) Company type (%): private/for-hire/both 24/68/8 Load type (%): TL/LTL/both/NA(1) 66/13/16/5 Job duties as a truck company manager (multiple choices, %): Manage truck travel routes and schedules for delivery Manage trucking equipment or facilities Manage truck operation safety Make contracts with customer s or manage public relations Manage personnel 31 8 33 20 8 Company fleet size in number of trucks (%): <50/5099/10099/500999/1,000,999/5,0000,000/10,000+/NA 18/3/29/13/16/13/5/3 Average percent of hauling distance of the truck trips their companies make (standard deviation in parenthesis): Short haul Long haul 47.3 (39.2) 52.7(39.2) Average percent of independent truck drivers working at their companies (standard deviation in parenthesis) 25.2 (40.4) Average percent of their companies tr uck deliveries that are late (standard deviation in parenthesis) 8.9 (9.6) Average percent of their truck deliv ery service performance level that is evaluated by on-time delivery (standard deviation in parenthesis) 76.5 (32.8) Preferred truck driving time (multiple choices, %): Midnightam/6amam/9amnoon/ Noonpm/3pmpm/7pmmidnight 47/21/7/ 4/6/15 Average percent of the respondents co ncerns on following issues on Floridas transportation services for trucking business (standard deviation in parenthesis): Operating cost On-time performance Truck drivers trip satisfaction 46.8 (21.6) 30.1 (22.8) 24.1 (15.0) (1) Not Available survey responses (the re spondents did not answer the question.)

PAGE 191

191 Table 5-4. Additional Truck Company Mana ger Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics (only from the respondents at FTDC event) Variable Surveys collected at FTDC event Truck travel route and depart ure time determination (%): Driver/manager/both driver and manager/ customer/driver, manager, and customer 18/55/9/ 9/9 Annual income level in thousand dollars (%): 209/30/409/ 509/70/100149 9/18/18/ 28/18/9 Education level (%): High school diploma or equivalent/ Technical college degree (A.A.)/College degree 64/ 18/18 Methods by which truck drivers of their companies get paid (multiple choices, %): By mile/hour/salary/drop/load/other 34/42/4/14/4/2 Truck types their companies typical ly operate (multiple choices, %): Straight truck/Truck trailer/Twin trailer or Doubles/ 3-axle tractor semitrailer/4-axle tractor semitrailer/5-axle tractor semitrailer/ Tank truck/Dump truck/Fat bed 20/4/12/ 4/16/32/ 4/4/4 Type of goods carried by their companies (multiple choices, %): food/grains, feed/household goods or stationary/auto parts/vehicles/ machinery/textiles/livestock/metals /manufactured goods/chemicals/ paper and allied products/c oal or petroleum/chemic als and allied products/ waste and scrap/equipment/furniture /wood products except furniture/ stone, clay, and concrete products/glass/hazardous materials/others 12.0/4.5/6.0/6.0/0.0/ 4.5/4.5/0.0/7.0/9.0/6.0/ 7.5/0.0/4.5/ 1.5/3.0/4.5/6.0/ 1.5/1.5/6.0/4.5

PAGE 192

192 Table 5-5. Truck Drivers Perceptions on Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways Factor Mean RISa (Rank in Parentheses) Mean RSSb (Rank in Parentheses) Mean IPSc (Rank in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Freeways 6.69 (1) 1.95 (1) 27.46 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.49 (2) 2.09 (2) 25.58 (2) Availability and Condition of Signage 6.28 (3) 5.13 (19) 2.36 (16) Pavement Condition 6.06 (4) 4.39 (12) 5.62 (9) Level of Congestion 6.01 (5) 3.28 (4) 12.30 (4) Lane Widths 5.88 (6) 4.93 (18) 2.35 (17) Roadway Striping Condition (including reflectors) 5.87 (7) 4.68 (17) 4.40 (12) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.80 (8) 4.52 (15) 4.00 (14) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.77 (9) 3.81 (7) 7.51 (7) Length of Merge or Diverge Lanes 5.73 (10) 4.39 (12) 4.48 (11) Availability of Alternative Routes 5.71 (11) 3.90 (8) 6.63 (8) Number of Lanes 5.60 (12) 4.47 (14) 4.01 (13) Amount of Merge or Diverge Traffic 5.55 (13) 4.15 (9) 4.86 (10) Lighting Conditions at Night 5.52 (14) 4.63 (16) 2.45 (15) Lane(s) Restricted from Truck Use 5.50 (15) 3.09 (3) 14.11 (3) Lower Speed Limit Only Applied to Truck Traffic 5.33 (16) 3.30 (6) 11.35 (5) Governed Truck Speed Lower than Speed Limit 5.19 (17) 3.28 (4) 11.31 (6) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) 4.91 (18) 4.36 (11) 1.77 (18) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 4.65 (19) 4.16 (10) 1.57 (19) Sample Size 163167 180187 152159 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Satisfaction Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Satisfied, 7=Most Satisfied) c Improvement Priority Score of Each Factor ( 42 +42)

PAGE 193

193 Table 5-6. Managers Perceptions on Rela tive Importance of Each Factor on Freeways Factor Mean OTBa (Rank in Parentheses) Mean OCb (Rank in Parentheses) Mean OPc (Rank in Parentheses) Mean TSd (Rank in Parentheses) Level of Congestion 5.95 (1) 5.82 (1) 6.06 (1) 6.42 (1) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.66 (2) 5.00 (2) 6.06 (1) 6.03 (3) Availability of Alternative Routes 5.21 (3) 4.78 (4) 5.24 (4) 5.54 (7) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Freeways 5.12 (4) 4.91 (3) 4.82 (6) 5.81 (4) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 5.00 (5) 4.73 (5) 4.62 (7) 6.11 (2) Number of Lanes 4.82 (6) 4.45 (7) 5.03 (5) 5.42 (8) Pavement Condition 4.69 (7) 4.48 (6) 4.29 (11) 5.64 (5) Availability and Condition of Signage 4.64 (8) 3.81 (13) 5.39 (3) 5.37 (9) Lower Speed Limit Only Applied to Truck Traffic 4.62 (9) 4.36 (9) 4.47 (9) 5.19 (10) Governed Truck Speed Lower than Speed Limit 4.58 (10) 4.45 (7) 4.53 (8) 4.97 (15) Amount of Merge or Diverge Traffic 4.56 (11) 4.12 (11) 4.03 (12) 5.61 (6) Lane(s) Restricted from Truck Use 4.41 (12) 4.18 (10) 4.44 (10) 4.94 (17) Lighting Conditions at Night 4.17 (13) 3.88 (12) 3.85 (14) 5.11 (12) Roadway Striping Condition (including reflectors) 4.06 (14) 3.58 (15) 3.88 (13) 5.19 (10) Shoulder Width and Condition 3.88 (15) 3.70 (14) 3.47 (18) 5.00 (14) Lane Widths 3.86 (16) 3.47 (16) 3.82 (15) 4.97 (15) Length of Merge or Diverge Lanes 3.66 (17) 3.41 (17) 3.13 (19) 5.11 (12) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) 3.64 (18) 3.29 (18) 3.66 (16) 4.44 (18) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 3.47 (19) 3.26 (19) 3.53 (17) 4.09 (19) Sample Size 280 313 314 346 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Overall Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Op erating Cost (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) c Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Ontime Performance (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) d Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to truck drivers Trip Satisfaction (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 194

194 Table 5-7. Exploratory Factor Anal ysis Results (Freeways) Rotated Factor Loadings Latent Factor and Allied Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Communality Factor 1: Physical Roadway Components Lighting Conditions at Night .73 .04 .12 .04 .18 .58 Shoulder Width and Condition .69 .19 .17 .09 .14 .57 Lane Widths .64 .06 .04 .16 .25 .50 Length of Merge or Diverge Lanes .62 .08 .09 .00 .28 .48 Availability and Condition of Signage .57 .09 .00 .20 .09 .38 Roadway Striping Condition (including reflectors) .52 .22 .20 .01 .20 .40 Pavement Condition (.43) .21 .32 .02 (.56) .65 Factor 2: Passenger Car Drivers Behavior Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Freeways .14 .90 .07 .11 .07 .85 Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette .09 .89 .10 .11 .17 .85 Factor 3: Traveler Information Usage Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) .00 .07 .88 .13 .10 .81 Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems .09 .01 .78 .07 .17 .65 Availability of Alternative Routes (.36) .22 (.48) .11 .09 .43 Factor 4: Truck Travel Restrictions Lower Speed Limit Only Applied to Truck Traffic .03 .04 .02 .85 .04 .73 Governed Truck Speed Lower than Speed Limit .15 .16 .04 .75 .03 .61 Lane(s) Restricted from Truck Use .10 .00 .02 .68 .33 .58 Factor 5: Volume/Capacity Ratio Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities .01 .00 .10 .09 .68 .48 Level of Congestion .20 .26 .34 .10 .52 .50 Number of Lanes (.46) .20 .18 .07 (.52) .56 Amount of Merge or Diverge Traffic (.56) .22 .07 .10 (.37) .51 Sum of Squares (Eigenvalue) 3.3 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 11.1 Percent of Trace 17.6 10.5 10.4 10.0 9.9 58.4 the item loaded highly on two or more factors the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 195

195 Table 5-8. Importance of Each Factor on Tr uck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways Factor Items Mean RIS (Overall Rank in Parentheses) Factor Summated Mean (Standard Deviation in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Freeways 6.69 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Behavior (F2) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.49 (2) 6.61 (.89) Availability and Condition of Signage 6.28 (3) Pavement Condition 6.06 (4) Lane Widths 5.88 (6) Roadway Striping Condition (including reflectors) 5.87 (7) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.80 (8) Length of Merge or Diverge Lanes 5.73 (10) Physical Roadway Components (F1) Lighting Conditions at Night 5.52 (14) 5.90 (.82) Level of Congestion 6.01 (5) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.77 (9) Number of Lanes 5.60 (12) Volume/ Capacity Ratio (F5) Amount of Merge or Diverge Traffic 5.55 (13) 5.76 (.92) Lane(s) Restricted from Truck Use 5.50 (15) Lower Speed Limit Only Applied to Truck Traffic 5.33 (16) Truck Travel Restrictions (F4) Governed Truck Speed Lower than Speed Limit 5.19 (17) 5.30 (1.43) Availability of Alternative Routes* 5.71 (11) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) 4.91 (18) Traveler Information Usage (F3) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 4.65 (19) 5.09 (1.02) the item loaded highly on two or more factors the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 196

196 Table 5-9. Truck Drivers Pe rceptions on Applicability of Single Performance Measure (ASPM) to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways ASPM(1) Hypothetical Single Performance Measure Mean Standard Deviation A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enhance ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.58 1.44 Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit (to enhance driv ing safety and minimize acceleration and deceleration) 5.38 1.66 Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information (to avoid expected congested areas or harsh weather) 4.88 1.73 Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (to minimize total travel time) 4.82 1.95 (1) How well each performance measure would be applicab le to evaluate the quality of a truck trip, if it were the only performance measure used (1, 1=No t at all Applicable, 7=Perfectly Applicable) Table 5-10. Truck Company Managers Percepti ons of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Freeways for trucking business RI(1) Hypothetical Truck Driving Condition Mean Standard Deviation Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit (to enhance driv ing safety and minimize acceleration and deceleration) 6.20 0.99 Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (to minimize total travel time) 5.66 1.78 A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enha nce ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.57 1.31 Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information (to avoid expected congested areas or harsh weather) 5.43 1.54 (1) Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Cond ition on Freeways for Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 197

197 Table 5-11. Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results (Freeways) Pairwise Mean Comparisons (1) d.f q (calculated) Results Factor A vs Factor B 762 2.51 Population means are not different Factor A vs Factor C 750 8.59 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor D 713 8.71 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor C 773 5.77 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor D 755 6.11 Population means are different Factor C vs Factor D 763 0.69 Population means are not different Mean Comparison Summary Factor A Factor B > Factor C Factor D (1) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit C. Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information D. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit Note: Bolded q values are significant at the 95% confidence level () 4 ( 05 0 q = 3.63)

PAGE 198

198 Table 5-12. Truck Drivers Per ceptions of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials Factor Mean RISa (Rank in Parentheses) Mean RSSb (Rank in Parentheses) Mean IPSc (Rank in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.16 (1) 2.11 (1) 21.49 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Urban Arterials 6.14 (2) 2.30 (2) 19.44 (2) Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections 6.07 (3) 3.74 (6) 8.07 (5) Pavement Condition 5.99 (4) 4.45 (16) 5.31 (7) Availability and Condition of Signage 5.89 (5) 4.53 (18) 3.15 (16) Coordinated Traffic Signal Timings at Intersections along the Arterial for Continuous Traffic Flow 5.78 (6) 3.40 (4) 9.27 (4) Lane Widths 5.70 (7) 4.22 (14) 4.15 (12) Level of Vehicle Congestion 5.66 (8) 3.12 (3) 9.86 (3) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.58 (9) 3.66 (5) 8.35 (6) Roadway Striping Condition 5.54 (10) 4.31 (15) 3.30 (15) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.53 (11) 4.20 (13) 3.43 (14) Number of Lanes 5.45 (12) 3.96 (10) 4.60 (11) Existence of Left Turn Signal Phase at Intersections 5.45 (13) 3.91 (9) 4.59 (10) Length of Yellow Signal Timing at Intersections 5.44 (14) 3.81 (7) 4.66 (9) Traffic Signal Responsiveness at Intersections 5.37 (15) 3.82 (8) 4.83 (8) Placement of Light Poles, Trees, etc. at Roadside 5.31 (16) 4.18 (12) 2.24 (17) Stop Bar Position for Truck Turning at Intersections 5.25 (17) 4.00 (11) 3.63 (13) Level of Bicycle or Pedestrian Congestion 4.65 (18) 4.48 (17) 0.91 (18) Sample Size 73~76 93~97 64~68 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Satisfaction Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Satisfied, 7=Most Satisfied) c Improvement Priority Score of Each Factor ( +42)

PAGE 199

199 Table 5-13. Managers Perceptions on Relative Importance of Each Factor on Urban Arterials Factor Mean OTBa (Rank in Parentheses)Mean OCb (Rank in Parentheses)Mean OPc (Rank in Parentheses) Mean TSd (Rank in Parentheses) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.89 (1) 5.86 (1) 6.25 (1) 6.44 (1) Pavement Condition 5.74 (2) 5.86 (1) 5.38 (5) 6.33 (2) Level of Vehicle Congestion 5.59 (3) 5.71 (3) 6.00 (2) 6.11 (4) Existence of Left Turn Signal Phase at Intersections 5.41 (4) 5.57 (4) 5.75 (3) 6.11 (4) Roadway Striping Condition 5.38 (5) 5.00 (9) 4.88 (12) 5.67 (11) Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections 5.25 (6) 5.43 (5) 4.63 (16) 6.22 (3) Length of Yellow Signal Timing at Intersections 5.23 (7) 5.00 (9) 5.00 (8) 5.78 (8) Traffic Signal Responsiveness at Intersections 5.22 (8) 5.00 (9) 5.00 (8) 5.78 (8) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Urban Arterials 5.17 (9) 5.43 (5) 5.25 (6) 5.67 (11) Coordinated Traffic Signal Timings at Intersections along the Arterial for Continuous Traffic Flow 5.17 (9) 5.29 (7) 5.63 (4) 6.00 (6) Availability and Condition of Signage 5.04 (11) 5.29 (7) 5.00 (8) 5.56 (16) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 5.02 (12) 4.71 (16) 4.75 (13) 5.67 (11) Placement of Light Poles, Trees, etc. at Roadside 4.97 (13) 4.71 (16) 5.00 (8) 5.44 (17) Shoulder Width and Condition 4.89 (14) 5.00 (9) 4.75 (13) 5.89 (7) Stop Bar Position for Truck Turning at Intersections 4.87 (15) 4.57 (18) 4.38 (18) 5.67 (11) Number of Lanes 4.73 (16) 4.86 (13) 5.25 (6) 5.67 (11) Lane Widths 4.72 (17) 4.86 (13) 4.63 (16) 5.78 (8) Level of Bicycle or Pedestrian Congestion 4.54 (18) 4.86 (13) 4.75 (13) 5.33 (18) Sample Size 6 7 8 9 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Overall Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Op erating Cost (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) c Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Ontime Performance (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) d Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to truck drivers Trip Satisfaction (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 200

200 Table 5-14. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results (Urban Arterials) Rotated Factor Loadings Latent Factor and Allied Items F1 F2 F3 F4 Communality Factor 1: Roadway and Traffic Components Number of Lanes .83 .12 .03 .12 .72 Lane Widths .68 .26 .04 .29 .62 Pavement Condition .66 .42 .23 .03 .67 Shoulder Width and Condition .65 .01 .37 .41 .73 Availability and Condition of Signage* (.52) .21 .00 .20 .35 Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities (.53) .29 .40 .10 .54 Roadway Striping Condition (.52) .01 .37 .40 .57 Level of Vehicle Congestion .40 .31 .35 .06 .38 Factor 2: Intersection Crossing Constraints Existence of Left Turn Signal Phase at Intersections .30 .78 .01 .09 .71 Length of Yellow Signal Timing at Intersections .00 .76 .02 .43 .76 Coordinated Traffic Signal Timings at Intersections along the Arterial for Continuous Traffic Flow .18 .74 .36 .10 .72 Traffic Signal Responsiveness at Intersections .17 .70 .15 .33 .65 Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections* .28 (.51) .10 .02 .35 Factor 3: Passenger Car Drivers Behavior Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette .13 .09 .91 .22 .90 Passenger Car Drivers Know ledge about Tr uck Driving Characteristics on Urban Arterials .07 .21 .89 .12 .86 Factor 4: Physical Driving Deterrents Placement of Light Poles, Trees, etc. at Roadside .32 .13 .10 .75 .69 Level of Bicycle or Pedestrian Congestion .06 .15 .25 .73 .62 Stop Bar Position for Truck Turning at Intersections .12 .21 .13 .63 .47 Sum of Squares (Eigenvalue) 3.4 3.1 2.5 2.3 11.3 Percent of Trace 18.7 17.2 13.7 12.9 62.5 the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 201

201 Table 5-15. Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials Factor Items Mean RIS (Overall Rank in Parentheses) Factor Summated Mean (Standard Deviation in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.16 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Behavior (F3) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Urban Arterials 6.14 (2) 6.09 (1.37) Pavement Condition 5.99 (4) Availability and Condition of Signage* 5.89 (5) Lane Widths 5.70 (7) Level of Vehicle Congestion 5.66 (8) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.58 (9) Roadway Striping Condition 5.54 (10) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.53 (11) Roadway and Traffic Components (F1) Number of Lanes 5.45 (12) 5.65 (.89) Curb Radii for Right Turning at Intersections* 6.07 (3) Coordinated Traffic Signal Timings at Intersections along the Arterial for Continuous Traffic Flow 5.78 (6) Existence of Left Turn Signal Phase at Intersections 5.45 (12) Length of Yellow Signal Timing at Intersections 5.44 (14) Intersection Crossing Constraints (F2) Traffic Signal Responsiveness at Intersections 5.37 (15) 5.58 (.82) Placement of Light Poles, Trees, etc. at Roadside 5.31 (16) Stop Bar Position for Truck Turning at Intersections 5.25 (17) Physical Driving Deterrents (F4) Level of Bicycle or Pedestrian Congestion 4.65 (18) 5.03 (1.19) the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 202

202 Table 5-16. Truck Drivers Pe rceptions of Applicability of Single Performance Measure (ASPM) to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials ASPM(1) Hypothetical Single Performance Measure Mean Standard Deviation A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enhance ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.14 1.58 Ease of Changing Lanes (to prepare for making turns) 4.79 1.75 Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers 4.79 1.78 Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit (to enhance driving saf ety and minimize acceleration and deceleration) 4.76 1.87 Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the Arterial (to minimize stops or delays) 4.33 1.91 Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (to minimize total travel time) 4.32 1.83 Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers 3.62 2.14 (1) How well each performance measure would be applicable to evaluate quality of truck trip, if it were the only performance measure used (1, 1=Not at all Applicable, 7=Perfectly Applicable) Table 5-17. Truck Company Managers Percepti ons of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Urban Arterials for trucking business RI( 1) Hypothetical Truck Driving Condition Mean Standard Deviation Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers 5.94 1.41 Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whether Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit (to enhance driv ing safety and minimize acceleration and deceleration) 5.70 1.33 Ease of Changing Lanes (to prepare for making turns) 5.45 1.66 A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enha nce ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.30 1.26 Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the Arterial (to minimize stops or delays) 5.18 1.49 Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit (to minimize total travel time) 4.94 1.84 Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers 4.33 2.3 (1) Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Conditi on on Urban Arterials for Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 203

203 Table 5-18. Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results (Urban Arterials) Pairwise Mean Comparisons (1) d.f q (calculated) Results Factor A vs Factor B 764 4.17 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor C 762 4.17 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor D 748 4.33 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor E 744 9.09 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor F 756 9.49 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor G 709 15.88 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor C 772 0.03 Population means are not different Factor B vs Factor D 766 0.29 Population means are not different Factor B vs Factor E 765 4.90 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor F 771 5.17 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor G 741 11.72 Population means are different Factor C vs Factor D 768 0.26 Population means are not different Factor C vs Factor E 767 4.84 Population means are different Factor C vs Factor F 771 5.10 Population means are different Factor C vs Factor G 745 11.62 Population means are different Factor D vs Factor E 769 4.46 Population means are different Factor D vs Factor F 769 4.71 Population means are different Factor D vs Factor G 756 11.13 Population means are different Factor E vs Factor F 769 0.14 Population means are not different Factor E vs Factor G 760 6.88 Population means are different Factor F vs Factor G 752 6.88 Population means are different Mean Comparison Summary Factor A > Factor B Factor C Factor D > Factor EFactor F > Factor G (1) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Changing Lanes C. Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers D. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit E. Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the Arterial F. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit G. Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers Note: Bolded q values are significant at the 95% confidence level () 7 ( 05 0 q = 4.17)

PAGE 204

204 Table 5-19. Truck Drivers Per ceptions of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways Factor Mean RISa (Rank in Parentheses) Mean RSSb (Rank in Parentheses) Mean IPSc (Rank in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on Two-Lane Highways 6.38 (1) 2.18 (1) 21.10 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.28 (2) 2.36 (2) 19.59 (2) Availability and Condition of Signage 6.17 (3) 4.45 (19) 4.50 (11) Pavement Condition 5.99 (4) 4.04 (14) 5.50 (9) Lighting Conditions at Night 5.81 (5) 3.73 (7) 7.19 (5) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.80 (6) 3.45 (3) 8.78 (3) Lane Widths 5.80 (6) 3.95 (11) 6.41 (7) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5.64 (8) 3.69 (6) 7.35 (4) Roadway Striping Condition 5.59 (9) 4.19 (16) 3.88 (13) Level of Vehicle Congestion 5.58 (10) 3.54 (4) 7.02 (6) Frequency of Passing Lanes 5.47 (11) 3.65 (5) 5.51 (8) Sight Distance at Horizontal Curvatures 5.38 (12) 4.13 (15) 2.91 (15) Frequency of Passing Zones (Dashed Yellow Lines) 5.07 (13) 3.96 (12) 2.71 (16) Frequency of Faster Vehi cles Passing Your Truck 5.04 (14) 3.79 (9) 3.26 (14) Frequency of Vehicles much Slower than Your Truck 5.03 (15) 3.79 (9) 4.90 (10) Frequency of Faster Vehicles Following Your Truck 4.97 (16) 3.74 (8) 4.17 (12) Frequency of Farm Tractors, Bicyclists, Pedestrians 4.80 (17) 4.21 (17) 0.75 (17) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) 4.62 (18) 4.23 (18) 0.71 (18) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 4.27 (19) 3.99 (13) 0.50 (19) Sample Size 66~69 75~78 61~64 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Satisfaction Score of Each Factor (1, 1=Least Satisfied, 7=Most Satisfied) c Improvement Priority Score of Each Factor ( 42 +42)

PAGE 205

205 Table 5-20. Managers Perceptions of Relativ e Importance of Each Factor on Two-Lane Highways Factor Mean OTBa (Rank in Parentheses)Mean OCb (Rank in Parentheses)Mean OPc (Rank in Parentheses) Mean TSd (Rank in Parentheses) Roadway Striping Condition 5.65 (1) 5.71 (1) 5.25 (3) 6.13 (2) Level of Vehicle Congestion 5.46 (2) 5.14 (4) 5.00 (4) 5.75 (5) Pavement Condition 5.23 (3) 5.43 (2) 5.00 (4) 6.00 (3) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics 5.11 (4) 5.14 (4) 5.38 (2) 6.25 (1) Shoulder Width and Condition 5.03 (5) 5.29 (3) 4.88 (6) 5.63 (8) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 4.96 (6) 5.14 (4) 5.50 (1) 5.63 (8) Lighting Conditions at Night 4.76 (7) 4.57 (9) 4.50 (11) 4.88 (13) Sight Distance at Horizontal Curvatures 4.72 (8) 4.86 (7) 4.63 (8) 5.88 (4) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 4.70 (9) 4.50 (11) 4.43 (14) 5.57 (7) Frequency of Passing Zones (Dashed Yellow Lines) 4.70 (9) 4.57 (9) 4.63 (8) 5.25 (10) Frequency of Vehicles much Slower than Your Truck 4.62 (11) 4.71 (8) 4.75 (7) 5.75 (5) Frequency of Passing Lanes 4.54 (12) 4.43 (12) 4.50 (11) 5.13 (11) Lane Widths 4.53 (13) 4.43 (12) 4.13 (16) 4.88 (13) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) 4.49 (14) 3.83 (17) 3.57 (18) 4.43 (18) Frequency of Faster Vehicles Following Your Truck 4.16 (15) 4.00 (16) 3.88 (17) 4.75 (17) Frequency of Farm Tractors, Bicyclists, Pedestrians 4.08 (16) 4.29 (14) 4.63 (8) 4.88 (13) Availability and Condition of Signage 4.01 (17) 4.29 (14) 4.25 (15) 4.88 (13) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 4.00 (18) 3.40 (19) 3.50 (19) 3.50 (19) Frequency of Faster Vehi cles Passing Your Truck 4.00 (18) 3.71 (18) 4.50 (11) 5.13 (11) Sample Size 4~6 5~7 6~8 6~8 a Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Overall Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) b Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Op erating Cost (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) c Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to Ontime Performance (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important) d Relative Importance Score of Each Factor to truck drivers Trip Satisfaction (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 206

206 Table 5-21. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results (Two-Lane Highways) Rotated Factor Loadings Latent Factor and Allied Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Communality Factor 1: Travel Safety Elements Sight Distance at Horizontal Curvatures .71 .10 .16 .16 .15 .59 Frequency of Faster Vehicles Following Your Truck .68 .09 .05 .26 .16 .57 Lighting Conditions at Night .65 .27 .08 .31 .09 .61 Frequency of Farm Tractors, Bicyclists, Pedestrians .62 .08 .33 .18 .14 .55 Shoulder Width and Condition* (.59) .19 .03 .17 .16 .44 Frequency of Faster Vehi cles Passing Your Truck* .39 (.58) .26 .14 .23 .63 Factor 2: Traveler Information Usage Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, etc.) .11 .83 .01 .22 .07 .75 Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems .03 .73 .01 .18 .04 .57 Frequency of Vehicles much Slower than Your Truck .31 .72 .10 .22 .03 .67 Factor 3: Travel Speed Constraints Frequency of Passing Zones (Dashed Yellow Lines) .01 .08 .90 .07 .02 .82 Frequency of Passing Lanes .06 .18 .86 .01 .02 .78 Level of Vehicle Congestion* .04 .16 (.47) .27 .26 .39 Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities* .16 .03 .42 .01 .07 .25 Factor 4: Physical Roadway Components Pavement Condition .29 .15 .07 .78 .06 .72 Roadway Striping Condition .40 .06 .19 .70 .03 .69 Availability and Condition of Signage .16 .08 .00 .62 (.45) .61 Lane widths* .24 .30 .29 .41 .09 .41 Factor 5: Passenger Car Drivers Behavior Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette .14 .36 .07 .05 .81 .81 Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on 2Lane Highways .32 .08 .15 .08 .80 .78 Sum of Squares (Eigenvalue) 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 11.6 Percent of Trace 15.1 13.4 12.2 11.2 9.2 61.0 the item loaded highly on two or more factors the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 207

207 Table 5-22. Importance of Each Factor on Tr uck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways Factor Items Mean RIS (Overall Rank in Parentheses) Factor Summated Mean (Standard Deviation in Parentheses) Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics on 2Lane Highways 6.38 (1) Passenger Car Drivers Behavior (F5) Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 6.28 (2) 6.39 (.85) Availability and Condition of Signage 6.17 (3) Pavement Condition 5.99 (4) Lane widths* 5.80 (6) Physical Roadway Components (F4) Roadway Striping Condition 5.59 (9) 5.86 (.84) Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities* 5.64 (8) Level of Vehicle Congestion* 5.58 (10) Frequency of Passing Lanes 5.47 (11) Travel Speed Constraints (F3) Frequency of Passing Zones (Dashed Yellow Lines) 5.07 (13) 5.47 (.88) Lighting Conditions at Night 5.81 (5) Shoulder Width and Condition* 5.80 (6) Sight Distance at Horizontal Curvatures 5.38 (12) Frequency of Faster Vehi cles Passing Your Truck* 5.04 (14) Frequency of Faster Vehicles Following Your Truck 4.97 (16) Travel Safety Elements (F1) Frequency of Farm Tractors, Bicyclists, Pedestrians 4.80 (17) 5.29 (.84) Availability of Traveler Information Systems (HAR, 511, CB Radio, VMS, ) 4.62 (18) Publicity/Advertising of Traveler Information Systems 4.27 (19) Traveler Information Usage (F2) Frequency of Vehicles much Slower than Your Truck 5.03 (15) 4.65 (1.10) the item loaded highly on two or more factors the item did not load highly on any factor

PAGE 208

208 Table 5-23. Truck Drivers Pe rceptions of Applicability of Single Performance Measure (ASPM) to Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways ASPM(1) Hypothetical Single Performance Measure Mean Standard Deviation Probability of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles 5.10 1.87 A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enhance ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.02 1.53 Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type (to cope with unexpected situations) 4.55 1.99 Probability of Encountering Possible Conflic ts (with farm tractors, bicyclists, pedestrians, wildlife, etc.) 4.53 1.88 Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes (to minimize total travel time) 3.70 1.99 (1) How well each performance measure would be applicable to evaluate quality of truck trip, if it were the only performance measure used (1, 1=Not at all Applicable, 7=Perfectly Applicable) Table 5-24. Truck Company Managers Percepti ons of Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Condition on Two-Lane Highways for trucking business RI(1) Hypothetical Truck Driving Condition Mean Standard Deviation Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type (to cope with unexpected situations) 5.5 1.58 Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes (to minimize total travel time) 5.29 1.66 Probability of Encountering Possible Conflic ts (with farm tractors, bicyclists, pedestrians, wildlife, etc.) 5.24 1.42 A Consistently Good Ride Quality (to enha nce ride comfort and minimize impact on goods or equipment) 5.09 1.46 Probability of Being Passed or Foll owed by Faster Vehicles 5.06 1.56 (1) Relative Importance of Each Truck Driving Cond ition on Freeways for Trucking Business (1, 1=Least Important, 7=Most Important)

PAGE 209

209 Table 5-25. Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results (Two-Lane Highways) Pairwise Mean Comparisons (1) d.f. q (calculated) Results Factor A vs Factor B 739 0.95 Population means are not different Factor A vs Factor C 765 5.61 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor D 768 5.98 Population means are different Factor A vs Factor E 763 14.15 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor C 720 5.19 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor D 738 5.59 Population means are different Factor B vs Factor E 717 14.47 Population means are different Factor C vs Factor D 765 0.18 Population means are not different Factor C vs Factor E 766 8.29 Population means are different Factor D vs Factor E 763 8.35 Population means are different Mean Comparison Summary Factor A Factor B > Factor C Factor D > Factor E (1) Factor Labels A. Probability of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles B. A Consistently Good Ride Quality C. Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type D. Probability of Encountering Possible Conflicts E. Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes Note: Bolded q values are significant at the 95% confidence level () 5 ( 05 0 q = 3.86)

PAGE 210

210 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1234 Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 =Least Important)Response Frequenc y Traffic Conditions (mean rank = 2.1) Other Drivers' Behaviors (mean rank = 2.2) Roadway Conditions (mean rank = 2.3) Traveler Information (mean rank = 3.4) Figure 5-1. Relative Importance of Each Factor Category for Freeways

PAGE 211

211 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1234Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important)Response Frequency Traffic Conditions (mean rank = 2.3) Other Drivers' Behavior (mean rank = 2.4) Roadway Conditions (mean rank = 2.5) Signal Conditions (mean rank = 2.9) Figure 5-2. Relative Importa nce of Each Factor Cate gory for Urban Arterials

PAGE 212

212 0 5 10 15 20 25 1234Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important)Response Frequency Roadway Conditions (mean rank = 2.1) Traffic Conditions (mean rank = 2.2) Other Drivers' Behavior (mean rank = 2.5) Traveler Information (mean rank = 3.2) Figure 5-3. Relative Importa nce of Each Factor Cate gory for Two-lane Highways

PAGE 213

213 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important)Cumulative Response Frequency (%) Freeway Arterial Two-Lane Highway Figure 5-4. Relative Importance of Roadwa y Conditions on Different Roadway Types

PAGE 214

214 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important)Cumulative Response Frequency (%) Freeway Arterial Two-Lane Highway Figure 5-5. Relative Importance of Traffi c Conditions on Different Roadway Types

PAGE 215

215 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234Relative Importance (1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important)Cumulative Response Frequency (%) Freeway Arterial Two-Lane Highway Figure 5-6. Relative Importance of Other Drivers Behavior on Different Roadway Types

PAGE 216

216 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1234Relative Improvement Priority (1 = Most in Need of Improvement, 4 = Least in Need of Improvement)Response Frequency Urban Arterial (mean rank = 2.2) Rural Multilane Highway (mean rank = 2.4) Rural Two-lane Highway (mean rank = 2.5) Freeways (mean rank = 2.8) Figure 5-7. Improvement Priority of Various Roadway Facilities for Truck Trip Quality

PAGE 217

217 Table 5-26. Definitions of Independent Variables used in Statistical Tests (1) Variable Description Code Definition 0 Survey respondents at the FTDC event Source Recruitment Sources 1 Postage-page mail-back survey respondents 0 Man Gen Gender 1 Woman 0 < 30 (young) 1 30 and age < 50 (middle-aged) Age Age in Years 2 50 (senior) 0 No Dep Existence of Dependent(s) 1 Yes 0 < 5 years 1 5 years and < 15 years Emp Years of Truck Driving Job Experience 2 15 years 0 No Indep Independent Truck Driver 1 Yes 0 No Paid by Miles Driven (M) 1 Yes 0 No Paid by Hours Driven (H) 1 Yes 0 No Paid by Salary (S) 1 Yes 0 No Paid by Drop (D) 1 Yes 0 No Earn (Multiple Choices) Paid by Load (L) 1 Yes 0 Private (carry own goods) 1 For-hire (carry other peoples goods) CType Businesses Types of Truck Company 2 Combination of private and for-hire 0 TruckLoad (TL) 1 Less-Than-truckLoad (LTL) LType Primary Load Types 2 Both TL and LTL (approximately equally) 0 Truck Driver 1 Manager (transportation/logistics/dispatch) RDTSel Selection of Truck Route and Departure Time 2 Both truck driver and manager 0 Short-haul HDist Hauling Distance 1 Long-haul 0 No GSpeed Whether the Truck Sped is Engine-Governed 1 Yes 0 65 mi/h MGSpeed Engine-Governed Maximum Truck Speed 1 > 65 mi/h

PAGE 218

218 Table 5-27. Definitions of Independent Variables used in Statistical Tests (2) Variable Description Code Definition 0 < 10 percent 1 10 percent and < 25 percent ETrip Percent of Truck Trips that are Empty 2 25 percent 0 5 percent LDel Percent of Truck Trips that are Late 1 > 5 percent 0 < 10 percent 1 10 percent and < 25 percent PFam Percent of Truck Trips that are not made on Familiar Roads 2 25 percent 0 No Caucasian (CC) 1 Yes 0 No Native American (NA) 1 Yes 0 No African American (AA) 1 Yes 0 No Race Hispanic (HP) 1 Yes 0 No College Edu Level of Education 1 College or Post-graduate Degree 0 < $50,000 1 $50,000 and < $70,000 Inc Annual Income 2 $70,000 0 5 days DayW Number of Working Days per Week 1 > 5 days 0 8 hours HourD Number of Working Hours per Day 1 > 8 hours 0 < 2 nights NightW Number of Nights Staying away from Home 1 2 nights 0 < 500 trucks 1 500 trucks and < 10,000 trucks FSize Company Fleet Size 2 10,000 trucks 0 No (for each type of goods) G (Multiple Choices) Types of Goods Carried 1 Yes (for each type of goods) 0 No (for each truck type) T (Multiple Choices) Truck Types 1 Yes (for each 11 truck type) 0 No (for each time of day) CTDTime (Multiple Choices) Current Truck Driving Time of Day 1 Yes (for each time of day)

PAGE 219

219 Table 5-28. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Wh itney Test Statistics (Freeways-1) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* Source (0, 1) 1.96 (z) 1.33 (z) 2.54 (z) 3.86 (z) Gen (0, 1) 0.98 (z) 0.91 (z) 1.22 (z) 0.73 (z) Age (0, 1, 2) 3.34 ( 2 df=2) 0.03 ( 2 df=2) 4.71 ( 2 df=2) 3.88 ( 2 df=2) Dep (0, 1) 0.75 (z) 1.17 (z) 0.05 (z) 1.64 (z) Emp (0, 1, 2) 3.57 ( 2 df=2) 1.13 ( 2 df=2) 1.33 ( 2 df=2) 1.95 ( 2 df=2) Indep (0, 1) 1.25 (z) 0.94 (z) 1.72 (z) 0.93 (z) Earn_M (0, 1) 2.07 (z) 0.70 (z) 2.13 (z) 1.86 (z) Earn_H (0, 1) 2.39 (z) 0.51 (z) 1.92 (z) 3.63 (z) Earn_S (0, 1) 0.61 (z) 0.16 (z) 1.37 (z) 0.62 (z) Earn_D (0, 1) 0.99 (z) 1.77 (z) 0.86 (z) 0.43 (z) Earn_L (0, 1) 0.91 (z) 0.55 (z) 0.16 (z) 0.69 (z) 1.99 ( 2 df=2) 1.05 ( 2 df=2) 1.18 ( 2 df=2) 8.00 ( 2 df=2) 1.64 (z, 0 vs 1) 1.94 (z, 1 vs 2) CType (0, 1, 2) 2.87 (z, 0 vs 2) 0.82 ( 2 df=2) 0.61 ( 2 df=2) 3.28 ( 2 df=2) 8.09 ( 2 df=2) 2.81 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.14 (z, 1 vs 2) LType (0, 1, 2) 0.41 (z, 0 vs 2) RDTSel (0, 1, 2) 0.29 ( 2 df=2) 0.24 ( 2 df=2) 1.26 ( 2 df=2) 1.52 ( 2 df=2) HDist (0, 1) 0.91 (z) 0.18 (z) 1.85 (z) 3.74 (z) GSpeed (0, 1) 0.48 (z) 0.39 (z) 0.31 (z) 0.14 (z) MGSpeed (0, 1) 1.77 (z) 1.40 (z) 2.66 (z) 5.09 (z) ETrip (0, 1, 2) 0.69 ( 2 df=2) 2.77 ( 2 df=2) 1.35 ( 2 df=2) 1.37 ( 2 df=2) PFam (0, 1, 2) 1.65 ( 2 df=2) 0.94 ( 2 df=2) 1.45 ( 2 df=2) 2.39 ( 2 df=2) LDel (0, 1) 0.92 (z) 0.04 (z) 0.15 (z) 0.92 (z) Race_CC (0, 1) 0.31 (z) 1.48 (z) 0.60 (z) 1.18 (z) Race_NA (0, 1) 1.03 (z) 1.07 (z) 0.21 (z) 0.16 (z) Race_AA (0, 1) 0.70 (z) 2.02 (z) 1.25 (z) 0.33 (z) Race_HP (0, 1) 1.44 (z) 0.19 (z) 1.05 (z) 1.34 (z) Edu (0, 1) 1.92 (z) 2.04 (z) 2.44 (z) 0.70 (z) Inc (0, 1, 2) 0.37 ( 2 df=2) 0.10 ( 2 df=2) 0.10 ( 2 df=2) 0.10 ( 2 df=2) DayW (0, 1) 0.03 (z) 0.31 (z) 0.28 (z) 1.87 (z) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit C. Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information D. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 220

220 Table 5-29. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Wh itney Test Statistics (Freeways-2) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* HourD (0, 1) 1.59 (z) 1.75 (z) 0.32 (z) 0.37 (z) NightW (0, 1) 0.94 (z) 0.67 (z) 0.07 (z) 1.56 (z) FSize (0, 1, 2) 2.83 ( 2 df=2) 5.06 ( 2 df=2) 0.01 ( 2 df=2) 2.60 ( 2 df=2) CTDTime (0, 1) (0AMAM) 1.28 (z) 1.83 (z) 0.14 (z) 0.25 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (6AMAM) 1.57 (z) 1.94 (z) 0.41 (z) 0.57 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (9AMNoon) 0.84 ( z ) 1.09 ( z ) 0.72 ( z ) 2.27 ( z ) CTDTime (0, 1) (NoonPM) 2.30 (z) 1.30 (z) 1.43 (z) 0.31 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (3PMPM) 1.64 (z) 0.52 (z) 1.26 (z) 0.41 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (7PMAM) 0.92 ( z ) 0.34 ( z ) 0.37 ( z ) 0.25 ( z ) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit C. Ease of Obtaining Useful Travel Conditions Information D. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 221

221 Table 5-30. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Urban Arterials-1) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* Source (0, 1) 1.25 (z) 0.66 (z) 0.15 (z) 1.13 (z) Gen (0, 1) 0.28 (z) 0.02 (z) 0.65 (z) 0.65 (z) Age (0, 1, 2) 2.60 ( 2 df=2) 1.34 ( 2 df=2) 2.38 ( 2 df=2) 0.55 ( 2 df=2) Dep (0, 1) 0.89 (z) 1.13 (z) 1.05 (z) 1.59 (z) Emp (0, 1, 2) 1.73 ( 2 df=2) 1.21 ( 2 df=2) 1.52 ( 2 df=2) 0.27 ( 2 df=2) Indep (0, 1) 1.56 (z) 0.10 (z) 1.11 (z) 1.34 (z) Earn_M (0, 1) 0.84 (z) 0.67 (z) 0.90 (z) 0.54 (z) Earn_H (0, 1) 1.91 (z) 0.88 (z) 0.53 (z) 0.69 (z) Earn_S (0, 1) 1.06 (z) 0.26 (z) 0.06 (z) 0.26 (z) Earn_D (0, 1) 0.86 (z) 1.86 (z) 0.99 (z) 0.50 (z) Earn_L (0, 1) 0.07 (z) 2.08 (z) 2.84 (z) 1.58 (z) 3.81 ( 2 df=2) 1.66 ( 2 df=2) 6.33 ( 2 df=2) 3.28 ( 2 df=2) 0.50 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.33 (z, 1 vs 2) CType (0, 1, 2) 2.38 (z, 0 vs 2) LType (0, 1, 2) 0.96 ( 2 df=2) 0.52 ( 2 df=2) 0.89 ( 2 df=2) 0.53 ( 2 df=2) RDTSel (0, 1, 2) 0.18 ( 2 df=2) 2.55 ( 2 df=2) 2.37 ( 2 df=2) 3.42 ( 2 df=2) HDist (0, 1) 0.52 (z) 0.11 (z) 0.71 (z) 0.80 (z) GSpeed (0, 1) 0.91 (z) 0.73 (z) 0.06 (z) 1.43 (z) MGSpeed (0, 1) 2.19 (z) 0.00 (z) 0.56 (z) 0.26 (z) ETrip (0, 1, 2) 1.86 ( 2 df=2) 2.57 ( 2 df=2) 1.87 ( 2 df=2) 1.75 ( 2 df=2) PFam (0, 1, 2) 0.66 ( 2 df=2) 0.34 ( 2 df=2) 0.36 ( 2 df=2) 0.05 ( 2 df=2) LDel (0, 1) 1.08 (z) 0.04 (z) 0.50 (z) 0.08 (z) Race_CC (0, 1) 0.89 (z) 0.35 (z) 0.93 (z) 1.23 (z) Race_NA (0, 1) 0.12 (z) 1.48 (z) 1.44 (z) 0.39 (z) Race_AA (0, 1) 1.09 (z) 0.83 (z) 0.60 (z) 1.90 (z) Race_HP (0, 1) 0.23 (z) 0.94 (z) 0.35 (z) 0.33 (z) Edu (0, 1) 0.59 (z) 1.03 (z) 0.93 (z) 0.61 (z) Inc (0, 1, 2) 2.74 ( 2 df=2) 1.34 ( 2 df=2) 1.23 ( 2 df=2) 0.99 ( 2 df=2) DayW (0, 1) 0.13 (z) 0.17 (z) 1.58 (z) 0.27 (z) HourD (0, 1) 2.03 (z) 2.55 (z) 2.41 (z) 1.32 (z) NightW (0, 1) 0.26 (z) 1.59 (z) 0.83 (z) 0.20 (z) FSize (0, 1, 2) 3.21 ( 2 df=2) 5.26 ( 2 df=2) 0.65 ( 2 df=2) 0.26 ( 2 df=2) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Changing Lanes C. Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers D. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 222

222 Table 5-31. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Urban Arterials-2) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* CTDTime (0, 1) (0AMAM) 0.32 ( z ) 0.49 ( z ) 0.21 ( z ) 0.45 ( z ) CTDTime (0, 1) (6AMAM) 1.09 (z) 1.05 (z) 1.08 (z) 1.44 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (9AMNoon) 1.26 ( z ) 0.26 ( z ) 0.79 ( z ) 1.57 ( z ) CTDTime (0, 1) (NoonPM) 1.39 (z) 0.35 (z) 0.42 (z) 0.84 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (3PMPM) 1.33 (z) 0.03 (z) 0.09 (z) 0.49 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (7PMAM) 1.74 ( z ) 0.75 ( z ) 0.94 ( z ) 0.84 ( z ) Factor Labels A. A Consistently Good Ride Quality B. Ease of Changing Lanes C. Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers D. Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed, whethe r Higher or Lower than Posted Speed Limit Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level (025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 223

223 Table 5-32. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Urban Arterials-3) Factors Variable Factor E* Factor F* Factor G* Source (0, 1) 0.82 (z) 3.32 (z) 3.30 (z) Gen (0, 1) 0.16 (z) 0.87 (z) 0.53 (z) 0.53 ( 2 df=2) 1.03 ( 2 df=2) 6.33 ( 2 df=2) 2.02 (z, 0 vs 1) 1.81 (z, 1 vs 2) Age (0, 1, 2) 1.22 (z, 0 vs 2) Dep (0, 1) 1.27 (z) 1.63 (z) 0.72 (z) Emp (0, 1, 2) 1.52 ( 2 df=2) 0.91 ( 2 df=2) 0.47 ( 2 df=2) Indep (0, 1) 1.65 (z) 0.84 (z) 1.36 (z) Earn_M (0, 1) 1.05 (z) 1.04 (z) 0.81 (z) Earn_H (0, 1) 0.20 (z) 2.82 (z) 2.45 (z) Earn_S (0, 1) 0.34 (z) 0.05 (z) 0.23 (z) Earn_D (0, 1) 0.41 (z) 0.29 (z) 0.53 (z) Earn_L (0, 1) 1.86 (z) 0.31 (z) 2.25 (z) 2.26 ( 2 df=2) 4.61 ( 2 df=2) 6.63 ( 2 df=2) 1.82 (z, 0 vs 1) 1.40 (z, 1 vs 2) CType (0, 1, 2) 2.57 (z, 0 vs 2) 0.84 ( 2 df=2) 7.14 ( 2 df=2) 3.70 ( 2 df=2) 2.66 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.01 (z, 1 vs 2) LType (0, 1, 2) 0.31 (z, 0 vs 2) RDTSel (0, 1, 2) 3.29 ( 2 df=2) 1.82 ( 2 df=2) 2.09 ( 2 df=2) HDist (0, 1) 0.83 (z) 2.13 (z) 2.65 (z) GSpeed (0, 1) 0.93 (z) 0.66 (z) 1.05 (z) MGSpeed (0, 1) 0.53 (z) 3.06 (z) 0.76 (z) ETrip (0, 1, 2) 1.28 ( 2 df=2) 2.89 ( 2 df=2) 2.34 ( 2 df=2) PFam (0, 1, 2) 0.96 ( 2 df=2) 0.63 ( 2 df=2) 1.36 ( 2 df=2) LDel (0, 1) 0.01 (z) 2.14 (z) 2.11 (z) Race_CC (0, 1) 1.90 (z) 0.10 (z) 0.75 (z) Race_NA (0, 1) 0.09 (z) 0.50 (z) 1.67 (z) Race_AA (0, 1) 1.49 (z) 1.30 (z) 0.03 (z) Race_HP (0, 1) 1.70 (z) 0.22 (z) 0.68 (z) Edu (0, 1) 1.00 (z) 0.60 (z) 0.95 (z) Factor Labels E. Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the Arterial F. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit G. Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 224

224 Table 5-33. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Urban Arterials-4) Factors Variable Factor E* Factor F* Factor G* Inc (0, 1, 2) 1.81 ( 2 df=2) 1.03 ( 2 df=2) 5.59 ( 2 df=2) DayW (0, 1) 1.58 (z) 2.64 (z) 0.13 (z) HourD (0, 1) 0.76 (z) 0.59 (z) 2.81 (z) NightW (0, 1) 0.91 (z) 0.52 (z) 1.83 (z) FSize (0, 1, 2) 1.71 ( 2 df=2) 3.94 ( 2 df=2) 3.64 ( 2 df=2) CTDTime (0, 1) (0AMAM) 0.23 (z) 1.10 (z) 1.50 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (6AMAM) 0.59 (z) 0.45 (z) 2.52 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (9AMNoon) 0.67 ( z ) 1.38 ( z ) 0.92 ( z ) CTDTime (0, 1) (NoonPM) 0.84 (z) 0.71 (z) 1.26 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (3PMPM) 0.24 (z) 1.46 (z) 0.55 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (7PMAM) 1.40 ( z ) 0.40 ( z ) 1.11 ( z ) Factor Labels E. Ease of Passing through Signalized Intersections along the Arterial F. Ease of Driving at or above the Posted Speed Limit G. Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 225

225 Table 5-34. Mann-Whitney Test St atistics (Urban Arterials-5) Factors Types of Goods Carried Factor B* Factor C* Factor G* Food (0, 1) 2.51 (z) 2.04 (z) Auto Parts (0, 1) 2.10 (z) Textiles (0, 1) 2.11 (z) Metals (0, 1) 2.50 (z) Paper and Allied Products (0, 1) 2.04 (z) Chemicals and Allied Products (0, 1) 2.35 ( z ) Equipment (0, 1) 2.05 ( z ) Furniture (0, 1) 2.08 ( z ) Hazardous Materials (0, 1) 2.26 ( z ) Factor Labels B. Ease of Changing Lanes C. Ease of Rightor Left-Turn Maneuvers G. Ease of U-Turn Maneuvers Note: Calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney test results. Positive z value indicates that the group with larger code value perceived the corresponding fact or to be more important than the other group did. Only the z values significant at the 95% confidence level are presented (025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 226

226 Table 5-35. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Two-Lane Highways-1) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* Factor E* Source (0, 1) 2.75 (z) 1.76 (z) 0.81 (z) 1.97 (z) 0.41 (z) Gen (0, 1) 2.27 (z) 0.27 (z) 0.62 (z) 1.81 (z) 0.03 (z) Age (0, 1, 2) 5.81 ( 2 df=2) 1.57 ( 2 df=2) 0.36 ( 2 df=2) 3.68 ( 2 df=2) 0.44 ( 2 df=2) Dep (0, 1) 0.94 (z) 0.10 (z) 0.57 (z) 1.64 (z) 1.40 (z) 8.37 ( 2 df=2) 5.61 ( 2 df=2) 0.38 ( 2 df=2) 6.11 ( 2 df=2) 2.30 ( 2 df=2) 0.05 (z, 0 vs 1) 1.7 (z,0 vs 1) 2.7 (z, 1 vs 2) 1.1 (z, 1 vs 2) Emp (0, 1, 2) 1.6 (z, 0 vs 2) 2.4 (z, 0 vs 2) Indep (0, 1) 0.85 (z) 0.05 (z) 1.11 (z) 0.03 (z) 1.29 (z) Earn_M (0, 1) 0.50 (z) 0.37 (z) 1.02 (z) 0.16 (z) 0.45 (z) Earn_H (0, 1) 1.40 (z) 1.27 (z) 1.18 (z) 1.41 (z) 0.05 (z) Earn_S (0, 1) 1.12 (z) 0.84 (z) 0.85 (z) 0.52 (z) 1.01 (z) Earn_D (0, 1) 0.89 (z) 1.92 (z) 1.00 (z) 0.55 (z) 1.30 (z) Earn_L (0, 1) 0.37 (z) 0.45 (z) 1.64 (z) 0.01 (z) 1.92 (z) CType (0, 1, 2) 4.52 ( 2 df=2) 2.37 ( 2 df=2) 0.87 ( 2 df=2) 0.26 ( 2 df=2) 1.80 ( 2 df=2) 3.36 ( 2 df=2) 1.50 ( 2 df=2) 0.82 ( 2 df=2) 7.36 ( 2 df=2) 1.04 ( 2 df=2) 1.3 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.56 (z, 1 vs 2) LType (0, 1, 2) 2.01 (z, 0 vs 2) RDTSel (0, 1, 2) 1.78 ( 2 df=2) 1.99 ( 2 df=2) 1.87 ( 2 df=2) 1.49 ( 2 df=2) 1.93 ( 2 df=2) HDist (0, 1) 0.70 (z) 1.07 (z) 1.26 (z) 0.49 (z) 0.67 (z) GSpeed (0, 1) 0.76 (z) 0.84 (z) 1.26 (z) 1.34 (z) 1.54 (z) 6.09 ( 2 df=2) 4.63 ( 2 df=2) 1.78 ( 2 df=2) 0.40 ( 2 df=2) 0.13 ( 2 df=2) 1.37 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.5 (z, 1 vs 2) ETrip (0, 1, 2) 1.2 (z, 0 vs 2) 3.49 ( 2 df=2) 0.63 ( 2 df=2) 0.76 ( 2 df=2) 7.20 ( 2 df=2) 0.07 ( 2 df=2) 0.84 (z, 0 vs 1) 1.75 (z, 1 vs 2) PFam (0, 1, 2) 2.67 (z, 0 vs 2) LDel (0, 1) 0.92 (z) 2.00 (z) 0.96 (z) 0.90 (z) 0.49 (z) Factor Labels A. Probability of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles B. A Consistently Good Ride Quality C. Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type D. Probability of Encountering Possible Conflicts E. Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 227

227 Table 5-36. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Test Statistics (Two-Lane Highways-2) Factors Variable Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* Factor E* MGSpeed (0, 1) 0.67 (z) 1.23 (z) 1.57 (z) 0.43 (z) 0.72 (z) Race_CC (0, 1) 0.41 (z) 1.10 (z) 1.28 (z) 0.82 (z) 0.25 (z) Race_NA (0, 1) 0.43 (z) 0.46 (z) 1.29 (z) 0.08 (z) 0.02 (z) Race_AA (0, 1) 1.61 (z) 1.25 (z) 0.37 (z) 1.12 (z) 0.55 (z) Race_HP (0, 1) 2.45 (z) 0.53 (z) 1.18 (z) 0.02 (z) 1.22 (z) Edu (0, 1) 1.18 (z) 1.12 (z) 0.00 (z) 0.96 (z) 0.59 (z) 1.07 ( 2 df=2) 6.92 ( 2 df=2) 6.05 ( 2 df=2) 3.58 ( 2 df=2) 2.29 ( 2 df=2) 1.13 (z, 0 vs 1)0.53 (z, 0 vs 1) 2.5 (z, 1 vs 2) 2.5 (z, 1 vs 2) Inc (0, 1, 2) 1.5 (z, 0 vs 2) 1.5 (z, 0 vs 2) DayW (0, 1) 0.84 (z) 2.24 (z) 0.94 (z) 0.89 (z) 0.12 (z) HourD (0, 1) 0.99 (z) 1.26 (z) 1.94 (z) 1.17 (z) 0.55 (z) NightW (0, 1) 0.34 (z) 1.13 (z) 1.49 (z) 0.12 (z) 1.67 (z) FSize (0, 1, 2) 1.20 ( 2 df=2) 0.63 ( 2 df=2) 1.95 ( 2 df=2) 0.05 ( 2 df=2) 3.14 ( 2 df=2) CTDTime (0, 1) (0AMAM) 1.43 (z) 0.08 (z) 1.11 (z) 0.08 (z) 0.08 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (6AMAM) 1.11 (z) 0.32 (z) 1.04 (z) 0.76 (z) 0.35 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (9AMNoon) 1.69 ( z ) 0.30 ( z ) 0.61 ( z ) 0.19 ( z ) 0.70 ( z ) CTDTime (0, 1) (NoonPM) 1.97 (z) 0.62 (z) 0.47 (z) 0.14 (z) 0.65 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (3PMPM) 1.83 (z) 0.81 (z) 0.27 (z) 0.07 (z) 0.10 (z) CTDTime (0, 1) (7PMAM) 1.65 ( z ) 1.87 ( z ) 1.45 ( z ) 2.14 ( z ) 0.24 ( z ) Factor Labels A. Probability of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles B. A Consistently Good Ride Quality C. Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type D. Probability of Encountering Possible Conflicts E. Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes Note: Calculated 2 values are the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test results and calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney pair-wise comparison test results. Negative z value indicates that the group with smaller code value perceived the corresponding factor to be more important than the other group did. Bolded values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99, 025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 228

228 Table 5-37. Mann-Whitney Test St atistics (Two-Lane Highways-3) Factors Types of Goods Carried Factor A* Factor B* Factor C* Factor D* Factor E* Grains/Feed (0, 1) 2.73 (z) 2.22 (z) Auto Parts (0, 1) 2.12 (z) Waste and Scrap (0, 1) 2.34 (z) Stone, Clay, and Concrete Products (0, 1) 2.12 (z) Hazardous Materials (0, 1) 2.52 ( z ) FedEx (unknown packages) (0, 1) 3.00 ( z ) Truck Type (0, 1) (Straight Truck) 2.63 (z) Truck Type (0, 1) Truck/Trailer 2.18 (z) Truck Type (0, 1) Turnpike Double 2.14 ( z ) Factor Labels A. Probability of Being Passed or Followed by Faster Vehicles B. A Consistently Good Ride Quality C. Width of Travel Lane and Shoulder, or Shoulder Type D. Probability of Encountering Possible Conflicts E. Opportunities for Passing Other Cars, through Passing Zones or Passing Lanes Note: Calculated z values are the Mann-Whitney test results. Positive z value indicates that the group with larger code value perceived the corresponding fact or to be more important than the other group did. Only the z values significant at the 95% confidence level are presented (025 0 2 / z = 1.96 for two-tailed test).

PAGE 229

229 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Midnight 6AM 6AM 9AM9AM NoonNoon 3PM3PM 7PM7PM Midnight No regular hoursTime of DayResponse Frequency Current Truck Driving Time Preferred Truck Driving Time Figure 5-8. Truck Drivers Current and Preferred Truck Driving Times of Day

PAGE 230

230 0 20 40 60 80 100 Midnight 6AM 6AM 9AM9AM NoonNoon 3PM3PM 7PM7PM MidnightTime of DayPercent of the Drivers who Still Preferrd to Drive at Each Time Interval (%) Figure 5-9. Truck Driving Time of Day Preference of Current Users

PAGE 231

231 0 5 10 15 20 25 Midnight 6AM6AM 9AM9AM NoonNoon 3PM3PM 7PM7PM MidnightTime of DayResponse Frequency Figure 5-10. Truck Company Managers Pr eference on Truck Driving Times of Day

PAGE 232

232 Table 5-38. Chi-Squared Test Statistics 1 (2 calculated) Truck Driving Times of Day Variable Time Period A* Time Period B* Time Period C* Time Period D* Time Period E* Time Period F* Age (0, 1, 2) 1.54 0.90 1.29 1.20 0.48 2.74 Dep (0, 1) 0.02 3.42 0.27 0.22 0.15 0.78 Emp (0, 1, 2) 0.28 0.81 0.11 0.55 0.50 2.37 Indep (0, 1) 1.43 0.02 1.38 0.04 0.16 5.38 (+) Earn_M (0, 1) 1.76 6.39 () 5.98 () 5.00 () 0.02 13.93 (+) Earn_H (0, 1) 2.04 0.54 5.75 (+) 1.00 0.01 2.10 Earn_S (0, 1) 0.03 2.14 1.27 1.23 0.48 0.24 Earn_D (0, 1) 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.14 1.26 0.00 Earn_L (0, 1) 0.03 2.14 1.27 0.10 1.10 1.99 13.42 4.58 3.84 3.93 1.98 2.64 7.3 (0, 1, ) 3.9 (1, 2, ) CType (0, 1, 2) 9.2 (0, 2, ) 7.90 1.10 6.39 9.17 4.19 2.11 7.7 (0, 1, ) 5.8 (0, 1, +) 8.9 (0, 1, +) 0.7 (1, 2) 2.6 (1, 2) 0.2 (1, 2) LType (0, 1, 2) 2.3 (0, 2) 0.2 (0, 2) 4.7 (0, 2, +) RDTSel (0, 1, 2) 2.81 0.62 1.11 4.68 2.82 4.82 HDist (0, 1) 4.86 (+) 1.25 6.16 ( ) 9.46 () 2.19 3.75 GSpeed (0, 1) 0.51 3.80 0.55 0.24 0.90 1.23 MGSpeed (0, 1) 2.36 0.02 3.57 0.38 0.69 6.26 (+) ETrip (0, 1, 2) 5.65 2.76 1.23 0.97 0.09 2.24 PFam (0, 1, 2) 4.30 3.83 5.37 3.74 4.20 2.57 LDel (0, 1) 1.09 0.57 0.19 6.45 (+) 0.14 2.07 Race_CC (0, 1) 0.53 0.96 0.14 2.35 1.33 0.01 Race_NA (0, 1) 0.12 0.07 0.73 3.14 2.13 0.11 Race_AA (0, 1) 0.66 3.32 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.39 Race_HP (0, 1) 0.60 0.06 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.48 Edu (0, 1) 0.02 0.52 0.21 1.47 0.03 1.00 Inc (0, 1, 2) 2.31 5.80 0.61 0.69 2.23 2.29 DayW (0, 1) 5.45 0.00 8.90 () 7.40 () 4.40 () 1.44 HourD (0, 1) 0.04 1.34 0.62 2.12 1.15 1.39 Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day Labels A. Midnight 6AM B. 6AM 9AM C. 9AM Noon D. Noon 3PM E. 3PM 7PM F. 7PM Midnight Note: Bolded 2 values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=1, =0.05 = 3.84, 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99). Positive (+) symbol in parentheses indicate that the gr oup with larger code preferred to drive during the corresponding time period more than the other group did.

PAGE 233

233 Table 5-39. Chi-Squared Test Statistics 2 ( 2 calculated) Truck Driving Times of Day Variable Time Period A* Time Period B* Time Period C* Time Period D* Time Period E* Time Period F* NightW (0, 1) 2.31 0.06 0.35 3.55 0.01 0.92 12.39 1.25 2.31 3.12 0.08 2.57 1.5 (0, 1) 7.3 (1, 2, ) FSize (0, 1, 2) 12.0 (0, 2, ) Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day Labels A. Midnight 6AM B. 6AM 9AM C. 9AM Noon D. Noon 3PM E. 3PM 7PM F. 7PM Midnight Note: Bolded 2 values are significant at the 95% confidence level ( 2 df=1, =0.05 = 3.84, 2 df=2, =0.05 = 5.99). Positive symbol in parentheses indicate that the gro up with larger code preferred to drive during the corresponding time period more than the other group did. Table 5-40. Chi-Squared Test Statistics 3 ( 2 calculated) Truck Driving Times of Day Truck Types Time Period A* Time Period B* Time Period C* Time Period D* Time Period E* Time Period F* Straight Truck (0, 1) 3.97 (+) Twin Trailer (0, 1) 10.94 () 6.38 (+) 3-Axle Semitrailer (0, 1) 13.07 () 5.51 (+) 10.16 (+) 4-Axle Semitrailer (0, 1) 22.83 () 10.81 (+) 7.85 (+) 5-Axle Semitrailer (0, 1) 9.62 (+) Rocky Mountain Double (0, 1) 4.69 (+) Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day Labels A. Midnight 6AM B. 6AM 9AM C. 9AM Noon D. Noon 3PM E. 3PM 7PM F. 7PM Midnight Note: Only the 2 values significant at the 95% confidence level are presented ( 2 df=1, =0.05 = 3.84). Positive symbol in parenthe ses indicate that the group with larger code preferred to drive during the corresponding time period more than the other group did.

PAGE 234

234 Table 5-41. Chi-Squared Test Statistics 4 ( 2 calculated) Truck Driving Times of Day Types of Goods Carried Time Period A* Time Period B* Time Period C* Time Period D* Time Period E* Time Period F* Grains/Feed (0, 1) 7.84 () 5.06 (+) 4.71 (+) Household Goods or Stationary (0, 1) 4.66 () 7.71 (+) 4.39 (+) Auto Parts (0, 1) 6.01 () 8.02 (+) 7.63 (+) Vehicles (0, 1) 5.06 () 3.96 (+) 4.97 (+) Machinery (0, 1) 6.38 () 4.66 (+) Textiles (0, 1) 10.38 () 9.05 (+) 10.65 (+) 4.38 (+) Livestock (0, 1) 6.19 (+) Metals (0, 1) 10.38 () 5.61 (+) 6.07 (+) Manufactured Goods (0, 1) 5.78 () 5.52 (+) 5.23 (+) Chemicals (0, 1) 6.39 (+) 4.29 (+) Paper and Allied Products (0, 1) 11.56 (+) 4.34 (+) Coal and Petroleum (0, 1) 9.44 (+) 6.79 (+) 4.60 (+) Chemicals and Allied Products (0, 1) 6.61 (+) Waste and Scrap (0, 1) 7.04 () Equipment (0, 1) 11.21 () 7.19 (+) 7.27 (+) 5.39 (+) Furniture (0, 1) 6.39 () 4.04 (+) 4.76 (+) Wood Products Except Furniture (0, 1) 7.65 () 7.06 (+) Stone, Clay, and Concrete Products (0, 1) 8.24 () 7.32 (+) 8.01 (+) 4.53 (+) Glass (0, 1) 6.38 () 4.32 (+) 4.06 (+) Hazardous Materials (0, 1) 5.29 () Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day Labels A. Midnight 6AM B. 6AM 9AM C. 9AM Noon D. Noon 3PM E. 3PM 7PM, F. 7PM Midnight Note: Only the 2 values significant at the 95% confidence level are presented ( 2 df=1, =0.05 = 3.84). Positive symbol in parenthe ses indicate that the group with larger code preferred to drive during the corresponding time period more than the other group did.

PAGE 235

235 Table 5-42. Other Factors Affecti ng Truck Trip Quality on Freeways Issues Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Freeways Frequency Availability and Security of Rest Areas and/or Truck Parking Spaces (including overnight parking) 12 Accessibility or Location of Truck Stops (near the freeway exit) 2 Accessible Microwave ovens in Turnpike Travel Centers 1 Rest Area /Amenities Availability of Wireless Internet at Rest Areas 1 Frequency of Scales/Inspection Stations 3 Electronic Signs at Weigh Stations Alerting Drivers of Weather Condition (e.g., tornado, thunder storm) 1 Frequency of DOT Inspections at Scales 1 Having to Enter Scales When Bobtailing (only tractor) or Pulling Empty Flatbed 1 Static Scales at Weigh Stations 1 Inspection /Weigh Stations Waiting Time at Agricultural Stations 1 Construction Workers Vigilance of Traffic 1 Ease of Obtaining Truck Drivers License 1 Frequency of Recreational Vehicles (RV) 1 Lower Toll Fees for Trucks 1 Posted Minimum Speed Limit (too low) 1 Traffic Condition /Policy Upgraded Level of Law Enforcement for Speeders and DUIs (Driving Under the Influence of drugs or alcohol) 1 Ease of Obtaining Information about New Regulations 1 Ease of Obtaining Information about Peak Tourist Days 1 Traveler Information Availability of Information about Motels with Truck Parking Spaces 1 Roadway Condition Difference between Vertical Levels of Travel Lane and Shoulder 1

PAGE 236

236 Table 5-43. Other Drivers Behavior Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Freeways Other Drivers Behavior Affecting Tr uck Trip Quality on Freeways Frequency Slow Vehicles in Left-most or Center Lane 9 Education of Motoring Public about Tr uck Driving Characteristics for Safety (e.g., truck braking distance, driving around large trucks) 8 Other Drivers Use of Turn Signal 3 Other Drivers Use of Cell Phones without Hands-free Devices 2 Drivers Cutting in front of Trucks to Enter an On-Ramp 1 Other Drivers Tailgating Behavior 1 Other Drivers Yielding Behavior 1 Passenger Car Drivers Poor Merging Behavior 1 Passenger Car Drivers Understanding of Wei gh Stations and the danger of Trucks 1 Passenger Car Drivers Using Hazard Lights when it rains 1 Speeder/Reckless Drivers 1 Truck Drivers Road Etiquette 1

PAGE 237

237 Table 5-44. Other Factors Affecting Tr uck Trip Quality on Urban Arterials Issues Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Urban Arterials Frequency Signage (clarity, brevity, proper location (earlier placement), size, visibility at night) 4 Availability, Proper Sizes, or Law Enforcement of Truck Parking Spaces 3 Roadway Condition Lighting Conditions at Night 2 Accident Accident Clearance time and/or Availability of Alternative Lanes during Accident Clearance Time 1 Traffic Condition Percent of Recreational Vehicles (RV) on the Road 1 Drivers Cutting off in front of Trucks Not Allowing Safe Stopping Distance 2 Drivers Speeding Up Not to Allow Trucks to Change Lanes 2 Drivers Making Right Turns from Left Lane or Left Turns from Right Lane 1 Other Drivers Use of Turn Signals 1 Reckless Motorcyclists 1 Other Drivers Behavior Truck Drivers Road Etiquette 1

PAGE 238

238 Table 5-45. Other Factors Affecting Tr uck Trip Quality on Two-Lane Highways Issues Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Two-Lane Highways Frequency Availability of Turning Maneuvers (left turns and U turns) 2 Brightness of Roadway Striping 1 Existence of Rumble strips Near the Center Line 1 Frequency of Small Towns on a R oute (on a delay perspective) 1 Properly Trimmed Trees/Foliage (adequate clearance and sight distance) 1 Roadway Condition Size of Street Signs (visibility and way finding) 1 Frequency of School Buses (that do not allow for other vehicles to pass) 2 Traffic signal Operations in Small Towns (signal responsiveness or coordination) 2 Ease of Maintaining a Consistent Speed 1 Traffic Condition Frequency of Speed Limit Changes 1 Drivers Improperly Cutting in or Pu lling Out in front of a Big Truck (despite the trucks low braking capability) 1 Other Drivers Tailgating Behavior 1 Other Drivers Behavior Recreational Vehicle (RV) Drivers Poor Driving Skills 1

PAGE 239

239 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study investigated the re lative importance of traffic, roadway, and control factors on various transportation faci lities for the trucking community in terms of truck trip quality. This chapter provides conclusions on the truck trip quality determinants and service measures for each transportation facility and recommendations on the methodol ogies to develop truck LOS estimation models, based on the results of this study. 6.1 Conclusions The three issues important for the trucking co mmunity to evaluate quality of a truck trip were truck travel safety, trav el time, and physical and psychol ogical driving comfort. Truck drivers were more concerned about the driving comfort, while truck company managers were more concerned about travel time. Truck drivers at most truck companies are not very sensitive to travel time because they ar e usually given more than enough time to make deliveries on time and truck travel route and depa rture time are usually determined by the company managers. Thus, the managers are primarily responsible for any late deliveries from unexpected congestions. Independent truck drivers, however, ar e much more sensitive to travel time in that they make delivery appointments and schedule truck trips for their own business. Travel time is a critical concern for the manage rs and independent truck drivers. They typically schedule truck routes and manage their drivers to make deliverie s for customers and the service quality of truck companies evaluated by the customers, primarily based on on-time delivery performance. Travel safety was a very important issue for both driv ers and managers. Truck drivers are typically graded by their accident histor y and safe truck operation has a significant effect on overall trucking business, especially for insurance costs.

PAGE 240

240 The perceptions of both groups are important fo r evaluating truck trip Quality Of Service (QOS), but the perceptions of truck drivers shoul d be primarily addressed because they are the ones who drive on the roadway system. Managers may not be aware of all the situations that truck drivers encounter while traveling, or may no t be sensitive to them since they are not the ones behind the wheel. They certain ly want their drivers to trav el comfortably and safely, but their primary concern is that the deliv ery gets to its destination on time. 6.1.1 Quality of a Truck Trip on Freeways Truck drivers were most concerned about speed variance (or acceleration noise). That is, they were reluctant to experience a driving e nvironment where they have to accelerate or decelerate their truck often due to other drivers inconsiderate behavior and traffic congestion caused by increased traffic volume, construction activities, or truck travel rest rictions (i.e., truck route, lane, or time-of-day rest rictions). The importance leve l of pavement condition was as great as the speed variance for them. The prim ary concern of truck company managers was a travel time issue relative to th e ratio of traffic volume to the roadway capacity. The contributing factors included level of congesti on, construction activities, availabi lity of alternative routes, and number of lanes. They were also concerne d about the speed varian ce and pavement condition, but their importance was greater for truck driver s. Among all the listed factors, Traveler Information Systems (TIS) was perceived to be le ast important and least in need of improvement by both drivers and managers. The table 6-1 summarizes the relative importance of each of the main factors perceived to affect truck trip qu ality on freeways, by both truck drivers and truck company managers. The speed variance (or acceleration noise) complemented by pavement condition was identified as the potential truck LOS service m easure for trucks on freeways. Acceleration or speed variance reflects to a certain extent the psychological comfort of a trip, as more

PAGE 241

241 speed/acceleration variance may reflect more erratic dr iving behavior of other motorists. It also reflects to some extent capacity related issues which are a major concern for managers. The pavement condition reflects the physical comfort of the trip. It may also be a psychological concern, as drivers may worry more about damaging their equipment or the goods on rough pavement. Pavement condition on freeways was al so one of the several biggest concerns for truck company managers. Truck drivers per ceptions on the applicabil ity of these service measures were different by their earning methods, race, level of education, current truck driving time of day. 6.1.2 Quality of a Truck Trip on Arterials The perceptions of truck dr ivers on truck trip QOS determinants on arterials were summarized as maneuverability. The mane uverability concept included multiple factors influencing their ability to make turning mane uvers, change lanes, and avoid acceleration or deceleration activities. Truck drivers were al so concerned about the pavement condition to a great degree and the importance of curb radii and traffic signal coordinatio n, in particular, were emphasized for truck operations at intersections Some physical drivi ng deterrents such as placement of light poles or trees, level of bicycl e or pedestrian congestion, and improper stop bar position were perceived to be least impor tant among all the listed factors. Truck company managers had almost the same concerns as truck drivers identified, but their perceptions on the relative significance of each factor was so mewhat different from that of truck drivers. Travel time was a big issue fo r truck company managers and the importance of pavement condition was greater for them than for tr uck drivers. The importance of the existence of protected left turn signal was significant for truck company managers, but the importance of curb radii and traffic signal coordination was less for the managers than for the drivers. Even though the results on the managers perceptions on the relative importance of the truck trip QOS

PAGE 242

242 determinants are questionable due to the small sample size (6 responses), the perceptions of 33 managers on the relative importan ce of potential service measures indicated that ease of turning maneuvers, speed variance, and traffic density are more important than travel time or pavement quality issues. Ease of U turn maneuver, in particular, was perceived to be least important among all the listed potential perf ormance measures by both drivers and managers. The table 62 summarizes the relative importance of each of the main factors perceived to affect truck trip quality on arterials, by both truck drivers and truck company managers. Truck trip QOS on arterials mainly depends on how freely truck drivers can maneuver. However, the maneuverability on arterial is affected by multi-dimensional factors. Thus, it was not possible to identify one or tw o service measure(s) to adequate ly address the QOS on arterial facilities for trucks. The issu es that should be included to evaluate truck LOS on arterials include pavement condition, ease of turning mane uvers, acceleration variance, ease of changing lanes, and stop-and-go condition. The factors contri buting to those issues include other drivers behavior, pavement quality, level of congesti on, traffic signal coordination, existence of protected left turn signals, adequate curb ra dii, construction activit ies. Truck drivers perceptions on the importance of those factors varied by their earning methods, truck companys primary business types, maximum governed truc k speed, number of working hours per day, and types of goods carried. 6.1.3 Quality of a Truck Trip on Two-Lane Highways The two major concerns of truck drivers trav eling on two-lane highways were probability of being passed or followed and the widths and cond itions of travel lane and shoulder. In this context, other drivers behavior pavement and shoulder widths and surface quality, construction activities, level of congestion, a nd frequency of passing lanes were important to their perceptions on truck trip QOS on two-lane hi ghways. Lighting conditions at night time was also important

PAGE 243

243 to some degree. The widths and conditions of tr avel lane and shoulder we re also important from the managers perspectives, but the managers we re more concerned about the opportunity to pass other vehicles than the probability of being passed or followed by other vehicles. Level of congestion, other drivers behavi or, construction activit ies, and sight distance at horizontal curvatures were important to their perceptions. Roadway stri ping condition, in particular, was considered to be exceptionally important. Again, among all the listed factors, Traveler Information Systems (TIS) was perceived to be le ast important and least in need of improvement by the driver survey respondents. The table 63 summarizes the relative importance of each of the main factors perceived to affect truck trip quality on two-lane highways, by both truck drivers and truck company managers. The resu lts on the managers perceptions on the relative importance of the truck trip QOS determinants ar e questionable due to the small sample size (4 8 responses). However, the perceptions of 34 managers on the relative importance of potential service measures indicated that the widths a nd conditions of travel lane and shoulder and opportunities for passing other cars are the two ma jor concerns of truck company managers. The probability of being passed or followed by other faster vehicles was perceived to be least important in their perceptions. Percent-Time-Being-Followed (PTBF) and Percent-Time-Spent-Following (PTSF), complemented by travel lane and shoulder widths and pavement conditions, were identified as the potential truck LOS service measures for truc ks on two-lane highways. Percent-Time-SpentFollowing (PTSF) is a measure that generally reflects the level of congestion on a two-lane highway, which is definitely a concern for manage rs. However, the truck drivers appear to be more concerned with being followed rather than following. This is a reflection of the psychological comfort level of a driver. If a tr uck is leading a platoon of several vehicles, the

PAGE 244

244 driver will begin to worry about the actions that the following auto drivers may take in trying to get around the truck. Thus, they may be more concerned about what is going on behind them than what is happening in front of them. Ther efore, some combination of Percent-Time-BeingFollowed and Percent-Time-Spent-Following ma y adequately reflect the congestion and psychological concerns of trip quality. Th e lane and shoulder wi dth also reflect the psychological comfort level of the drivers, and pavement condition again relates to the physical (and possibly psychological) comfort of the trip. The shoulder width and condition, in particular, is important for the drivers to cope with an unexpected situation when a broke down occurs (e.g., tire blow-out) as discussed in the focus group se ssions. Truck drivers perceptions on the applicability of these service measures varied by their recruitment sources, gender, level of truck driving experience, percent of empt y truck trips, percent of late deliveries, race, annual income level, number of working days per week, curr ent truck driving time of day, types of goods carried, and truck types. 6.1.4 Improvement Priority of Various Tr ansportation Facilities for Trucks Based on the perceptions of 25 truck driver resp ondents, the order of the roadway types, in order from highest to lowest, identified as most in need of improvement was urban arterials, rural multilane highways, rural two-lane highways, a nd freeways. However, the difference in the needs of improvements among the first three facilities was fairly small. 6.1.5 Improvement Priority of the Factors on Each Transportation Facility for Trucks Improvement Priority Score (IPS) of each factor was extrac ted from Relative Importance Score (IPS) and Relative Satisfaction Score (RSS) by the method presented in chapter 3. The IPS concept was that the higher RIS and/or lower RSS of a factor are, the higher IPS of the factor is. The six most important factors to be considered for transportation serv ice improvement for each

PAGE 245

245 facility type for truck drivers are shown in Table 6-4. This result is based upon the average IPS of the factors. Passenger car drivers behavior knowledge a bout truck driving char acteristics and their road etiquette were perceived to be most in need of improvement for any transportation facility type. Level of traffic conges tion and frequency and timing of construction ac tivities were perceived to be in a considerably significant need of improvement also for any transportation facility type. Truck drivers had very negative feelings about various truck trav el restrictions (in terms of speed, lane, route, and/or driving time of day). Thus, they want to remove any restrictions currently implemente d on FIHS, strongly being opposed to any further restrictions. Traffic signal coordination along arterials and adequate curb radii at intersections were significantly in need of improvement for arteri al facilities, while s houlder width and condition and lighting condition was greatly in need of improvement for two-lane highway facilities. 6.1.6 Preference on Truck Driving Time of Day Most truck driver respondents preferred to drive in the morning time (between 6 AM and noon) and/or during late ni ght time (between midnight and 6 AM). The morning time, especially from 9 AM to noon, was the most preferred time of day for truck driving. The time period between 3 PM and midnight was considerably less preferred by the driver respondents. The late night time was best time of day for efficient truck operation from the tr uck company managers perspectives. Their pref erence on the late night time for truck driving was much greater than that for any other times of day. Most truck drivers and managers appear to agree that the late night time is good for efficient truck operation due to low traffic volum e, but the preference of the drivers on the morning time (between 6 AM and noon) was greater th an that for the late night time. This may indicate that quality of a truc k driving environment in the morn ing time is not bad enough for

PAGE 246

246 them to risk their physiological rhythm by doing the night shift. The drivers living with their family would also not want to miss spending time with their family by driving during the late night time. Truck drivers preference on truck driving ti mes of day varied by their earning methods, independence, companys primary business types, primary load types, hauling distance, percent of late delivery, number of working days per week, company fleet size, types of good carried, and truck types. 6.1.7 Relationships between Truck Drivers Ba ckgrounds and Their Perceptions on Truck Trip Quality Truck drivers perceptions on the app licability of each hypothetical truck LOS performance measure differed by various kinds of background characteristics. They include hauling distance, earning methods recruitment sources, truck company business types, primary load types, race, education level, truck type, current truck driving time of day, type of goods carried, etc. The most importa nt background features contribu ting to the perceptions were hauling distance, primary load types, earning me thods, and current truck driving time of day. These generally relate to whether a truck driver is a frequent freeway user or a city driver whose trips are mostly on arterials. Most frequent freeway users are long-haul drivers, TL drivers, drivers getting paid by the mile, or drivers trave ling during non-peak hours (e.g., late night time). These drivers showed more concern for freeway or two-lane highway hypothetical performance measures such as a consistently good ride qual ity, ease of obtaining useful travel conditions information, ease of driving at or above the posted speed limit, and probability of being passed or followed by faster vehicles. On th e other hand, most city drivers are short-haul drivers, LTL drivers, drivers getting paid by th e hour, or drivers trave ling during peak hours.

PAGE 247

247 They were less sensitive to those freeway or two-lane highway performance measures, but indicated more concerns with ease of U-turn ing maneuvers at inters ections along arterials. 6.1.8 Overall Effectiveness of Research Approach The focus group sessions were very effective in eliciting a number of factors affecting the perceptions of the trucking community on truck tr ip quality. Truck drivers had much to say, and they offered a lot of insight into truck drivi ng operations. Good input was obtained from the truck company managers, but with only one sess ion and three managers it was not as productive as the driver sessions. Transcripts from the a udio-recording of focus group discussions greatly facilitated the efficient summary of the studies. Survey studies were efficient in obtaining ge neral perceptions of the trucking community, but there was some difficulty co llecting survey data. Many surv ey respondents provided their valuable perceptions on the relative importance of each traffic, roadway, and/or control factor on truck trip quality. However, some respondents di d not complete the surveys, or did not answer the questions correctly, especially for the sections asking for th eir perceptions. Truck driver surveys during the Florida Truck Driving Compet ition (FTDC) were effective in obtaining a good number of surveys at one time (a total of 148 surveys), but many respondents completed only parts of the surveys due to the length of the survey (6 pages) and some drivers were probably not very willing to complete it, even though they were aske d to. In-field truck company manager surveys during the FTDC event were not very effici ent, yielding about 1.5 surveys per hour. Postage-paid mail back truc k driver surveys distributed at agricultural inspection stations were reasona bly efficient (overall response rate of 7.8%); however, these surveys are generally biased toward long-haul truck drivers, as they are mu ch more likely to have to stop at these stations (92% of the survey respondents were l ong-haul drivers). Postage-paid mail back truck company manager surveys, ba sed on the FTA membership directory were

PAGE 248

248 reasonably efficient (a response rate of 9%); but follow-up phone contacts did not help to improve the response rate. 6.2 Recommendations A major objective of this study was to identify appropriate se rvice measures to use for truck LOS determination. The intent is that the results of this study would lay the groundwork for a future study, or studies, to develop quant itative LOS estimation models based on these identified service measures. This secti on mainly provides recommendations on how to effectively develop these LOS models for each of the roadway facility types addressed in this study. Some considerations for transportation service improvement priority for the trucking community, as well as the trucking commun ity survey methods, are also offered. 6.2.1 Truck LOS Estimation Model Development This section will describe some specific research approaches that might be most effective or applicable for developing quantitative LOS m odels for each facility type, for the preferred service measures identified in this study. 6.2.1.1 Truck LOS on freeways Consistency in travel speed was identified as on e of the primary determinants of truck trip quality on a freeway. A previous study by Kim, et al. (2003) investigated the use of acceleration noise (i.e., standard deviation of acceleration) as a potential service measure. This study utilized simulation to develop a model for acceleration no ise based upon other easily measured traffic flow parameters, such as volume and speed. Th is work was confined to passenger cars, but it could easily be extended to trucks with some adjustments. Since many commercial trucks are now equipped with Global Positioning Systems (G PS), it may also be possible to obtain these data from truck companies, eliminating the need for on-the-road or driving simulator experiments. These data could then be used in combination with othe r traffic stream field

PAGE 249

249 measurements to develop a model based on fiel d data, or at a minimum validate the models developed from the simulation process. The AASHO (American Association of Stat e Highway Officials, now AASHTO) Road Test (Highway Research Board, 1962) developed the Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) to investigate users perceptions of pavement quality. A panel of raters actually rode in an automobile over a number of pavement sections a nd rated their ride experience on a scale from 0 to 5 (0 being Essentially Impassible and 5 be ing Excellent). It was found that about 95 percent of the information about the serviceabil ity of a pavement is contributed by the roughness of the surface profile. The Present Serviceabil ity Index (PSI) was deve loped as a function of multiple measures of pavement roughness (e.g., mean slope variance, surface rutting, surface cracking, and surface patching) using a multiple regression statistical technique. The AASHO Road Test rater opinions were ba sed on car ride dynamics, so it is unclear whether the levels of PSI are applicable to the cases of large trucks. The International Roughness I ndex (IRI) was developed by the World Bank in the 1980s (Sayers, et al., 1986) to establish uniformity of the physical measurement of roughness. The IRI is based on a filtered ratio (referred to as the average rectified slope) of a standard vehicles accumulated suspension motion (meters) divided by the distance traveled by the vehicle during the measurement (kilometers). That is, the IR I measures pavement roughness in terms of the number of meters per kilometer that a laser, mounted in a specialized van, jumps as it is driven across the interstate and expressway system. Thus, commonly recommended measurement units are m/km and the lower the IRI number, the sm oother the ride. The IRI has been shown to correlate well with vertical passe nger acceleration (a measure of ride quality) and tire load (a measure of controllability and safety). The IRI is now considered the international standard for

PAGE 250

250 comparing roughness measurements and widely used by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a means of determining rehabilita tion needs and resource allocation for pavement condition. Many previous studies have show n that the users perceptions of pavement quality largely depend on the roughness of the roadway. Hveem (1960) stated that there is no doubt that mankind has long thought of road smoothness or roughness as being synonymous with pleasant or unpleasant, but the effect s of a given degree of roughness vary with the speed and characteristics of the vehicle a nd tolerance of the vehi cle driver or passenger. However, the relationship between physical m easurements of pavement roughness and the users perceptions of ride quality has not been adequately modele d. In studies by Shafizadeh and Mannering (2003 and 2006), selected participants were placed in real-world driving conditions and asked to rank the roughness of specific roadway segments. The st udy concluded that the users perceptions of roadway roughness is mostly cons istent with IRI and PSR, and al so correlated with type and speed of vehicle used, individuals age and gender, and interior vehicle noise level. However, no driver of a large truck pa rticipated in this study. There has been no research conduc ted to specifically investigate the re lationships between the perceptions of truck driver s on ride quality and the measur es of roadway roughness (e.g., IRI or PSI). However, given that many previous stud ies verified that user perceptions of roadway roughness (i.e., ride quality) can us ually be adequately addresse d by the measures of roadway roughness, the IRI and/or the PSI could be potentia lly referenced to estimate truck drivers satisfaction of pavement quality until experiments with truck drivers can be conducted. In-field driving experiments with a re presentative sample of truck drivers are required for the

PAGE 251

251 development of accurate models to estimate truck drivers perceptions of pavement quality from the measure of roadway roughness. It may be possible to ask truck drivers who ju st reach the destinati on about the quality of the trip and pavement condition a nd obtain the truck operational data from their truck companies. This may facilitate the development of a freew ay truck LOS model combining acceleration noise and pavement condition. However, this also requ ires research team to develop and coordinate the experiments with the truck companies beforehand. 6.2.1.2 Truck LOS on arterials Due to the number of variables identified in this study that impact truck trip quality on arterials, a composite model is necessary. This type of model development for arterials has recently been attempted, although specific to pass enger vehicles, by Flannery, et al. (2005) and Pecheux, et al. (2004), as well as in the cu rrently ongoing NCHRP 3-70 (Multimodal Arterial Level of Service) project. These previous st udies have utilized in-f ield driving and video simulation data collection methods One major challenge with the video simulation approach is being able to get accurate input on pavement c ondition. Hall, et al. (2004) incorporated the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)s inventory of pavement rideability ratings to evaluate large truck access routes between intermodal or other truck-traffic-ge nerating sites to the National Highway System (NHS) (i.e., connectors) However, the evaluation process was not based on the perceptions of truck drivers, and thus the level of contribution of pavement condition to truck trip quality on an access ro ute was arbitrary. If information about the importance level of pavement condition by truck type and travel speed on truck trip quality on arterials is available, it may be possible to develop a model combining pavement quality using the IRI or the PSI and other performance meas ures from video simulation data collection. However, in-field experiments are required to develop an accurate truck LOS model for arterials.

PAGE 252

252 It also may be possible for researchers to ask truc k drivers about their perceptions on trip quality and other measures at certain pl aces along their route (e.g., fuel station), while general traffic stream field measurements are collected at the same time. 6.2.1.3 Truck LOS on two-lane highways Three performance measures were identified that adequately address the truck trip quality on two-lane highways: Percent-Time-BeingFollowed (PTBF) and Percent-Time-SpentFollowing (PTSF); pavement condition; and trav el lane and shoulder width. PTBF and PTSF measures could be developed from microscopic traffic simulation or field observation. The measures may be determined by headway thres holds to define in which case a truck is considered to be following or being followed. Travel lane and shoulde r width information is available from the FDOT Roadway Characteri stics Inventory (RCI) database. Again, if information about importance level of pavement condition according to truck type and speed on truck trip quality on two-lane highways is ava ilable, it may be possible to develop a model combining pavement quality using the IRI or the PSI and PTBF, PTSF from video simulation, and lane and shoulder width from the RCI. 6.2.2 Transportation Service Improveme nt for the Trucking Community Given that urban arterials were identified as th e facility type most in need of improvement, access roads from the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) to hub facilities should be primarily addressed in the deve lopment of transportation improvement programs for the trucking community. For prioritizing transportation improv ement projects within each type of roadway facility, the use of an Improvement Priority Score (IPS) is recommended. So me general issues found to be important to the trucking comm unity from this study are as follows: The motoring publics attitude and knowledge about trucks is the primary concern for the trucking community, especially for truck driv ers. There is a n eed to publicize the importance of truck operations in the state of Florida through mass media to improve the

PAGE 253

253 motoring publics attitude about trucks on th e road. The motoring public also needs more education about how to mix with large trucks sa fely in a traffic stream. It may be possible to emphasize this topic in drivers licens e exams and some mandatory classes may be scheduled for the drivers to re juvenate their concerns on this topic when they obtain or renew their licenses. More emphasis on this to pic in beginning driver s education classes (such as in high schools) s hould also be considered. Implementation of truck travel restriction m easures requires a lot of caution because it significantly deteriorates the truck drivers trip satisfaction. To obtain greater acceptance of these measures from the truck drivers, th ey may need more education as to its overall benefits, as they appare ntly not aware of them. Shoulder width and condition on two-lane high ways, and curb radii on arterials are two major physical roadway concerns of the trucki ng community that need to be addressed by transportation service providers. Pavement condition is definitely important for truck trip quality, but most truck drivers are fairly satisfied with the pavement condition on Florida roadways. Thus, it is reasonable not to focus on this factor too much for tr ansportation improvement programs for trucks. However, it should definitely be incor porated into LOS models if possible. Access management (e.g., median closing) s hould be carefully planned to eliminate unnecessary turning movements of trucks due to the high risks associated with the maneuvers. The trucking community generally believes that night-time delivery is beneficial for them to a considerable degree, but it is not widely performed due to the lack of benefits to the other stakeholders (e.g., receiver s, customers, shippers). It is worth looking for ways to offer motivation or benefits to perform the ni ght-time delivery to the other stakeholders for more efficient truck operations. Frequency and security of rest areas and truck parking spac es (especially for overnight parking) are one of the important issues for long-haul truck drivers. These issues should be addressed adequately by transportation serv ice providers for a safe and convenient truck trip. 6.2.3 Trucking Community Surveys This study mainly used survey methods to i nvestigate the perceptions and opinions of the trucking community. Based on the experience, th e following strategies are recommended for future survey studies of the trucking community: Total length of a survey should be not more than 4 pages. The length of the sections asking for the perceptions of the trucking co mmunity should be not more than 3 pages.

PAGE 254

254 Survey questions should be easily understood and completed within ~15 minutes. If a pilot test of the questions is possible, it will help determine the proper length and complexity of the survey. Note that the pi lot test needs to be conducted with the same audience. With the truck driving audience, there appeared to be considerable variance in the ability of drivers to understand all of the questions, as well their dilig ence in filling out the survey (this was more so the case for the FTDC survey effort). Thus, in a future survey effort, to help determine the overall validity of the surv ey responses, the inclusion of a couple of dummy question should be considered. Th ese dummy questions would be questions that any respondent can ea sily answer correctly. Survey data collection as a part of an event (such as the FTDC) has advantages in collecting a large sample at one time, but may produce a considerable number of invalid surveys in that some participants will not fill it out diligently if they are generally unwilling to participate. Table 6-1. Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Freeways Freeway QOS Truck Drivers Perceptions Truck Company Managers Perceptions Truck Trip QOS Determinants 1. Other Drivers Behavior 2. Pavement Condition 3. Level of Congestion 4. Truck Travel Restrictions 5. Construction Activities 1. Level of Congestion 2. Construction Activities 3. Alternative Routes 4. Other Drivers Behavior 5. Number of Lanes 6. Pavement Condition Primary Concern Driving Comfort (Physical and Psychological) Travel Time and Driving Safety Potential Service Measure(s) Speed Variance (or Acceleration Noise) and Pavement Condition

PAGE 255

255 Table 6-2. Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Arterials Arterial QOS Truck Drivers Perceptions Truck Company Managers Perceptions* Truck Trip QOS Determinants 1. Other Drivers Behavior 2. Curb Radii for Right Turns 3. Level of Congestion 4. Traffic Signal Coordination 5. Pavement Condition 6. Construction Activities 1. Construction Activities 2. Pavement Condition 3. Level of Congestion 4. Protected Left Turn Signals 5. Curb Radii for Right Turns 6. Other Drivers Behavior 7. Traffic Signal Coordination Primary Concern Maneuverability Ma neuverability and Travel Time Potential Service Measure(s) Multiple Factors (Pavement Condition, Leftor Right-Turning Maneuvers, Speed Variance, Traffic Density) The sample size for the truck company manage r responses on Truck Trip QOS Determinants on arterials was low (6); thus, th e reliability of these responses is questionable. However, the sample size for their responses on the importance levels of Pote ntial Service Measure(s) was acceptable (33). Table 6-3. Truck Trip Quality of Serv ice Determinants on Two-Lane Highways Two-Lane Highway QOS Truck Drivers Perceptions Truck Company Managers Perceptions* Truck Trip QOS Determinants 1. Other Drivers Behavior 2. Pavement Condition 3. Shoulder Width and Condition 4. Lighting Conditions at Night 5. Construction Activities 6. Level of Congestion 7. Frequency of Passing Lanes 1. Roadway Striping Condition 2. Level of Congestion 3. Pavement Condition 4. Other Drivers Behavior 5. Shoulder Width and Condition 6. Construction Activities 7. Sight Distance at Horizontal Curvatures Primary Concern Driving Comfort (Physical and Psychological) and Travel Safety Travel Safety and Travel Time Potential Service Measure(s) Percent-Time-Being-Followed (PTBF), Percent-Time-Spent-Following (PTSF), Lane and Shoulder Width, and Pavement Condition The sample size for the truck company manage r responses on Truck Trip QOS Determinants on two-lane highways was low (4) ; thus, the reliability of these responses is questionable. However, the sample size for their responses on the importance levels of Potential Service Measures was acceptable (34).

PAGE 256

256 Table 6-4. Top Six Factors in the Need for th e Improvement on Each Roadway Type for Trucks Freeways Urban Arterials Two-Lane Highways 1. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics 2. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 3. Remove Truck Lane Restrictions 4. Reduce Traffic Congestion 5. Do not implement lower Truck Speed Limit 6. Increase Governed Truck Speed Limit 1. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 2. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics 3. Reduce Traffic Congestion 4. Improve Traffic Signal Coordination 5. Increase Curb Radii for Right Turns 6. Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 1. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics 2. Improve Passenger Car Drivers Road Etiquette 3. Improve Shoulder Width and Condition 4. Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities 5. Improve Lighting Conditions at Night 6. Reduce Traffic Congestion

PAGE 257

257 APPENDIX A COOPERATION REQUEST LETTER SENT TO FTA

PAGE 258

258

PAGE 259

259 APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION

PAGE 260

260

PAGE 261

261 APPENDIX C GUIDELINES FOR FOCUS GROUP PARTIC IPANT SELECTION SENT TO FTA

PAGE 262

262

PAGE 263

263

PAGE 264

264

PAGE 265

265 APPENDIX D FOCUS GROUP MODERATORS GUIDE The purpose of this document is to provide an overv iew of what is expected in the oncoming focus group meetings of truck drivers and truck company ma nagers to the moderator, who will facilitate the discussions. The document includes the items or issues that should be explained or brought up in the meetings by the moderator so that the discussions can be organized to produce useful results for this research and the participants are also motivated to l ead the discussions in the meetings. The contents of this document are listed in a chronological order for each focus group meeting session. 1) Sign-in Form and Informed Consent Form Distribution (expected time frame = 5 minutes) Each participant is asked to provide his/her na me on the Sign-in Form, and fill out the Informed Consent Form before taking part in the focus group m eeting. The Informed Consent Form is required for the Institutional Review Board at the University of Fl orida (UFIRB) to ensure that the participants were aware of the risks and benefits of pa rticipating in this study and that th ey voluntarily agreed to participate in it 2) Welcome and Introductions (expected time frame = 5 minutes) Introduction of moderator and assistant(s). Express appreciation to participants for agreeing to participate and share their valuable experience and kn owledge about trucks operati ons in Florida. Selfintroductions of participants. 3) Overview of Study Backgrou nd, Objectives, and Benefits (expected time frame = 5 minutes) The background, objectives, and potential benefits of this study will be briefly described by the moderator. A separate hand-out addressing these issues will also be provided to each participant (Refer to Appendix E). 4) Focus Group Participants Background Survey (expected time frame = 10 minutes) Oneor two-page hand-outs to each truck driver will be distributed to gather information about participants personal characteristics and job duties, as well as truck, delivery, and cargo characteristics (Refer to Appendix F). Truck company operato rs/managers will be asked about business operation

PAGE 266

266 characteristics, fleet size, types of cargo hauled, primary origin and destination, etc (Refer to Appendix G). The moderator is required to ask the participan ts to fill out the forms and hand them in. 5) Explanation of Format and Scope of the Focus Group Session (expected time frame = 5 minutes) To obtain the perceptions or opinions of the par ticipants more efficiently and productively, the format and the scope of the focus group session will be explained to the participants. This will be included in the hand-out to each partic ipant as well (Refer to Appendix E). 6) Focus Group Questions (total expected time frame = 1 hour and 30 minutes) During the course of each focus group sessi on, several open-ended or subject-specific questions will be presented by the moderator to the participants. The participants will then discuss each topic amongst themselves and with th e moderator. A same set of issues will be introduced in both driver and manager focus groups, but their corresponding questions will be differently phrased for some issues. Each question should be written on a white board, or presented on an electronic slide, or the like, for all participants to easily see. The selected issues and questions are listed below in chronological order with the approxima te time assigned for discussion of each subject within a two-hour focus group meeting. Additional questions may also be asked about why the commented factors are important or the participants experience related to the factors. Truck Route and Departure Time Selecti on (expected time frame = 15 minutes) Who is responsible for selecting a travel route and departure time for your delivery? When selecting a travel route and departur e time for your delivery, what factors do you consider and what is their re lative overall significance? Transportation Service Improvement Prioriti es for Trucking Community (expected time frame = 10 minutes)

PAGE 267

267 What types of facilities (freeways, multi-lane highways, two-lane highways, or arterials) would you emphasize most to improve roadway and traffic conditions for better truck operations in the State of Florida? If youre in charge of policy at FDOT, what would be your top priorities for improving truck tip quality/travel conditions for commercial trucks? Factors affecting Truck Trip Quality (expected time frame = 50 minutes) What is important for the quality of a truck trip on freeways and how significant is each factor to your overall per ception of trip quality? What is important for the quality of a truck trip on multi-lane highways and how significant is each factor to your ove rall perception of trip quality? What is important for the quality of a truck trip on two-lane highways and how significant is each factor to your overall perception of trip quality? What is important for the quality of a truck trip on urban arterials and how significant is each factor to your overall perception of trip quality? What is important for the quality of a truck trip on hub facilities and how significant is each factor to your overall perception of trip quality? Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability (expected time frame = 15 minutes) How often has your delivery been late? What do you do to avoid a late delivery? What are the typical consequences for you/your company when a delivery is late? What do you think most affects a truck drivers ability to reach his/ her destination by the scheduled time? Ending questions Is there anything else important about truck operations on Floridas state roadway systems that you would like to mention? Total expected time = 2 hours

PAGE 268

268 APPENDIX E FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS BA CKGROUND SURVEY RESULTS Table E-1. 1st Truck Driver Focus Group Participants Background Survey Results (November, 15th, 2005) Participants Backgrounds Truck Driver 1 Truck Driver 2 Truc k Driver 3 Truck Driver 4 Truck Driver 5 Company Name Con-way Southern Express Publix Supermarkets Watkins Motor Lines FedEx Ground Orlando Watkins Motor Lines Gender Male Male Male Male Male Age 40 49 40 49 50 59 50 59 40 49 Race Caucasian Caucasian Cau casian Caucasian Caucasian Truck Driving Job Experience 21 years 18 years 30 years 30 years 29 years Working Days Per Week 5 days 4 days 5 days 5 days 5 days Working Hours Per Day 10 hours 8 hours 9 hours 10 hours 9.5 hours Number of Nights Away From Home 0 night 0 night 0 night 0 night 0 night Earning Method(s) By the mile, or hour By the mile, hour, or salary By the mile By the mile By the mile, or hour Annual Income by Truck Driving $50,000 74,999 $50,000 74,999 $75,000 or more $75,000 or more $50,000 74,999 Company Type For-hire Privat e For-hire For-hire For-hire Company Fleet Size 10,000 trucks 600 trucks 4,000 trucks 5,000 trucks 4,000 trucks Primary Load Type LTL TL LTL Both TL & LTL LTL Geographic Coverage of Truck Driving Entire Florida and Other States Florida and Other States Part of Florida State Florida and Other States Florida and Other States One-way Delivery Distance 265 miles 160 miles 244 miles 280 miles 249 miles Route and Departure Time Selection Transportation, or Logistics Managers Myself Transportation, or Logistics Managers Transportation, or Logistics Managers Transportation, or Logistics Managers Truck Kind(s) Twin Trailer, 4-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer, Rocky Mountain Double, Turnpike Double Twin Trailer, 3-, 4-, 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer Twin Trailer, 4-Axle Tractor Semitrailer

PAGE 269

269 Table E-1. Continued Types of Goods Anything except livestock Mainly food Anything except livestock, coal or petroleum Household goods or stationary, auto parts, textiles, metals, manufactured goods, paper and allied products, furniture, wood products Anything except vehicles, livestock, coal or petroleum, waste and scrap, equipment, stone, clay, glass, and concrete products Table E-2. 1st Truck Company Manager Focus Group Pa rticipants Background Survey Results (November, 17th, 2005) Participants Backgrounds Truck Company Manager 1 Truck Company Manager 2 Truck Company Manager 3 Company Name Publix Supermarkets CTL Distribution Commercial Carrier Corp Gender Male Male Male Age 40 49 30 39 30 39 Truck Company Manager Job Experience 25 years 10 years 5 years Annual Income as a Manager $70,000 99,999 $70,000 99,999 $50,000 69,999 Company Type Private For-hire For-hire Company Fleet Size 850 trucks 432 trucks 1,200 trucks Primary Load Type TL TL TL Geographic Coverage of Trucking Business Florida and Other States Florida and Other States Florida and Other States Distribution of Truck Driving Distance of the Company Local: 50% Short-haul: 50% Long-haul: 0% Local: 50% Short-haul: 30% Long-haul: 20% Local: 10% Short-haul: 70% Long-haul: 20% Route and Departure Time Selection Facility Dispatcher Myself Myself Types of Goods Food, household goods or stationary Chemicals and allied products, coal or petroleum, hazardous materials Food, paper and allied products, stone, clay, glass, and concrete products Truck Kind(s) 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer Twin Trailer, 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer

PAGE 270

270 Table E-3. 2nd Truck Driver Focus Group Participants Background Survey Results (December, 8th, 2005) Participants Backgrounds Truck Driver 1 Truck Driver 2 Truck Driver 3 Truck Driver 4 Company Name Publix Supermarkets FedEx Ground Overnite Transportation (a UPS) TDT Gender Male Male Male Male Age 40 49 40 49 30 39 50 59 Race Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian Truck Driving Job Experience 16 years 29 years 18 years 30 years Working Days Per Week 5 days 5 days 5 days 5 days Working Hours Per Day 12 hours 8 hours 7 hours 11 hours Number of Nights Away From Home 0 night 0 night 3 night 5 night Earning Method(s) By the mile, type of goods, or loading amount By the mile By the mile, or hour By the mile, or the drop Annual Income by Truck Driving $50,000 74,999 $75,000 or more $50,000 74,999 $25,000 34,999 Company Type Private For-hire For-hire For-hire Company Fleet Size 1,300 trucks 5,000 trucks 7,500 trucks or more 250 trucks Primary Load Type TL LTL LTL Both TL & LTL Geographic Coverage of Truck Driving Part of Florida State Florida and Other States Florida and Other States Florida and Other States One-way Delivery Distance 150 miles 1,112 miles 400 miles 1,350 miles Route and Departure Time Selection Transportation, or Logistics Managers Transportation, or Logistics Managers Transportation, or Logistics Managers Myself Types of Goods Food, household goods or stationary Small Packages Anything but livestock, coal or petroleum, vehicles, waste and scrap, and equipment Grains/Feed, household goods or stationary, metals, manufactured goods, wood products except furniture

PAGE 271

271 Table E-3. Continued Truck Kind(s) 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer Twin Trailer or Doubles Twin Trailer, 4-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 5-Axle Tractor Semitrailer

PAGE 272

272 APPENDIX F TRUCK DRIVER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY FORM

PAGE 273

273

PAGE 274

274

PAGE 275

275 APPENDIX G TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY FORM

PAGE 276

276

PAGE 277

277

PAGE 278

278 APPENDIX H TRUCK DRIVER SURVEY FORM

PAGE 279

279

PAGE 280

280

PAGE 281

281

PAGE 282

282

PAGE 283

283

PAGE 284

284

PAGE 285

285 APPENDIX I TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER SURVEY FORM

PAGE 286

286

PAGE 287

287

PAGE 288

288

PAGE 289

289

PAGE 290

290

PAGE 291

291

PAGE 292

292 APPENDIX J IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY SCORE (IPS) Table J-1. Improvement Priority Scores (IPS) Case Ranking RIS (1) RSS (1) IPS ( 42 +42) 1 7 1 42 2 6 1 30 3 5 1 20 4 7 2 17.5 5 4 1 12 5 6 2 12 7 7 3 9.33 8 5 2 7.5 9 3 1 6 9 6 3 6 11 7 4 5.25 12 4 2 4 13 5 3 3.33 14 6 4 3 15 7 5 2.8 16 2 1 2 17 3 2 1.5 18 4 3 1.33 19 5 4 1.25 20 6 5 1.2 21 7 6 1.17 22 1 1 0 22 2 2 0 22 3 3 0 22 4 4 0 22 5 5 0 22 6 6 0 22 7 7 0 29 6 7 .17 30 5 6 .2 31 4 5 .25 32 3 4 .33 33 2 3 .5 34 1 2 35 5 7 .8

PAGE 293

293 Table J-1. Continued 36 4 6 37 3 5 .33 38 2 4 39 4 7 .25 40 1 3 40 3 6 42 2 5 .5 43 3 7 .33 44 1 4 44 2 6 46 2 7 .5 47 1 5 48 1 6 49 1 7

PAGE 294

294 APPENDIX K POSTAGE-PAID TRUCK DRIVER SURVEY FORM

PAGE 295

295

PAGE 296

296

PAGE 297

297

PAGE 298

298 APPENDIX L POSTAGE-PAID TRUCK COMPAN Y MANAGER SURVEY FORM

PAGE 299

299

PAGE 300

300

PAGE 301

301

PAGE 302

302 APPENDIX M POSTAGE-PAID MANAGER SURVEY COVER LETTER

PAGE 303

303

PAGE 304

304 APPENDIX N SURVEY DATA FILTERING CRITERIA This document describes th e reasons why the survey da ta reduction strategy was necessary and how it was applied to survey resp onses for each section of the survey. For both driver and manager surveys, the identical survey da ta filtering criteria were used to determine the validity of the survey responses. Only the valid survey responses were used for data analysis. Section 1: Background of the Respondents Almost all the respondents completed the pa rticipant background section of the survey. A few participants did not fill out all the questions. It was required to check the validity of the survey responses for several questions such as percen t of empty trips, percent of late trips, etc. For instance, several truck driver participants in dicated that over 50 percent of their trips are empty, but those responses are not reasonably possi ble. Thus, they were excluded for survey data analyses. Section 2: Relative importance and sa tisfaction of each factor Relative importance and satisfaction of each fact or on each roadway type was asked in an interval rating scale. It was witnessed that many respondents did not answer all the questions in the section, or did not pay e nough attention to complete the section as directed. Some respondents indicated that all or most of the factors are equally important or satisfactory, not trying to give their opinions about the relative im portance or satisfaction of each factor among all the listed factors. Some other respondents only completed either the relative importance or the relative satisfaction section, or did not distinguish the relative importance scores from satisfaction scores, or presented the same scores for both the relative importance and satisfaction of all or most of the factors. Another group of respondents did not give relative importance or satisfaction scores for all the listed factors, creating some missing data. Considering these

PAGE 305

305 observations, following data screening criteria was used to distinguish valid survey responses for data analysis: Validity of survey responses for this section should be determined for each column of each roadway facility (e.g., Relative Importance on Freeways, Relative Satisfaction on 2-Lane Highways, etc). When the relative importance scores (or satisfaction scores) of all the listed factors present a small variance, the column data should not be considered for survey data analyses. At least, scores of 4 or more fact ors should be different from the mode of all the scores in that column. When there are more than 2 missing scores in a column, the data for that column should be considered invalid. When the relative importance score is identical to the satisfaction score for most of the listed factors, both column data should be di scarded. At least 4 im portance scores should be different from their corresponding satisfa ction scores for both column data to be determined to be valid. When there is any score(s) presented in oth er section without indi cating self-identifying factor, the data for that whol e column should be eliminated. Section 3: Relative importance of each category of factors Relative importance of each ca tegory of factors on each roadway type was asked in a ranking scale. A significant portion (more than 70%) of the particip ants did not respond to these questions. Some respondents answered them in an interval-rating scale. It is not clear whether they really regarded those ranki ng-scale questions as interval -rating scale questions. Thus, following criteria was used to pick out the valid survey responses for data analysis: Validity of survey responses for this sect ion should be determined for each question. Only the responses in the ranking scale (i.e., ranking the items from 1 to 4) should be considered valid. Responses with any missing data should be discarded.

PAGE 306

306 Section 4: Applicability of single performance measure Applicability of single performance measure to determine quality of a truck trip was asked in an interval-rating scale. Most participants completed this survey section as directed. However, there still were some respondents w ho did not answer the questions. Some other respondents indicated that all the listed performance measures are equally applicable. Following criteria were used to discern the valid survey responses for data analysis: Validity of survey responses for this section should be determined for each roadway type. When there are 2 or more missing scores within a roadway type, all da ta for that roadway type are considered invalid. When the same score is given to all factors fo r 2 or more roadway types, the data in the whole section should be eliminated. Section 5: Relative improvement need of each roadway facility type The relative improvement need of each roadwa y facility type was questioned in a ranking scale. Most participants did not respond to this question. Some respondents answered it in an interval-rating scale. It is not clear whether they really rega rded those ranking-scale questions as interval-rating scale questions. Valid surveys were determined by the criteria used in the section 3.

PAGE 307

307 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander David G. and Moore David. (2003). Winter road management project, Idaho Technology Transfer Center, in conjunction with American Trucking Associations Foundation, Inc., on-line survey website: , (October 11, 2006) American Trucking Associations Foundation, Inc. (2005). American trucking trends 2004, Alexandria, V.A. American Trucking Associat ions Foundation, Inc. (1997). Motor carrier and freight movement operational characteristics in the Baltimore region, prepared for the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Alexandria, V.A. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2004). 2002 Commodity flow survey, Washington, D.C. Center for Public Policy. (2001). A survey of the opinions of the driving public and drivers of large trucks on road safety issues: road safety survey, Virginia Commonwealth University, V.A. Conover W. J. (2001). Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons. Crum Michael R., Morrow Paula C., Olsgard Pa tricia, and Roke Philip J. (2001). Truck driving environments and their influen ce on driver fatigue and crash rates. Transportation Research Record. 1779, Transportation Research Board, D.C., 125133. Dunnett Charles W. (1980). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the unequal variance case. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.75, No. 372, 796800. Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, London. Finnegan Clare, Finlay Hugh, and Mahony Margar et O. (2004). An in itial assessment of the potential for urban distri bution centres in Dublin. 83rd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Finnegan Clare, Finlay Hugh, Mahony Margar et O., and Sullivan Donal O. (2005). Urban freight in Dublin city centre: survey analysis and strategy evaluation. 84th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Flannery Aimee, Wochinger Kathryn, and Mar tin Angela. (2005). Driver assessment of service quality on urban streets. Transportation Research Record. 1920, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2531.

PAGE 308

308 Florida Department of Transportation. (2003). Floridas strategic intermodal system plan, Tallahassee, F.L. Golob Thomas F. and Regan Amelia C. (2002) The perceived usefulness of different source of traffic information to trucking operations. Transportation Research Part E Vol. 38, 97116. Greene William H. (2000). Econometric analysis, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall. Hair Joseph F., Black Bill, Babin Barry, Anderson Rolph E., and Tatham Ronald L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis, 6th Edition, Prentice Hall. Hall Fred, Wakefield Sarah, and Kaisy Ahmed Al. (2001). Freeway quality of service: what really matters to drivers and passengers? Transportation Research Record. 1776, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1723. Hall Lisa Aultman, Hill Michael L., and Agent Ken. (2004). Methodology for evaluating large truck access to in termodal and other facilities. Transportation Research Record. 1999, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 6168. Highway Research Board. (1962). The AASHO road test: report 5pavement research, Highway Research Board Special Report 61-E. Hostovsky, Charles and Hall, Fred L. (2004). F reeway quality of service: perceptions from tractor-trailer drivers. Transportation Research Record. 1852, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1925. Hveem, F. N. (1960). Devices for recording and eva luating pavement roughness, Highway Research Board, Research Record 264. Kim Jin-Tae, Courage Kenneth G., Was hburn Scott S., and Bonyani Gina. (2003). Framework for investigation of level-of -service criteria and threshold on rural freeways. Transportation Research Record. 1852, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 239245. Koehne Jodi, Mannering Fred, and Hallenbeck Mark. (1997). Analysis of trucker and motorist opinions toward truck-lane restrictions. Transportation Research Record. 1560, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 7383. Larson Paul D. and Poist Richard F. (2004). I mproving response rates to mail surveys: a research note. Transportation Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, 6774. Lawson, Catherine T. and Riis, Anne-Elizabeth. (2001). Were really asking for it: using surveys to engage the freight community. Transportation Research Record. 1763, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 13.

PAGE 309

309 Lawson, Catherine T., Kirk, Alan R., Stra thman, James G., and Riis, Anne-Elizabeth. (2002). Making contact: developing an e ffective methodology to survey the freight community. 81st Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Levene H. (1960). Robust tests for the equality of variance, Contributions to Probability and Statistics, Stanford University Pr ess, I. Olkin, eds. Palo Alto, C.A. Loudon William R. (2000). Surveys of freight shippers and carriers: lessons learned, DKS Associates, ITE District 6 Meeting, San Diego, C.A. Martilla, John A. and James, John C. (1977) Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1, American Marke ting Association, 7779. McCord Keith. (2006). UPS drivers discouraged from making left turns, Local News, KSL TV reporting, KSL website: , (December 22, 2006) Morris, Anne G., Kornhauser, Alain L., a nd Kay, Mark J. (1998). Urban freight mobility: collection of data on time, costs, and barriers related to moving product into the central business district. Transportation Research Record. 1613, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2732. Ott R. Lyman and Longnecker Michael T. (2006). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, 6th Edition, Duxbury Press. Pecheux, Kelly Klaver, Flannery Aimee, Wochinger Kathryn, Rephlo Jennifer, and Lappin Jane. (2004). Automobile drivers perceptions of service quality on urban streets. Transportation Research Record. 1883, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 167175. Regan, Amelia C. and Golob, Thomas F. ( 1999). Freight operators perceptions of congestion problems and the application of advanced technologi es: results from a 1998 survey of 1,200 companies operating in California. Transportation Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, 5767. Sayers, M., Gillespie, T., and Queiroz, C. (1986). The international road roughness experiment: a basis for establishing a standard scale for road roughness measurements. Transportation Research Record. 1084, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 7685. Shafizadeh Kevin and Mannering Fred. ( 2003). Acceptability of pavement roughness on urban highways by driving public. Transportation Research Record. 1860, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 187193. Shafizadeh Kevin and Mannering Fred. (2006). Statistical m odeling of user perceptions of infrastructure condit ion: application to the case of highway roughness. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 133140.

PAGE 310

310 Southwestern Pennsylvania Regi onal Planning Commission. (1996). Freight transportation issues in southwestern Pe nnsylvania: a survey of manufacturers and transportation service providers, Pittsburgh, P.A. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Inc. (2006). SPSS for Windows version 15.0, Statistics Software, Chicago, I.L. Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway capacity manual (HCM), National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation a nd Federal Highway Administration. (2002). Freight analysis framework, Washington, D.C. Veras Jose Holguin, Polimeni John, Cruz Brenda, Xu Ning, List George, Nordstrom Jeana, Haddock Jorge. (2005). Off-peak freight deliveries: challenges and stakeholders perceptions. 84th Annual Meeting of Trans portation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Washburn Scott S., Kirschner David S. (2006). Rural freeway level of service based on traveler perception. 85th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Washburn Scott S. (2002). Multimodal quality of service, part I: truck le vel of service, prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, F.L., Project Final Report, BC 354-28. Washburn Scott S., Ramlackhan Kirby, and McLeod Douglas S. (2004). Quality of service perceptions by rura l freeway travelers: an explanatory analysis. 83rd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Zhang Li, and Prevedouros Panos D. (2005). U ser perceptions of signalized intersection level of service. 84th Annual Meeting of Transpo rtation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 311

311 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH As an architect, architectural engineer, and transportation engineer, Byungkon (Cody) Ko has experienced a wide range of disciplines thro ughout his life. Inspired by his mother, who had been an architectural agent, he started studyi ng architectural design a nd engineering at Dankook University in Korea. At that time, he dealt w ith a number of architectura l projects as an active member of Artlier Compe, a study group intend ed to discover and materialize what people want and need through various contempor ary architectural design competitions. He continued his career at an architectural consulting company afte r graduation. He had worked as an architectural engineer and arch itect, managing construc tion sites, designing buildings, and drawing construction details. While he was gaining the real field experiences, he got interested in the origin, structure, and condition of traffic network that he realized architectural planning and infrastructure are stro ngly associated with. He also witnessed and inquired many serious traffic operation and mana gement problems consistently brought up in Seoul, Korea. All such concerns have grown furthe r to result in a motivation for him to get into the field of transportation. He earned his Masters and Ph.D degree in transporta tion engineering at the University of Florida. He had worked as a teaching assistan t for Transportation E ngineering course, and played a major role in conducting several FH WAor FDOT-funded tr ansportation research projects under the supervision of a couple of faculty members. He has mostly involved investigating the effectiveness of ITS safety count ermeasures such as flex ible traffic separators, variable message signs, pedestri an countdown signals on overall tra ffic safety and operation. He had been a key person in all aspects of the resear ch studies, from the inst allation of surveillance cameras in the field to the statistical analyses of the collected data. His dissertation for Ph.D. degree is about the identification of preferred performance measures for the assessment of truck

PAGE 312

312 level of service. The study required him to conduct focus group studies and surveys studies to elicit perceptions of Florida tr ucking community, truck drivers a nd truck company managers. He designed focus group and survey questionnaires and analyzed the data qualitatively and quantitatively to complete the study.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019320/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Truck Level of Service
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: UFE0019320:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019320/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Truck Level of Service
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: UFE0019320:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF TRUCK LEVEL OF SERVICE




















By

BYUNGKON KO


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 Byungkon Ko

































To the graduate students of the University of Florida









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It may not have been possible for me to complete my Ph.D. study without the advice or

assistance of those who have supported me throughout my life in Gainesville. They are my

family members, friends, and University of Florida faculties and administrative staffs. Although

I cannot adequately describe how blessed I am to have been with them, I would like to show my

gratitude to them with this opportunity.

I am especially grateful to my parents, wife, and four siblings. Their consistent care and

support have been a true driving factor for me to succeed in preparing for my future as well as

earning the degree.

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Scott S. Washburn who has served as my

academic advisor for my Ph.D. study. He supported me financially and his exceptional

knowledge and wisdom has provoked academic curiosity that encouraged me to enhance my

research ability onto a higher level.

I also would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisory committee members for their time and

effort to provide me with invaluable advice for my research. Dr. Lily Elefteriadou has guided

me into the right direction academically and also provided many graduate students with

convenient study environment as the director of Transportation Research Center. Dr. Yafeng

Yin lent me his acute insight on mathematical expressions and recommended better ways to

organize the dissertation. Dr. Siva Srinivasan helped me to improve statistical data analysis and

modeling part of my work. Dr. Joseph Geunes in the Industrial Engineering department served

as an external committee member. His consistent concerns and advice about my work has

become a motivation to improve overall performance of my study.










My friends in Korea or Gainesville have always cheered me up for my successful career at

the University of Florida. I will never forget the time and memory I have shared with them.

I certainly appreciate the assistance of University of Florida faculties and staffs. They

have always tried to answer my academic or administrative questions in spite of their tight time

schedules.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ............ ...... .__ ...............10...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............13....


LIST OF TERMS ............_ ..... ..__ ...............14...


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 17...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............20.......... ......


1.1 Background ........._..... ...._... ...............20....
1.2 Problem Statement ........._..... ...._... ...............21....
1.3 Study Obj ectives and Tasks ........._..... ...._... ...............23..
1.4 Organization of the Dissertation ........._..... ...._... ...............25...

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........._.._.. ...._... ...............26....


2.1 Truck Level of Service .............. ...............26....
2.2 User-Perceived Level of Service ............... ...............30....
2.3 Trucking Community Focus Groups and Surveys............... ..... .............3
2.4 Florida Trucking Community Focus Group Participant Recruitment Sources ........._.....52
2.5 Trucking Community Survey Methods .............. ...............54....

3 RESEARCH APPROACH .........._.... ...............59._.._. ......


3.1 Focus Group Sessions ........._...... ...............61._.__. ....
3.1.1 Participant Recruitment ................. ...............62........... ..
3.1.2 Participant Selection ................. ...............63...............
3.1.3 Focus Group Questionnaires .............. ...............66....
3.1.4 Conducting Interviews. ................ ................ .................. ....__..68
3.1.5 Summary of Discussions .......................... .................. ................69
3.2 Survey Studies .............. ...............70....
3.2. 1 Question Types ............... ... ...............71.......... ...
3.2.1.1 Interval-rating questions............... ...............7
3.2. 1.2 Ratio-scale questions ................. ...............72...............
3.2.1.3 Forced-ranking questions .............. ...............73....
3.2. 1.4 Discrete-choice questions ................. ...............74...............
3.2.1.5 Fixed-sum questions............... ...............7
3.2.2 Survey Development .............. ...............76....
3.2.3 Data Collection............... ...............8











3.2.4 Data Reduction ................ ...............88................
3.2.5 Data Analysis................. ...............8
3.2.5.1 Descriptive statistics............... ...............8
3.2.5.2 Exploratory factor analysis............... ...............90
3.2.5.3 Multiple comparison test ................. ...............97..............
3.2.5.4 Non-parametric test ................. ...............99........... ...
3.2.5.5 Chi-squared test............... ...............101.
3.3 Truck LOS Measurement .............. ...............103....
3.3.1 Truck LOS Service Measures............... ... .............10
3.3.1.1 Single performance measure approach .............. ..... ............... 10
3.3.1.2 Multiple variable approach............... ...............10
3.3.2 Truck LOS Estimation Model .............. ...............105....
3.3.2.1 Data collection............... ..............10
3.3.2.2 Statistical modeling ................ ......... ....___ ...........10

4 FOCUS GROUP STUDY RESULTS ........._._. ......... ...............115.


4. 1 Perceptions of Truck Drivers ........._..... ........._.__ ...............115..
4. 1.1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection ................. ............................116
4. 1.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality............... .................118
4. 1.2. 1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways............_. .. ........._._ ...118
4. 1.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials .............. .... ........._..122
4. 1.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways......................... 126
4. 1.2.4 Factors affecting truck trip quality on hub facilities .............. ................. 128
4. 1.3 Improvement Priority of Transportation Services ................. .......................128
4. 1.4 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability ................. ...............129........... ..
4.2 Perceptions of Truck Company Managers .............. .....................130
4.2. 1 Truck Route and Departure Time Selection ................. ............................131
4.2.2 Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality............... ...............133
4.2.2.1 Factors affecting truck trip quality on freeways............... .................3
4.2.2.2 Factors affecting truck trip quality on urban arterials .............. .... ........._..136
4.2.2.3 Factors affecting truck trip quality on two-lane highways.........................140
4.2.2.4 Factors affecting truck trip quality on hub facilities ................. ...............141
4.2.3 Truck Delivery Schedule Reliability .............. ... .. .......... ....... ....... ........14
4.3 Perceptional Difference between Truck Drivers and Truck Company Managers..........1 43

5 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS .............. ...............145....


5.1 Backgrounds of the Participants ................ ...............145....._... ..
5.1.1 Truck Driver Participants ................. .......... ...............145...
5.1.2 Truck Company Manager Participants ................. ........... ............... ....14
5.2 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Freeways .................. .........147
5.2. 1 Relative Importance of Each Factor ............... ............ ..............__ ....14
5.2.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance Measure to Estimate Truck
Trip Q uality............... ..... .. .... .... ... ......... 5
5.3 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Urban Arterials. ........._.......155
5.3.1 Relative Importance of Each Factor ........._._.._......_.. ...............155.











5.3.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance Measure to Estimate Truck
Trip Q uality............... ..... .. .... .. ..... ......... 5
5.4 Perceptions on the Relative Importance of Each Factor on Two-Lane Highways......... 162
5.4. 1 Relative Importance of Each Factor ................. .... ... ... ...... ... .............. .... 16
5.4.2 Applicability of Single Hypothetical Performance Measure to Estimate Truck
T rip Q uality................ .. ....... .. ......... .. .. ......... 6
5.5 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors to Quality of a Truck Trip ...............168
5.5.1 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors for Freeways ................... ......169
5.5.2 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors for Urban Arterials ................169
5.5.3 Relative Importance of Each Category of Factors for Two-lane Highways ........170
5.6 Comparisons of the Importance of Each Factor Category on Various Roadway
Facilities ........... __...... .. ..... ... .._ ... .. ...........17
5.7 Perceptions on the Improvement Priority of Various Roadway Types ........................171
5.8 Relationships between Truck Drivers' Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on the
Applicability of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure .............. .. .................172
5.8.1 Truck Drivers' Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the
Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Freeways ............173
5.8.2 Truck Drivers' Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the
Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Urban Arterials...175
5.8.3 Truck Drivers' Backgrounds that Explain Their Perceptions on the
Importance of Each Hypothetical LOS Performance Measure on Two-Lane
H ighw ays ................ .... .. .. .. ................17
5.9 Perceptions on Truck Driving Environment by Time of Day ................. ........._......180
5.9. 1 Current and Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day ................. .... ....._._.........181
5.9.2 Relationships between Truck Drivers' Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on
Preferred Truck Driving Time of Day ................. ........ ....._. ...........8
5.10 Other Transportation Service Issues for Truck Drivers ........__. ........ _.._.............186
5.10.1 Freeway Truck Operations .............. ...............186....
5. 10.2 Urb an Arteri al Truck Operati ons ....._.__._ ........___ ...............187
5.10.3 Two-Lane Highway Truck Operations............... ..............18

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ...............239....

6.1 Conclusions.................... .................23
6. 1.1 Quality of a Truck Trip on Freeways .............. ...............240....
6. 1.2 Quality of a Truck Trip on Arterials............... ...............24
6. 1.3 Quality of a Truck Trip on Two-Lane Highways............... .. ................ 24
6. 1.4 Improvement Priority of Various Transportation Facilities for Trucks ...............244
6. 1.5 Improvement Priority of the Factors on Each Transportation Facility for
Trucks .............. ... .. ......... .. .............24
6. 1.6 Preference on Truck Driving Time of Day ................. .. ........... ..... ............. ..245
6. 1.7 Relationships between Truck Drivers' Backgrounds and Their Perceptions on
Truck Trip Quality ................. ... .. ....... .. ..........4
6. 1.8 Overall Effectiveness of Research Approach ....._.__._ .........__ ................ 247
6.2 Recommendations............... ............. ..........4
6.2.1 Truck LOS Estimation Model Development............... ..............24
6.2.1.1 Truck LOS on freeways .............. ...............248....











6.2. 1.2 Truck LOS on arterials ........._._. ...._._ ...............251.
6.2.1.3 Truck LOS on two-lane highways ................ ......... ... .........5
6.2.2 Transportation Service Improvement for the Trucking Community ........._._.......252
6.2.3 Trucking Community Surveys .............. ...............253....

APPENDIX


A COOPERATION REQUEST LETTER SENT TO FTA .............. ..... ............... 25

B FOCUS GROUP INSTRUCTION .............. ...............259....

C GUIDELINES FOR FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT SELECTION SENT TO FTA......261

D FOCUS GROUP MODERATOR' S GUIDE ...._. ......_._._ .......__. ...........6

E FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS' BACKGROUND SURVEY RESULTS .........._.......268

F TRUCK DRIVER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY FORM.............._._........272

G TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND SURVEY
FORM ........._._ ...... .. ...............275...

H TRUCK DRIVER SURVEY FORM............... ...............278.

I TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER SURVEY FORM .............. ...............285....

J IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY SCORE ...._. ......_._._ ......._. .............9

K PO STAGE-PAID TRUCK DRIVER SURVEY FORM ........._.._.. .....___ ..............294

L PO STAGE-PAID TRUCK COMPANY MANAGER SURVEY FORM................_..__........298

M POSTAGE-PAID MANAGER SURVEY COVER LETTER ....._____ ....... ......_........3 02

N SURVEY DATA FILTERING CRITERIA ................ ...............304........... ...

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............307................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............3.. 11.............










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Comparison of Survey Methods .............. ...............58....

3-1 Survey Development............... ..............10

3-2 Postage-Paid Truck Driver Survey Response Rates ................. .......... ................1 09

3-3 Survey Participation of the Selected Carriers by Each Conference and Chapter ............ 110

3-4 Survey Collection by Each Conference and Chapter ................. ......... ................11 1

3-5 FTDC Truck Driver Survey Data Usability ................. ...............111........... ..

3-6 Postage-Paid Truck Driver Survey Data Usability ................. .............................111

3-7 Overall Truck Driver Survey Data Usability ................. ...............112........... ..

3-8 Overall Truck Company Manager Survey Data Usability ................. ............ .........112

3-9 Current HCM Service Measures used for LOS Determination .........._.... ........._......114

5-1 Truck Driver Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics ............... .... ........._..188

5-2 Additional Truck Driver Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics ..............189

5-3 Truck Company Manager Survey Respondent Background Summary Statistics ...........190

5-4 Additional Truck Company Manager Survey Respondent Background Summary
Statistics ................ ...............191................

5-5 Truck Drivers' Perceptions on Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on
Freew ay s .............. ...............192....

5-6 Managers' Perceptions on Relative Importance of Each Factor on Freeways ................193

5-7 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results .............. ...............194....

5-8 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways ................195

5-9 Truck Drivers' Perceptions on Applicability of Single Performance Measure to
Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Freeways ....._____ ..... ....__ ..........196

5-10 Truck Company Managers' Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck
Driving Condition on Freeways for trucking business .............. ...............196....

5-11 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results ...._.._.._ .... .._._. ...._.._ ...........9











5-12 Truck Drivers' Perceptions of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on
Urban Arterial s............... ...............19

5-13 Managers' Perceptions on Relative Importance of Each Factor on Urban Arterials.......199

5-14 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results .............. ...............200....

5-15 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials ......201

5-16 Truck Drivers' Perceptions of Applicability of Single Performance Measure to
Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Urban Arterials .............. ...................202

5-17 Truck Company Managers' Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck
Driving Condition on Urban Arterials for trucking business .............. ....................20

5-18 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results ...._.._.._ .... .._._. ...._.._ ...........0

5-19 Truck Drivers' Perceptions of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on
Two-Lane Highways............... ...............20

5-20 Managers' Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Factor on Two-Lane
Highways .............. ...............205....

5-21 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results .............. ...............206....

5-22 Importance of Each Factor on Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane
Highways .............. ...............207....

5-23 Truck Drivers' Perceptions of Applicability of Single Performance Measure to
Determine Truck Travel Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways ............................208

5-24 Truck Company Managers' Perceptions of Relative Importance of Each Truck
Driving Condition on Two-Lane Highways for trucking business............... ................20

5-25 Games-Howell Post Hoc Test Results ...._.._.._ .... .._._. ...._.._ ...........0

5-26 Definitions of Independent Variables used in Statistical Tests ........._.._... ........_.._... ...217

5-27 Definitions of Independent Variables used in Statistical Tests ........._.._... ........_.._... ...218

5-28 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........21 9

5-29 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........220

5-30 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........22 1

5-3 1 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........222

5-32 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........223










5-33 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........224

5-34 Mann-Whitney Test Statistics............... ..............22

5-35 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........226

5-36 Kruskal-Walli s and Mann-Whitney Test Stati stics ................. ................. ..........227

5-37 Mann-Whitney Test Statistics............... ..............22

5-38 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 1 .............. ...............232....

5-39 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 2 ................ ...............233........... ..

5-40 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 3 .............. ...............233....

5-41 Chi-Squared Test Statistics 4 ................ ...............234........... ..

5-42 Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Freeways............... ...............23

5-43 Other Drivers' Behavior Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Freeways .............................236

5-44 Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Urban Arterials............... ................3

5-45 Other Factors Affecting Truck Trip Quality on Two-Lane Highways ................... .........238

6-1 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Freeways ................. ......................254

6-2 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Arterials .............. ....................25

6-3 Truck Trip Quality of Service Determinants on Two-Lane Highways ...........................255

6-4 Top Six Factors in the Need for the Improvement on Each Roadway Type for Trucks .256

E-1 1st Truck Driver Focus Group Participants' Background Survey Results .......................268

E-2 1st Truck Company Manager Focus Group Participants' Background Survey Results...269

E-3 2nd Truck Driver Focus Group Participants' Background Survey Results ......................270

J-1 Improvement Priority Scores ................. ...............292...___ ....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Research Approach ................ ...............108................

3-2 Truck Driving Competition Course ................. ......... ...............109 ....

3-3 Survey Table Setup at Truck Driving Competition ................ ............................110

3-4 Example of a Path Diagram for an EFA Model by Principle Component Extraction
M ethod ........... ..... .._ ...............113..

3-5 Normal Q-Q Plot of the Importance of 'Ease of Obtaining Useful Traveler
Information' on Freeways ........... ..... .._ ...............113..

5-1 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category for Freeways.............__ ..........___.....210

5-2 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category for Urban Arterials .............. .... ........._...21 1

5-3 Relative Importance of Each Factor Category for Two-lane Highways. ................... ......212

5-4 Relative Importance of Roadway Conditions on Different Roadway Types ................ ..213

5-5 Relative Importance of Traffic Conditions on Different Roadway Types ......................214

5-6 Relative Importance of Other Drivers' Behavior on Different Roadway Types .............215

5-7 Improvement Priority of Various Roadway Facilities for Truck Trip Quality ........._.....216

5-8 Truck Drivers' Current and Preferred Truck Driving Times of Day ............... .... ...........229

5-9 Truck Driving Time of Day Preference of Current Users ................. ............ .........230

5-10 Truck Company Managers' Preference on Truck Driving Times of Day ................... ....23 1









LIST OF TERMS

American Association of State Highway Officials (now AASHTO)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Analysis of Variance

American Trucking Association

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Computer-Aided Telephone Interview

Central Business District

Citizen Band Radio

Commercial Driver' sLicense

Center for Economic Development and Research

Changeable Message Sign

Commercial Motor Vehicle

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

Florida Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Florida Intrastate Highway System

America' s traveler information phone number

Florida Trucking Association

Florida Truck Driving Championship

Global Positioning System

Highway Advisory Radio

Highway Capacity Manual


AASHO

AASHTO

ANOVA

ATA

BTS

CATI

CBD

CBR

CDL

CEDR

CMS

CMV

EFA

ES202

FDHSMV

FDOT

FHWA

FIHS

511

FTA

FTDC

GPS

HAR

HCM









HIS Highway Information System

IRI International Roughness Index

KYTC Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

LOS Level of Service

LSD Fisher' s Least Significance Difference multiple comparison test

LTL Less-than-TruckLoad

NATSO National Association of Truck Stop Operators

NHS National Highway System

NTA National Truckers Association

NYC New York City

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OTA Ontario Trucking Association

P&D Pick-up and Delivery

PCE Passenger Car Equivalent

PSI Present Serviceability Index

PSR Present Serviceability Rating

PTBF Percent-Ti me-B ei ng-F followed

PTSF Percent-Time- Spent-F following

QOS Quality of Service

Q-Q plot Quantile-Quantile plot

RCI Roadway Characteristics Inventory

RMI Relative Maneuverability Index

RV Recreational Vehicle

SIS Strategic Intermodal System

SMC Safety Management Council










Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test

Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission

Sport-Utility Vehicle

Traveler Information System

TruckLoad

Third Party Logistics

Transportation Technical Services, Inc

Text Unit

Text Unit Block

Urban Distribution Centre

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Variable Message Sign

a satellite radio service


S-N-K

SPRPC

SUV

TIS

TL

3PL

TTS

TU

TUB

UDC

UHM

VMS

XM radio









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF TRUCK LEVEL OF SERVICE

By

Byungkon Ko

May 2007

Chair: Scott S. Washburn
Major: Civil Engineering

Commercial trucks, the leading transportation mode for freight movement, are vital to our

economy and people's lives. The importance of this mode has become greater as the demand for

just-in-time delivery, lower inventory, electronic commerce, and Less-than-TruckLoad (LTL)

shipping has increased. This study was conducted under the Florida' s Strategic Intermodal

System (SIS) plan for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in an effort to better

understand the needs of the Florida trucking community by investigating their perceptions of

truck trip quality on various roadway facilities.

The current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides analytical methods to evaluate

performance levels of transportation facilities and estimate Level Of Service (LOS) perceived by

the users. The HCM methodologies yield a single LOS value for all the users in a traffic stream.

However, due to the unique size and operating characteristics of trucks, it is possible that truck

mode users perceive LOS on various roadway facilities based on different criteria from those of

the other mode users. This study focused on identifying the determinants of LOS perceived by

truck mode users and measuring their relative importance based on which truck LOS estimation

methodologies should be developed.









Three focus group sessions (two with truck drivers and the other one with truck company

managers) were held to elicit the factors affecting truck LOS on various transportation facilities

and the relative importance of those factors were evaluated through a follow-on survey study

with a larger audience. A total of 459 truck drivers and 38 truck company managers responded

to the written surveys collected at Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTDC) event or the

postage-paid mail-back surveys distributed at four agricultural inspection stations. The survey

responses were analyzed with various statistical methods such as descriptive statistics,

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), multiple comparisons of the means, non-parametric tests,

and chi-squared tests of independence.

The quality of a truck trip generally was found to depend on three issues: travel safety;

travel time; and physical and psychological driving comfort. Truck drivers showed more

concerns about the driving comfort, while truck company managers were more concerned with

travel time. The travel safety aspect of a truck trip was a major concern for both groups. 'Speed

Variance' and 'Pavement Quality' were the two most important determinants of truck trip quality

on freeways. Truck trip quality on arterials was a function of multiple factors including

'Pavement Quality', 'Turning Maneuvers', 'Speed Variance', and 'Traffic Density'. 'Percent-

Time-Being-Followed' (PTBF), 'Percent-Time-Spent-Following' (PTSF), 'Travel Lane and

Shoulder Widths and their Pavement Quality' were identified as truck LOS determinants on two-

lane highways. Among many factors contributing to the quality of a truck trip, 'Passenger Car

Drivers' Road Etiquette and Knowledge about Truck Driving Characteristics', 'Traffic

Congestion', and 'Frequency and Timing of Construction Activities' were perceived to be in

significant need of improvement regardless of the type of roadway facility. Truck travel

restrictions (e.g., truck lane restrictions) on freeways, inadequate curb radii and poor traffic










signal coordination on arterials, and inappropriate shoulder width and condition and poor night-

time lighting condition on two-lane highways were also considered to be greatly in need of

improvement.

The results of this study provide the FDOT with guidelines and recommendations to

develop truck LOS estimation methodologies to effectively assess how well it is addressing the

needs of freight transportation on the state roadway system and offer transportation service

providers and other stakeholders valuable insights for the prioritization of transportation

improvement proj ects for commercial truck traffic.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Transportation services for freight are vital to our economy and people's daily lives.

Various kinds of freight are relocated daily in and out of Florida through several transportation

modes such as truck, train, ship, and plane. Among all the modes, trucks moved 76.3 percent of

freight value, 79.4 percent of tonnage, and 66.9 percent of ton-miles of the total freight

originating in Florida in 2002, according to the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) (Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, 2004). This makes the truck mode the leading mode for freight

movement in the U.S. Truck traffic is also expected to grow significantly throughout the State of

Florida over the next couple of decades, along with increasing population, as noted in the Freight

Analysis Framework (FAF) (U. S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway

Administration, 2002). In addition, the increased demands for just-in-time delivery, low

inventory, electronic commerce (e-commerce), Less-than-TruckLoad (LTL) shipping, and more

distributed manufacturing, make it necessary for transportation service providers and other

stakeholders to look for ways to better accommodate truck traffic on existing roadway systems.

Florida's Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) plan was established by the Florida

Department of Transportation (FDOT) in 2003 to support transportation facilities that are

necessary for Florida' s rapidly growing and ever changing economy (FDOT, 2003). The main

goal of the SIS program is to provide safe, efficient, and convenient transportation services for

all types of transportation users on the most critical transportation facilities in Florida. The SIS

facilities were selected based on national or industry standards for measures of transportation and

economic activity. The SIS includes three different types of facilities; hubs, corridors, and

intermodal connectors. Hubs are ports and terminals, corridors are highways, rail lines, or









waterways that connect maj or markets, and connectors are highways, rail lines, or waterways

that connect hubs and corridors. As one of its first research proj ects under the SIS program, this

study has been conducted for FDOT to better understand the needs of the Florida trucking

community by investigating its perceptions and opinions about transportation services for trucks

on various state roadway facilities.

1.2 Problem Statement

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) provides

analytical methods to estimate capacity and key performance measures for a wide variety of

roadway facilities. The HCM also provides methods for translating performance measure values

into a Level Of Service (LOS) value. Level Of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to

describe general operating conditions within a traffic stream. The HCM uses a scale of 'A' to

'F' for LOS, with 'A' corresponding to excellent operating conditions and 'F' corresponding to

extremely poor operating conditions. These LOS values are typically based on performance

measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort

and convenience, and are intended to reflect drivers' perception of those conditions. The

selected performance measures, upon which LOS is based, referred to in the HCM as service

measures, can vary from one roadway facility to another. The methods of the HCM have been

widely adopted by the transportation community as the primary means of measuring system

performance. They are often used as valuable tools for most transportation agencies to monitor

or improve the performance levels of existing transportation facilities, or plan for future

transportation facilities.

The current HCM utilizes engineering-based measures such as density, delay, and average

travel speed in evaluating the performance level of transportation facilities. These measures are

conceptually reasonable and easy to apply, but are not necessarily consistent with the measures









that the actual roadway users base their perception of the facility performance level on.

Furthermore, for the roadway facilities in the HCM (such as arterial, highways, and freeways),

the HCM methods result in a single LOS value for the entire traffic stream; that is, they do not

distinguish between different modes within the same traffic stream. The methods are generally

designed to establish LOS for the passenger vehicle mode. However, commercial trucks

(hereafter referred to as just 'trucks') are unique in their size and operating characteristics among

various vehicle types in traffic streams. Trucks require more space and time to maneuver due to

their difference in size, weight, off-tracking, acceleration, and braking. So they are often used as

design vehicles for roadway facilities, and sometimes subj ect to various restrictions such as lane,

route, speed, or time-of-day. In addition, most truck drivers operate their trucks primarily for

business purposes and spend a significant amount of time driving, while the trip purposes of

other vehicle users vary and they usually drive less frequently.

Due to these special characteristics of truck operations on transportation facilities, it is

possible that truck mode users perceive LOS on various roadway facilities based on different

criteria from those of the other mode users. However, the current HCM (Transportation

Research Board, 2000) only accounts for the mode of trucks in the traffic stream through the

heavy vehicle adjustment factor (f, ). This adjustment factor is based upon the percentage of

heavy vehicles (e.g., trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles) in the traffic stream and their

passenger car equivalents (PCEs). A PCE is the number of passenger cars expected to have

same effect on a traffic stream as a single heavy vehicle under specific roadway and traffic

conditions. The PCE is used to convert a traffic stream flow rate with some portion of heavy

vehicles into an equivalent one with passenger cars only. So, although the current HCM

procedures account for the effects of trucks in the traffic stream, the overall methodology does










not provide any exclusive LOS evaluation criteria or procedures to estimate how well a

transportation facility accommodates truck traffic in a traffic stream.

1.3 Study Objectives and Tasks

The primary obj ective of this study was to determine the roadway, traffic, and/or control

factors important for Florida' s trucking community and estimate the relative significance of each

factor on overall quality of truck operation on the SIS facilities. Based on information obtained

about the perceptions of truck mode users, this study provides the FDOT with guidelines and

recommendations to develop actual LOS estimation methodologies to effectively assess how

well it is addressing the needs of freight transportation on the state roadway system. These

efforts provide transportation service providers, researchers, and transportation agencies with

valuable insights as to what should be prioritized to improve truck operations on various

transportation facilities.

To achieve this obj ective, it was essential to obtain input from both truck drivers and truck

company managers, as these two groups represent the maj or stakeholders with regard to truck

operations. For this study, data collection was confined to focus group and written survey

methods. The maj or tasks performed to complete this study are described below and presented

in their chronological order:

Task 1: Literature review. A literature review was performed to facilitate and enhance

this study with regard to the following five areas: 1) trck LOS studies; 2) user-perception based

LOS studies; 3) trucking community focus group and/or survey studies, 4) Florida trucking

community focus group participant recruitment sources, and 5) trucking community survey

methods.

Task 2: Preparation for focus group sessions. In advance of the focus group meetings,

the methodology for conducting the focus group studies was determined. This includes









clarification of the purpose and scope of the interviews, participant selection guidelines,

participant recruitment plans, moderator selection, development of participant background

surveys, moderator's guide regarding focus group questionnaires and instructions, focus group

discussion recording, and methods of analysis.

Task 3: Focus group sessions of truck drivers and/or truck company managers.

Several focus group meetings were held with selected participants to explore the perceptions and

opinions of the trucking community on the factors important to truck operations on various

transportation facilities.

Task 4: Summary of focus group findings. The focus group discussions were

summarized to identify the factors affecting quality of a truck trip on each facility and by

different user groups (truck drivers and truck company managers). The summary results were

then used as inputs to a follow-on survey.

Task 5: Survey development. Survey studies were intended to reconfirm the focus group

Endings with a broader audience and to measure the relative importance of each factor

quantitatively. Two different survey forms were prepared; one for truck drivers and the other for

truck company managers. Both forms contain questions about participants' personal and

working backgrounds and their perceptions about the relative importance of each factor

identified in the previous focus group studies.

Task 6: Survey data collection. Truck driver surveys and truck company manager

surveys were distributed at multiple locations with the assistance of the FDOT and the Florida

Trucking Association (FTA).

Task 7: Analysis of survey data. Collected surveys were analyzed statistically to

determine the relative importance of each factor on truck trip quality and/or overall trucking










business. Relationships between the participants' backgrounds and their perceptions were also

explored.

Task 8: Study results and recommendations. The factors influencing truck trip quality

and their relative importance were determined based on the focus group and survey results.

Potential performance measures to estimate truck LOS were recommended by each

transportation facility type.

1.4 Organization of the Dissertation

The remainder of this dissertation is as follows. Chapter 2 provides a summary of relevant

literature. Chapter 3 describes the study methods and detailed steps taken to complete this study.

The study results are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 discusses focus group study

findings and Chapter 5 discusses the results of statistical analyses on the survey data. In chapter

6, conclusions are presented and recommendations are made with regard to roadway facility

improvement priorities for truck LOS considerations. Potential truck LOS service measures are

also presented.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter describes previous research efforts by other researchers related to this study,

conceptually or methodologically. It provides descriptions of the research methodologies and

results of those studies, and a summary of the findings. First, the studies regarding truck LOS

development are presented. They contain some implications on potential truck LOS service

measures. Other research efforts to identify and test potential LOS service measures on a

specific roadway facility are described in the next section of this chapter. They provide some

insights about how to elicit the perception of travelers and convert the information to develop

user-perceived LOS. The final section reviews previous focus group and/or survey studies of the

trucking community. Potential sources of focus group recruitment and characteristics of various

survey methods were separately summarized to help develop the methodologies suitable for the

purpose and scope of this study.

2.1 Truck Level of Service

A study by Washburn (2002) explored and demonstrated the development of a potential

method to assess level of service specific to the truck mode. The current LOS performance

measure for a freeway segment (density) applies to the traffic stream as a whole, regardless of

vehicle types, although they typically have very different physical and operating characteristics

from passenger cars in the traffic stream. To assess the level of service of heavy trucks on a

freeway segment, a 'relative density' concept was proposed. Relative density for trucks could be

obtained by dividing density for the traffic stream by a Relative Maneuverability Index (RMI),

which is a function of the ratio of percentage of free-flow speed of trucks to percentage of free-

flow speed of passenger cars. Under low density, ideal conditions, percentage of free-flow speed

for both trucks and cars should be at or near 100%, yielding the same LOS for both modes (e.g.,










'A'). Likewise, under high density, the percentage of free-flow speed for both trucks and cars

would both be very low, producing the same LOS for both modes (e.g., 'F'). At densities in

between, the percentage of free-flow speed for trucks will probably be less that that for cars,

resulting in higher relative density values for trucks, which can be referenced to the current HCM

density thresholds for determining LOS. Other possible measures for determining LOS for

trucks have also been introduced in the document; acceleration noise, passing opportunities,

percent-time spent-following, and heavy vehicle factor.

A study by Hostovsky and Hall (2004) focused on the perceptions of tractor-trailer drivers

on the factors affecting quality of service on freeways. A focus group meeting was conducted

for this study with 7 Road Knight Team members at the annual convention of the Ontario

Trucking Association (OTA) in November, 2001. The participants were asked what makes for a

good or bad trip for themselves to drive trucks on a freeway. The discussion was then

transcribed to be analyzed through NUD.IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing

Searching and Theorizing), an industry standard qualitative data analysis software program using

five criteria (intensity, relevance, frequency, universality, and emphasis). The OTA, Canadian

Trucking Association (CTA), and American Trucking Association (ATA) showed an agreement

with the study's conclusions. The study results were organized in this paper by the number of

Text Unit Blocks (TUB), which represent the number of times a certain theme was discussed by

the participants. With respect to freeway conditions (TUB = 34), the factors identified were road

surface (pavement condition, snow removal, road debris), lane restrictions, signage, and lane

width and markings.

As far as traffic conditions (TUB = 22) are concerned, congestion, steady flow, and

maneuverability were discussed. Attitudes toward other vehicles (TUB = 27) were another big









issue mentioned in the meeting. Courteous interplay by automobile drivers was found to be

important for them to have a good trip. In terms of safety (TUB = 3), road etiquette, weather,

and rubbernecking were considered to influence their trip quality. The participants also

mentioned the hazard of aggressive driving and road rage (TUB = 23) and regionally different

perceptions of trip quality (TUB = 23) with respect to such various factors as level of congestion,

courteous interplay by other drivers, driving skills of other drivers around them in snow

condition, and low speed limits. With all the findings mentioned above, the authors indicated

that what really matters to truck drivers in terms of traffic condition is traffic flow, not traffic

density, which is a service measure used in the current HCM. In this respect, steadiness of traffic

flow and an ability to drive at a comfortable operating range of highway speeds without much

braking or accelerating were considered to be important for truck drivers' perception of the

quality of service.

A study by Hall, et al. (2004) developed a method to evaluate the access routes for large

trucks between intermodal or other truck-traffic-generating sites and the National Highway

System (NHS) and used it to prioritize and program the truck access routes for improvement.

The study began with identifying clusters of truck-traffic generating facilities based on total

trucks per day, distance to NHS, and recommendations on the sites with truck access problems

by transportation planners from highway district and area development district offices. Then

telephone surveys were conducted with the operators/managers of the selected sites to identify

problem routes to be evaluated in this study. Each route was evaluated with respect to three

types of features: subjective, point, and continuous. Using the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

(KYTC) statewide Highway Information System (HIS) database and some field observations, the

following characteristics of each route were collected: 1) point features: curve off-tracking,









maximum safe speed on horizontal curves, stopping sight distance, turning radii; 2) continuous

features: grade, lane width, shoulder, route LOS. The point and continuous elements on each

route were ranked as "preferred", "adequate", and "less than adequate" based on the

recommendations in AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials)' s "A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" and "Roadway Design

Guide." The features subjectively evaluated by the researchers include clear zone, pavement

condition, accident history, parking, pedestrian traffic, land use conflicts, dust/noise issues, and

so on. The rankings of point and continuous elements were converted to a relative urgency

rating by assigning a relative weight with respect to truck volume and section length. Problem

truck-points and problem truck-miles were calculated based on these rankings to prioritize the

problem routes. They were adjusted by predominant subj ective features, where appropriate.

Finally, with all the evaluation data of each problem route, the researchers inspected the routes

and graded them on a subj ective scale of 1 to 10 (10 represents good access for trucks).

All the three studies presented in this section focused on developing methods to evaluate

operating conditions on a specific roadway type for truck traffic. Washburn (2002) devised the

RMI concept to evaluate truck LOS on freeways, based on a hypothetical reasoning that

maneuverability of trucks is inferior to that of passenger cars because of unique physical and

operating characteristics of trucks. A study by Hostovsky and Hall (2004) found that traffic flow

is more important than traffic density to truck drivers' perception of trip quality on freeways.

The two above mentioned studies imply that traffic density, the current HCM service measure

for freeway facility, may not reflect the perception of truck drivers adequately. Steady traffic

flow and maneuverability may be more important to truck drivers than traffic density,

considering the large size, heavy weight, low acceleration and deceleration capability of trucks.










Hall, et al. (2004) developed a methodology for evaluating large truck access routes between

NHS and truck-traffic generating facilities to prioritize and program the routes for improvement.

Overall quality of each route for truckk access was determined by many various factors. They

included geometric adequacy measures, pavement condition, clear zone, accident history, traffic

LOS, and other subj ective measures such as parking, pedestrian traffic, land use conflicts,

dust/noise issues, etc. As this study investigated so many different characteristics of each route,

it may not be appropriate to identify one or two performance measures to effectively estimate

quality of an access route for trucks.

2.2 User-Perceived Level of Service

A study by Hall, et al. (2001) conducted two focus groups (one with Hyve members, and the

other with seven members) to explore what freeway users perceive as important to level of

service on freeways. Focus group participants were chosen by a snowball sample selection

process to identify commuters going from the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada to McMaster

University (the research center) in Hamilton, Ontario Canada. The participants were all

university faculty members in various departments, and were selected to ensure that all the

participants traveled the same stretch of freeway so that all knew about the situations that were

being discussed and all had had relatively similar experiences. Both groups were moderated by

the same member of the research team to ensure consistency in technique across groups. The

following general questions were asked in the discussions;

* Tell me about the usual freeway route you take when you are commuting.

* Have your perceptions of the drive changed over time?

* I want you to talk about both the ideal or best trip you've ever made and also the worst trip
ever.









The factors important to perceptions of trip quality were listed with respect to the number

of Text Units (TUs) in which each theme was mentioned in the two discussions, as follows;

* Travel time (TUs = 103 (6%))
* Density/maneuverability (TUs = 86 (5%))
* Road safety (TUs = 81 (5%))
* Commuter information and communication (TUs = 65 (4%))
* Civility (TUs = 38 (2%))
* Photo radar (TUs = 31 (2%))
* Weather (TUs = 23 (1%))

The participants indicated travel time as the first thing to describe the quality of particular

trips. Having time constraints on their arrival from a trip was thought to greatly increase the

stress involved in the trip. Time spent commuting was also considered to be lost time.

Maneuverability also came up in the discussions in light of travel time, accident avoidance,

adequate gaps between cars, weaving in and out of traffic, and changing lanes. Another

important issue for participants was safety. They were concerned about accidents not only in

terms of congestion but also because of the risk to their personal safety. Materials from trucks

and other debris on the road were concerns for many participants, and the effects of sport-utility

vehicles (SUVs) and minivans on other drivers' visibility were also mentioned in the safety

perspectives. Having adequate information about what was happening to traffic while they were

on the road was also important to the participants. This issue was discussed along with the

possibility for them to avoid traffic congestion by finding alternative routes. Some other factors

were mentioned occasionally in the focus groups as well; driver civility, the use of photo radar,

and weather and its effect on driving conditions. Passengers' perceptions also were different

from drivers' with respect to travel time, mainly due to their ability to undertake activities other

than driving. The participants indicated that travelers on the bus would have different

perspectives; they usually do not notice the traffic conditions when they are in the bus. The









authors also indicated that the participants do not think of freeways in terms of distinct segments

classified by the HCM (basic segments, ramp-freeway junctions, and weaving segments),

proposing further studies about LOS breakpoints.

The factors that affect traveler-perceived quality of service on rural freeways were

explored using in-field surveys of motorists traveling on rural freeways (Washburn, et al., 2004).

A total of 233 responses from a good mix of respondents were collected at several different

locations along I-75 and the Turnpike in Florida. The researchers decided to perform an 'in-

field' survey data collection effort, as opposed to a mail-back survey or something similar, as

this provided the advantage of obtaining input while the specific characteristics of the traveler' s

trip were still fresh in their mind. The surveys at the rest stops, which offered respondents a $2

food discount voucher, also showed a good overall productivity (about six respondents per hour).

The importance of 16 traffic and roadway factors was ranked by respondents on a seven-

point ordinal scale (1 being not at all important, and 7 being extremely important). The six top

ranked factors based on mean scores and/or percent time in top three are as follows:

* Ability to consistently maintain your desired travel speed (mean = 6.09, % time in top
three = 64.3%)

* Ability to change lanes and pass other vehicles easily (mean = 5.79, % time in top three =
33.3%)

* Smooth and quiet road surface condition (mean = 5.68, % time in top three = 20.3%)

* Ability to travel at a speed no less than the posted speed limit (mean = 5.58, % time in top
three = 33.0%)

* Other drivers' etiquette/courtesy (mean = 5.38, % time in top three = 22.1%)

* Infrequent construction zones (mean = 5.37, % time in top three = 23.4%)

A probit modeling technique was used to discover any possible relationships between

personal characteristics and current trip information of the respondents, and their opinions about









the top four ranked factors (from 1 to 4 above). For the first factor, the more highly educated an

individual, the more likely they were to rank this factor highly. The respondents that were

driving a tractor-trailer, or with higher estimated average speeds, were also more likely to rank

this factor highly. For the second factor, the respondents that had higher education or with

higher estimated average speeds, were more likely to rank this factor highly. Travelers that

indicated they were experiencing mostly very dense or dense traffic flow conditions on their trip

were less likely to rank this factor highly. For the third factor, travelers with higher income were

more likely to rank this factor highly. Travelers who indicated their trip purpose was 'other',

that is, neither business nor leisure, were less likely to rank this factor highly. Travelers that

were on a business trip and very familiar with the route they were traveling were also less likely

to rank this factor highly. For the fourth factor, older people were more likely to rank this factor

highly. On the other hand, the respondents that were strictly drivers on the trip or driving a large

auto (pickup truck, SUV, minivan, or full-size van) were less likely to rank this factor highly.

The authors indicated that in addition to density, there are some factors that are just as

important to travelers, such as speed variance and percent of free-flow speed. Some non-traffic

performance measures were also found to be important through the study, such as pavement

quality, and driver etiquette.

A web-based survey was conducted at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) in 2005

to see how road users evaluate signalized intersection LOS (Zhang and Prevedouros, 2005). E-

mail messages with group-specific survey hyperlinks were sent to selected samples asking them

to fill out the motorist survey on-line. Six groups comprise the sample; random UHM students,

faculty, and staff, Hawaii engineering and transportation professionals, drivers from other groups

in Hawaii, and drivers from the mainland U.S. The response rate was 12.2%, 16.0%, 18.9% for









UJHM students, faculty, and staff respectively, yielding 2,017 usable surveys. The survey

questions focused on factors important to drivers at signalized intersections, driver opinions on

protected left-tumn signals for various sizes of intersections, and trade-offs between perceived

safety risk and delay. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to dependent variables with

ratio- or interval-level data to assess if there were significant differences among the independent

groups. The influence of several independent variables such as gender, age, and driving

experience on the dependent variables were investigated simultaneously through ANOVA

(Analysis of Variance).

The ten factors important to drivers at signalized intersections were evaluated with a five-

point ordinal scale (1 being not important, and 5 being extremely important). The factors are

listed as follows in order of decreasing importance.

1. Traffic signal responsiveness
2 Ability to go through the intersection within one cycle of light changes
3 Availability of left tumn only lanes and protected left turn signal for vehicles turning left
4 Pavement markings for separating and guiding traffic
5 Availability of a protected left tumn signal for vehicles turning left
6 Availability of left turn only lanes for vehicles turning left
7 Pavement quality
8 Waiting time
9 Heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses that are waiting ahead
10 Availability of right-turn only lanes for vehicles turning right

The respondents were also asked to rate the difficulty in making a left turn without a

protected left tumn signal and their preference for a protected left turn signal, on a scale form 1

(not difficult or not preferred) to 5 (extremely difficult or extremely preferred). The difficulty

increases with intersection size, and female drivers perceived more difficulty than male drivers.

The preference also increases with intersection size, and female drivers prefer protected left tumn

signals more than male drivers. As high as 91% of the respondents stated that they much or









extremely prefer a protected left turn signal at an intersection where left turn vehicles have to

cross three lanes of opposing through traffic.

Safety was stated to be three to six times more important than delay, depending on the type

of conflict; drivers turning left are more concerned than drivers going through, and pedestrians

are more concerned than drivers turning left. Female drivers, non-risk-prone drivers, and

pedestrians valued safety more than delay to a significantly greater degree. Drivers and

pedestrians would be willing to wait a longer time at signalized intersections in exchange for

protected left turn signals. The average additional delay to exchange for protected left turn

signal is 20.6 sec, 25.4 sec, and 27.2 sec for drivers going through, drivers turning left, and

pedestrians respectively.

Overall findings suggest that the current measure, delay, should be supplemented by a

number of quantifiable attributes of signalized intersections for determining a LOS that

represents road user perceptions.

Some potential performance measures for LOS on rural freeways were evaluated with

microscopic traffic simulation (Kim, et al., 2003). Although density-based LOS is thought to be

well suited to the assessment of urban freeways, some have questioned whether density is also a

proper indicator of the quality of service on rural freeways because drivers may think more in

terms of psychological or emotional comfort for rural freeways, which generally serve long,

high-speed trips and rarely experience more than moderate congestion levels. Acceleration

noise, number and duration of cruise control applications, and percent time spent following

(PTSF) were examined as some possible means of determining Level of Service (LOS) of rural

freeway sections as they have at least an intuitive relationship to the concept of driver comfort.

The three measures were estimated for a hypothetical section of rural freeway. Acceleration










noise is a measure of the physical turbulence in the traffic stream. The instantaneous

acceleration of each vehicle at each second is computed from the speed differential with respect

to the previous second, and the standard deviation of acceleration for each vehicle is computed

over the 6,000 feet segment. A post-processing routine was written to analyze the simulation

results and infer the application and release of cruise control. Cruise control was applied to a

vehicle when it had been traveling at its desired speed for three or more seconds. Cruise control

was released when the vehicle began to decelerate for any reason. For PTSF, a vehicle is

considered to be following its leader if the relationship between its position and speed with

respect to the leader places it within the car-following influence zone. A nonlinear relationship

between acceleration noise and traffic volume shows that acceleration noise increases more

rapidly in the lower volume range and levels off as volume increases. It is also observed that the

nonlinear effect is most pronounced on single-lane freeways and diminishes as the number of

lanes increases. The nonlinearity for proportion of time with cruise control applied was only

discernible to any degree in the case of the single-lane freeway. The nonlinearity for number of

cruise control applications was too pronounced to be useful. The nonlinearity for PTSF was

more pronounced than that for acceleration noise, and there was no discernible difference

between two and three lane freeways. Based on the investigation of the nonlinear relationship

shapes between level of volumes and three candidate measures by number of lanes, the authors

concluded that a nonlinear relationship between acceleration noise and traffic volume on rural

freeways could be used directly as the basis for a new set of LOS criteria for rural freeways,

given further studies focusing on driver opinions, behavior, and field measurement to support

this finding. The other two measures also have conceptual appeal, but used individually would

not be suitable as the basis for determining LOS on a rural freeway.









The above described studies concerning the exploration of user-perceived level of service

performance measures identified some interesting findings. The study by Hall, et al. (2001)

found from two focus group meetings that total travel time is the most important LOS

determinant for travelers on a freeway. It was noted that passengers did not consider the travel

time as important as drivers did because they can do something else other than driving. It would

be worth investigating how freeway drivers' perceptions on importance of total travel time can

be influenced by their trip purposes. The study by Washburn, et al. (2004) found from surveys

of rural freeway travelers that "consistently maintaining desired travel speed" is more important

than "ability to change lanes and pass other vehicles easily" or "traveling at or not less than the

posted speed limit." This implied that the cruise control factor is more important than the

density factor or percent of free-flow speed factor. Other important factors included pavement

condition, other drivers' etiquette/courtesy, and infrequent construction zones. A web-based

survey study by Zhang and Prevedouros (2005) found that the current service measure of delay

for signalized intersections is less important than a number of other factors such as "traffic signal

responsiveness", "ability to go through the intersection within one cycle of light changes", etc. It

may be possible that drivers are more sensitive to stop and go conditions than actual delay

experienced at signalized intersections. Kim, et al. (2003) identified acceleration noise as a

potential service measure for rural freeways due to its desirable properties of relating to drivers'

sense of safety and comfort and its non-linear relationship with traffic volume. Many previous

studies of this type verified that some current service measures do not reflect the perception of

the users adequately.

2.3 Trucking Community Focus Groups and Surveys

With increasing importance on urban freight mobility, Morris, et al. (1998) conducted a

study on cost, time, and barriers related to moving freight into New York City's Central Business









District (CBD). The study consisted of 13 focus groups with different industry-sector senior

logistics executives and freight mobility interviews with logistics, transportation, or distribution

managers. The research team cooperated with the Center for Logistics and Transportation

Executive Committee in the development of a focus group moderator' s guide, recruitment of

focus group participants, pretest of the guide, and the guidance of the freight mobility interview.

Each focus group was scheduled at participants' convenience, allowing the use of

speakerphones, and included 2-4 participants to explore the issues in depth within a 2-hour time

frame. Participants also received the focus group guide and informational material before the

meetings so that they would have time to think about the issues in advance. At the meetings, a

flip chart listing seminal points for focus group questions and probes, and a large CBD area map

were displayed to reinforce attendees' attention to topics. Transportation barriers listed in the

order of greatest frequency of mention in all the meetings were; congestion, inadequate docking

space, curb space for commercial vehicles, security, and excessive ticketing of high-profile

companies. A freight mobility interview followed with logistics, distribution, or transportation

managers, who were recruited with the help of the previous focus group participants or from the

membership lists of Council for Logistics Management and the Center for Logistics and

Transportation. An on-site interview was planned initially, but the response was generally

negative. So phone interviews were requested to be scheduled after sending letters containing a

freight mobility interview, the study goals and purpose, and focus group findings. Follow-up

calls were made 2-4 weeks after the letters were sent. But due to the lower than expected

response rate, another attempt was made with follow-up calls made I week after sending letters,

resulting in 51 completed interviews. Data on costs, time, distance, product types, and major

barriers in the movement of freight into Manhattan's CBD by shippers and carriers were









collected. Maj or barriers to freight mobility identified through the interviews were; widespread

congestion, security, physical constraints, and institutional barriers.

In a study by Veras, et al. (2005), various types of efforts such as focus group studies, in-

depth interviews, and internet surveys were made to obtain the perceptions on challenges and the

potential of off-peak deliveries to congested areas. The targeted groups for this study included

private stake holders; shippers, receivers, third party logistics (3PLs), trucking companies, and

warehouses. Off-peak deliveries to the New York City (NYC) metropolitan region were

proposed to avoid traffic congestion and lack of parking spots hampering daytime commercial

vehicle deliveries. The strategy may reduce the price accompanied by congestion and illegal

parking, pollution, and frustration to the public, but it may pose additional costs to shippers,

receivers, and carriers mainly due to workers necessary for night shifting. It may also involve

regulatory and legal impediment. On January 20, 2004, two focus groups with truck dispatchers

were conducted in NYC as part of the Evaluation Study of the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey's Value Pricing Initiative. The focus group findings indicated that both shipper costs

and receiver costs would increase due to the need of night time workers, regardless of feasible

toll discounts, or compensation due to traveling hours. In-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders

of various types (trucking companies, shippers, receivers, lobbyists, trucking-warehouse

combination companies, and shipping-trucking-warehouse combination companies) were

performed to explore the issues further. Companies with trucking operations prefer to make

deliveries during off-peak hours due to congestion and parking problems, but they are often

discouraged to do it because of the recruitment of night-shift workers, and security of drivers,

receivers, and products. The shippers were natural on the subject of off-peak deliveries. They

do not care when their products are delivered only if the products get to the destination on time.









The two receivers operating restaurants stated that off-peak deliveries would help reduce severe

parking problems, but fresh food is typically not delivered during off-peak hours. Thirty-three

internet surveys were gathered from private stakeholders (shippers, receivers, 3PLs, trucking

companies, warehouses) in several states. Seventy-Hyve percent of warehouses and 70% of

shippers, 3PLs, and trucking companies were performing off-peak deliveries. Many others at

least have considered using this alternative. None of the shippers was currently performing off-

peak deliveries, but maj ority of them indicated that they could do them if they are provided with

some incentives. Reasons given by stakeholders for performing off-peak deliveries included

faster deliveries, faster turn-around times, and lower costs. Reasons given for not performing

off-peak deliveries included businesses not being open at those times, customers not accepting

off-peak deliveries, and employee costs. With respect to incentives to implement off-peak

deliveries, most stakeholders were interested in all of the tax incentives and subsidies. A

significant number of trucking companies and 3PLs indicated that they would be responsive to a

request from many receivers to do off-peak deliveries. The author also brought up carrier-

centered policies, receivers as key stumbling blocks, Einancial incentives, and targeted maj or

traffic generators.

Two studies focused on developing an effective methodology to survey the freight

community (i.e., shippers and carriers) in Oregon state by comparing various survey data

collection methods (Lawson and Riis, 2001 and Lawson, et al., 2002). The researchers did an

extensive literature review on the previous trucking community survey studies and experimented

with several data collection methods to Eind out the most effective method to survey shippers and

carriers. Traditional structured interviews conducted in person or by telephone have a high

response rate from purposeful sampling procedure. These surveys can focus on broad issues and









are useful in obtaining detailed information about the specific topic, but may not accurately

reflect the large population. Computer-Aided Telephone Interviews use a script of

predetermined questions with random sampling techniques. This method allows for a large

sample size, and is less costly, but, reduces the opportunity to fully explore a certain aspect of

any given topic. The response rate from the method is lower than traditional structured

interviews, but higher than mail out surveys. Response rates for previous written surveys ranged

from 8 to 24 percent, but can be improved with telephone follow up. Written surveys are the

least costly, good for broad sampling, but it typically produces low response rates and does not

ensure that the right person will complete the survey.

Nine types of survey methods were tested as a pilot study to search for the best one to use

for surveying the freight community.

* Type 1 mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database,
response rate of 15%)

* Type 2 mail out/mail back questionnaire and a map, with follow up reminders (ES202
database, response rate of 11%)

* Type 3 postcard invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back
questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 6%)

* Type 4 postcard invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back
questionnaire and a map, with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 4%)

* Type 5 telephone invitation to participate, for positive respondents, mail out/mail back
questionnaire with follow up reminders (ES202 database, response rate of 19%)

* Type 6 telephone survey (ES202 database, response rate of 60%)

* Type 7 telephone survey (Oregon DOT Motor Carrier Transportation Division truck
registration database, response rate of 64%)

* Type 8 mail out/mail back questionnaire with telephone follow up reminders (Oregon
DOT Motor Carrier Transportation Division truck registration database, response rate of
3 3%)










* Type 9 mail out/mail back questionnaire with follow up reminders (Oregon DOT Driver
and Motor Vehicle Services Division Commercial Driver' s License (CDL) Database,
response rate of 12%)

In every case, the respondents were given information on the availability of the survey via

e-mail or the website, or both. However, little evidence was found that the option to use the web

site or to communicate via e-mail was of interest to the survey participants. In addition to the

infrastructure problems, various other issues such as regulations, taxation, and enforcement were

covered in the survey. The survey response rates from telephone surveys were highest among all

the methods. The use of postcard invitation before a mail out survey resulted in very low

response rates. Telephone invitation with a mail out survey yielded a 19% response rate, while a

mail out survey with follow up phone calls produced a 33% response rate. Freight firms said that

a written survey is the most preferred method, but proved to yield a lower response rate than

phone surveys.

Prior to carrying out the Oregon State-wide Freight Shipper and Carrier Survey, 34

previous freight surveys already implemented were reviewed by Loudon (2000). Considerations

for conducting surveys of the freight movement community, and lessons learned from previous

freight research in Oregon are summarized. The options to be determined according to the

purpose of the surveys are:

* One company questionnaire versus separate company questionnaires for shippers and
carriers.

* Survey transportation managers only versus survey managers and drivers.

* Direct driver contact versus distribution to drivers by managers.

* Focus on truck movements only versus focus on all modes of freight.

* Explore problems through open-ended questions versus structured list of possible
problems.

* Ask the respondent to rank problems versus list problems only.










* Ask about problem and practices for inbound and outbound freight movements or
outbound only.

* Use a written (self-completing) questionnaire versus interviewing.

* Use cold mailing of written questionnaire versus pre-arranged participation.

Lessons learned from previous freight research in Oregon are:

* Freight movement logistics are complex. So, special considerations for flexibility should
be made to design each issue (shipment size, timing of shipments, etc).

* Methods of shipping freight are changing rapidly. For example, more inventories are
maintained in trucks on the highway rather than in manufacturing plants, warehouses, or
stores. The survey questionnaires must allow sufficient flexibility to pick up on the current
changes.

* It is not easy to get participation from private businesses.

* Limit the number of issues covered in the survey so that sufficient depth of understanding
on those issues can be achieved.

* Survey the right person. A transportation manager will generally know the most about
decisions about how goods are shipped and received, while an accountant of the company
will be able to say something about impact of congestion on costs and profitability.

* Explore the reasons why transportation bottlenecks are a problem and how they affect the
business

* Nonrecurring congestion is a significant problem, and access to the maj or highways was as
important as level of service on the maj or highways.

The feasibility and an estimation of the potential for using Urban Distribution Centres

(UDCs) in the city of Dublin were studied using two surveys (Finnegan, et al., 2004 and

Finnegan, et al., 2005). UDCs can fulfill a number of functions including warehousing,

transshipment, consolidation of loads, efficient dispatch and collection of goods. Several

associations or groups including Dublin City Centre Business Association have participated

consultation meeting to indicate freight transportation issues in Dublin City Centre prior to the

surveys. The fist survey was deployed on a weeklong survey of deliveries to Trinity College

Dublin. The intercept survey method was used at the gate of the campus, resulting in an 82%










response rate (299 participated out of 365 requested). The second survey was distributed to

several trade association members, capturing 906 individual deliveries with a 10% response rate.

Many aspects of freight movement in the Dublin City Centre (time of delivery arrival and

departure, types of goods, how packaged, quantity of packages, types of delivery vehicles, who

supplied the goods, location of supplier, loading and unloading places) were yielded by the

surveys to discover the use and location of a UDC. Some conclusions were made at this point;

Food related deliveries are expected to be improved by the use of a UDC in Dublin, a UDC

could assists in the process of backhauling, the operation of a delivery platform in the city centre

was suggested. But, no definite recommendations for the use, location, and impact of UDC were

presented.

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) conducted a

broad mail survey of freight transportation users and service providers about various issues in

freight transportation (SPRPC, 1996). The surveys were drafted under the guidance of the

Freight Forum and distributed to the 700 freight service providers from SPRPC's Freight

Transportation Database, and 800 area manufacturers listed in the Southwestern Pennsylvania

Regional Development Council's Computer Assisted Product Search database (CAPS). The

postage-paid surveys were sent to them by mail. The original response rate was 4%, but the final

response rate was 9% after follow up phone call efforts. With various types of freight service

providers, and manufacturers answering the survey, 22% of manufacturers indicated that they

utilize intermodal transportation, and 42% of service providers said that they do. Specific

impediments to the respondents with locations and comments were also identified with their

percent frequencies; traffic congestion (46%), rush hour deliveries (32%), roadway turning

radius (25.5%), turning at traffic lights (24%), poor bridge or tunnel clearance (18%), curfews on










high or wide roads (17%), merge lanes (16.5%), at-grade railroad crossings (14%), lack of

receiving areas at malls (13%), lack of trailer drop-off and pick-up (12%), poor truck access to

airport air cargo area (1 1%), lack of adequate warehousing (8%), delays or other problems at

customs (5%), poor truck access to river terminals (4.5%), poor truck access to intermodal

facilities (4.5%), lack of rail to highway access (3.5%), poor signage (3%), highway interference

with railroad (2%). Women's compensation and other labor costs, regulations, and taxation were

also introduced to be pressing issues affecting the freight transportation industry.

In 1998, Regan and Golob (1999) studied the perceptions of motor carriers about traffic

congestion, congestion-relief policies, usefulness of information technologies, and efficiency of

intermodal facilities in California through computer-aided telephone interviews (CATI). A total

of 5258 freight operators, including California-based for-hire trucking companies, private fleets,

and for-hire large national carriers were chosen from the databases maintained by Transportation

Technical Services, Inc, producing an overall response rate of 22.4% (1 177 responses). Most

responding operators believe that traffic congestion will get worse over the next five years. Over

half the respondents indicated significant or maj or problems of increased fuel and maintenance

costs due to stop and go traffic, high numbers of accidents and insurance costs, driver

frustrations and morale, and scheduling problems due to unreliable travel times. Similarly, more

than half indicated that stop and go driving, speeders and other traffic violators, and poor road

surface quality are important causes of loss of equipment, damaged goods, or even injury to

drivers. Almost 90% of the freight operators also replied that at least sometimes schedules are

missed, drivers are re-routed due to congestion, or customer time-windows force drivers to work

in congestion. Preferred congestion relief policies included adding more freeway lanes, truck

only lanes on freeways or arterials, better traffic signal coordination along the arterials, and so









forth. The surveyed operators perceive that dedicated highway advisory radio, traffic reports on

commercial radio stations, and face-to-face reports among drivers at truck stops and terminals

are somewhat useful by drivers on the road, while traffic reports on television and computer

traffic maps on the Internet are very useful to dispatchers. With respect to intermodal operations,

about 45% of the operators pointed out that operations of carriers are often or very often

impacted by congestion or other problems at maritime ports, while only 25% of them indicated

this for airports or rail terminals.

The American Trucking Association (ATA) surveyed 470 stratified, randomly selected

private and for-hire motor carriers based in the Baltimore region (ATA, 1997). It yielded a

response rate of 13.1% (62 returned surveys) after two times mailing and follow-up calls. The

ATA worked with the Baltimore Metropolitan Council and the Maryland Motor Transportation

Association for the survey questions to check out various needs of transportation users in

Baltimore region. The survey questions included company characteristics, major routes of

travel, impediments in freight flows, infrastructure improvements needed, downtown freight pick

up and delivery, time of day travel, freight origins and destinations, intermodal freight activity,

company future plans. The survey results describe facts and motor carriers' perceptions about

freight transportation in the Baltimore region. Especially, traffic congestion was thought to be

one major structural impediment to freight movement. Intersection design/function, ramp

design, tools, constructions projects were listed by some motor carriers as well.

In 2001, two surveys were conducted to obtain the opinions of the public and large truck

drivers on road safety issues (Center for Public Policy, 2001). A computer-assisted telephone

surveys produced 2415 samples of randomly selected adult residents from Virginia (n=602),

Maryland (n=600), North Carolina (n=610), and West Virginia (n=603) with a cooperation rate










of 52%. For truck drivers, an intercept survey was used at three truck stops (Lee Hi Truck Stop

(n=206), Truck Stops of America (n=3 18), and White' s Truck Stop (n=102) on interstate 81 and

95, producing 618 samples. The surveys discovered some overall aspects of truck drivers and

difference in perspectives on safety issues from truckers and public respondents. The main

findings from the surveys are as follows:

* More than 70% of truckers in the survey were company drivers opposed to owner-
operators.

* Most truck drivers (about 70%) get paid based on miles driven.

* More than 90% of truckers in the survey are driving tractor-semi trailers.

* More than 80% of truckers spend 3-7 days away from home every week.

* Most truckers take time for a sleep break at private truck stops or public rest areas rather
than motels or roadside.

* Both truckers and public respondents perceived the highways driven on most often by
them to be somewhat safe.

* Truck drivers and public respondents tend to attribute conflicts or crashes between cars and
trucks to each other.

* Both truckers and public respondents agreed that the driving habits of large bus drivers are
considered to be the most safe and least aggressive around cars.

* Both truckers and public respondents agreed that drivers of large trucks drive somewhat
aggressively around cars.

* Truck drivers get information of crashes between cars and trucks mostly from other truck
drivers or citizen band (CB) radio, while public respondents get it from television or
newspaper mostly.

Truck drivers' and motorists' opinions of such restrictions at three sites (I-5 Southcenter

Hill, SR-520, and I-5 Southbound to Tacoma Mall) in the Puget Sound region of Washington

State were obtained through surveys in 1992 (Koehne, et al., 1997). The trucker survey was

performed at two truck stop locations (one day at each location), slightly more than four months

after the last restrictions were put into place on I-5 Southcenter Hill, yielding 129 completed









surveys. A mail-back survey was distributed to motorists who traveled each of the three

restricted sections of highway more than three months after the last restrictions. About 400

license plate numbers were collected from each site for this purpose. The survey produced 153

completed responses (response rate of about 16%). The maj or findings are as follows:

* A relatively high 3 1.4 percent of truckers indicated that they had disobeyed the lane
restrictions, while about 78 percent of motorists indicated that they have seen truckers
disobey them.

* Only about 32 percent of the truckers are in favor of keeping Puget Sound lane restrictions,
while 91 percent of the motorists are in favor of them. The negative view of most truckers
toward restrictions could also be simply because they believe they are not necessary since
trucks rarely use the leftmost lanes on ascending grades.

* About 65 percent of truckers and motorists indicated that it is not clear which vehicles or
which lanes are subj ect to the lane restrictions.

* Only about 30 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions improve freeway
operations, while 86 percent of the motorists do.

* Only about 3 1 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions improve safety, while
82 percent of the motorists do.

* About 66 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions should include buses, and 74
percent of the motorists do.

* Only about 21 percent of the truckers believe that lane restrictions should be expanded to
more freeway sections, while 83 percent of the motorists do.

Three logit models were also developed for exploring truckers' and motorists' favorability

and awareness of truck restrictions. There is a profile of a trucker who is least likely to favor

truck restrictions, one who admits to violating restrictions, frequently changes lanes to avoid

rough pavement, typically carries nonperishable cargo, is between 20 and 40 years old, and has

been licensed for many years. Motorists most likely to favor restrictions also fit a definite

profile; one who frequently changes lanes to avoid being followed by trucks, typically drives a

passenger car, is between 30 and 45 years old, and has been a long-time licensed driver. The

motorists most likely to be aware of Puget Sound truck lane restrictions are male passenger car










operators who have been licensed relatively few years. Efforts to improve motorist awareness

should focus on those motorists who do not fit this profile.

A study by Golob and Regan (2002) investigated the perceptions of truck company

managers on usefulness of different source of traffic information to trucking operations.

Managers from 1177 trucking companies including 34% private carriers and 66% for-hire

carriers were asked how useful they consider different sources of traffic information are to the

dispatchers and to their drivers. The surveys were distributed to 5258 companies containing 804

California-based for-hire companies, 2129 California-based private carriers, and for-hire large

national carriers based outside of California, overall response rate of 22.4%. The relationships

between 6 characteristics of the companies (load type, carrier type, primary service, location of

logistics manager, intermodal operations, and average length of load moves) and manager-

perceived usefulness of different source of traffic information to dispatchers or drivers, are

discovered through canonical correlation analysis. The respondents were asked to evaluate the

sources in one of the three categories (i.e., very useful, somewhat useful, and not useful).

With respect to the overall usefulness to dispatchers, "reports from the drivers on the road"

are judged to be most useful followed by "traffic reports on the radio." Least useful was "traffic

reports on television", followed by "internet traffic maps." "Reports from their own drivers" are

valued most highly by carriers with either rail or multiple intermodal operations, and "traffic

reports on commercial radio stations" are useful to general LTL carriers and operations based in

the Greater Los Angeles Area. "Traffic reports on television" are thought to be useful to movers,

and intermodal operations. "Internet traffic information" is judged to be useful to operators with

long moves, and "phone calls to Caltrans" are considered to be useful to operations based in

California, but outside of the two largest metropolitan areas.










Concerning overall usefulness to drivers, "changeable message signs (CMS)" was thought

to be most useful, followed by "CBR (Citizen Band Radio) or other radio reports from other

drivers." "Traffic reports on commercial radio station" were considered as useful as "face-to-

face reports among drivers", while "Dedicated highway advisory radio (HAR)" was rated to be

least useful for drivers. "Face-to-face reports among drivers at truck stops and terminals" are

useful with rail intermodal operations, and "CMS" was useful to common carriers and operations

from outside of CA carriers with long load moves. "CBR reports from other drivers" are deemed

to be useful exclusively to truckload carriers, and "HAR" is judged to be useful to common

carriers or carriers with long load moves.

As far as future traffic information sources are concerned, "HAR and CMS" are considered

to be most useful followed by "in-vehicle navigation system." "In-vehicle navigation",

"computer traffic map", "CMS", and "traffic information kiosk" are expected to be useful to

operations from outside of CA, and carriers with long moves, while "HAR" is thought to be

useful for carriers with both truckload and LTL in the future.

Crum, et al. (2001) developed a conceptual level of commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

driver fatigue model by reviews of the 55 literature and focus group meetings with industry

professionals. It was later used for developing a survey for truck drivers to explore driving

environment effects on driver fatigue and crash rates. The model categorized three factors

influencing driver fatigue and crashes; CMV driving environments, economic pressures, and

carrier support for driving safety. The CMV driving environments were subcategorized into

three issues as regularity of time, quality of rest, and trip control, under which a total of 25

individual measures fall, while fatigue and crash outcome measures included 15 items. The data

for analysis were collected at five truck stops each in different states, yielding 502 usable









surveys. A $10 cash inducement was offered to participants in 1999 with the assistance of the

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO). Twelve driving environment

indicators were found to be meaningfully related to 15 fatigue and crash outcome measures; two

regularity of time items, six measures of trip control, and four items for quality of rest. Factor

analysis identified three constructs underlying the 15 fatigue and crash measures; close call due

to fatigue, the perception of fatigue as a problem for self and other drivers, and crashes. From

the regression analysis, "long load time" and "start workweek tired" is found to be significant in

increasing frequency of close calls due to fatigue, while the frequency of the use of "6-hour time

zone" was negatively related to "close calls" unexpectedly. "Long load time" and "start

workweek tired" also were associated with more fatigue, while more "uninterrupted hours of

sleep", more use of "regular routes", and more times "driving the same hours" were associated

with less fatigue. More "average stops per day" and "start workweek tired" were found to

significantly increase the number of crashes.

At the front part of this study, it was decided to use focus group and survey methods in

obtaining the perceptions and opinions of the trucking community. Thus, some previous studies

relevant to this issue were reviewed in this section to search for an effective way to conduct

focus group and survey studies for the obj ective of this study. The authors of the studies provide

their experiences and recommendations about focus group preparation, survey data collection

and perceptions of the trucking community on various trucking-related issues as results. For the

sake of this study, potential Florida trucking community focus group and survey participant

recruitment sources, and advantages and disadvantages of various trucking community survey

methods are summarized in the following three sections, based on the findings from this section.









2.4 Florida Trucking Community Focus Group Participant Recruitment Sources

It is generally difficult to invite truck drivers to a meeting at one place and time. They

usually spend a significant portion of their time driving on the road, and their schedules are apt to

change for time-variant demand for deliveries. One survey on truck safety issues at three truck

stops (Center for Public Policy, 2001) showed that more than 80 percent of the total of 618

surveyed truck drivers spends 3 to 7 days away from home every week for deliveries. Given

these constraints, following potential recruitment sources were found for truck driver focus

groups:

* Florida Trucking Association (FTA) Road Team members
* Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTDC) participants
* Florida-based National Truckers Association (NTA) members
* Truck drivers from one or two trucking companies

Many previous trucking-related studies have benefited from the cooperation of national or

state trucking associations. The American Trucking Association (ATA) is a maj or national

association for United States trucking industry, which often provides assistance to the

researchers, even conducting research studies by itself (ATA, 1997). Most states have either the

state trucking association or motor vehicle carrier association, which is the state division of

ATA. The Florida Trucking Association (FTA) is in that category.

A focus group study was conducted in Toronto at the annual convention of the Ontario

Trucking Association (OTA) with its Road Knight Team members, which consist of 10

professional truck drivers (Hostovsky and Hall, 2004). FTA Road Team is the equivalent of the

OTA Road Knight Team. The FTA Road Team includes 8 professional drivers from 6 different

companies. They are highly informed professionals (each with more than 15 years of truck

driving experience) and care about their industry and profession enough to take time from their

daily jobs to speak at any public gatherings and give safety demonstration to the general public.









The Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTDC) is an annual competition of truck

drivers' driving skills and knowledge on how to operate trucks safely and efficiently. Each

participant competes for the championship in one of eight classes of trucks (i.e., single truck,

three-axle, four-axle, five-axle, tank truck, flat bed, sleeper berth, and twins). The champions of

this event represent Florida truck drivers in the annual National Truck Driving Championship

(NTDC). Florida-licensed truck drivers, who performed regular duties of a full-time professional

truck driver with no accident history for at least a year and no criminal record in the past 5 years,

are eligible to participate in the competition.

The National Truckers Association (NTA) is an organization designed to protect and

support the trucking business of independent (owner-operator) truck drivers. For the reason,

most NTA members are independent truck drivers.

One or two big-sized trucking companies may help get their drivers together for a focus

group meeting. The following potential sources of ticking company contacts were found:

* FTA membership directory
* Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Data Center (ES202)
* Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV)
* Transportation Technical Services, Inc (TTS)

A total of 180 Florida-based trucking companies are listed in the FTA membership directory.

They are categorized by 5 chapters (geographical locations), or 6 conferences (carrier types).

One study (Lawson, et al., 2002) utilized the Oregon Employment Department database (ES202),

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Motor Carrier Transportation Division truck

registration database, and ODOT Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division Commercial

Driver's License (CDL) database to survey freight shippers and carriers. Likewise, ES202

database from CEDR Data Center or FDHSMV database can be used to contact the trucking

companies in Florida. The information by TTS was used in the Golob and Regan (2002) study.









It includes national motor carrier directory, private fleet directory, and owner-operator directory

database. FDOT personnel also recommended the following companies as potential sources of

truck driver participant recruitment:

* Watkins Motor Lines, Inc (one of the nation' s largest LTL carriers)
* Landstar Systems, Inc (a big logistics and transportation provider)
* Roundtree Transport & Rigging, Inc

It seems to be also difficult to recruit manager-level participants for focus group meetings.

A study by Morris, et al. (1998) performed 13 industry sector focus groups, but with only 2-4

participants per group. Some of them also used a conference call. They seem to be tight in their

time schedules. The following potential recruitment sources were found for truck company

manager focus groups.

* FTA Leadership Conference participants
* FTA Safety Management Council (SMC) members
* Truck company managers from two or more trucking companies

In 2004, Veras, et al. (2005) conducted 2 focus groups with truck dispatchers as a part of

the Evaluation Study of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Value Pricing

Initiative. FTA Leadership Conference is held annually to support and enhance trucking

business for Florida trucking community. Florida-based Truck company owners and managers

are the main attendees in this event. SMC members consist of professional safety managers from

FTA member companies. Their primary goal is to make trucking in Florida as safe as possible.

It is also possible to contact some of the trucking companies by using the same sources presented

earlier to recruit truck company managers.

2.5 Trucking Community Survey Methods

In-field survey methods have often been used by other researchers to collect truck driver

surveys. The perceptions of truck drivers on roadway safety issues (Center for Public Policy,










2001) were surveyed at three truck stops (Lee Hi Truck Stop, Truck Stops of America, and

White' s Truck Stop on interstate 81 and 95), producing a total of 618 surveys. A truck driver

survey by Koehne, et al. (1997) was performed at two truck stop locations (one day at each

location), yielding 129 completed surveys. Another study about truck driver fatigue and crash

rates (Crum, et al., 2001) conducted surveys at 5 truck stop locations: Maryland, Georgia,

California, Iowa, and Colorado. The National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

assisted with the study, producing a total of 502 usable surveys (overall effective response rate

was 97.3% with $10 cash incentives). A week-long survey of deliveries to Trinity College

Dublin (TCD) was also conducted with an intercept survey method at the gate of the campus,

resulting in an 82% response rate (Finnegan et al., 2004). Surveying truck drivers at rest stops or

truck stops have following benefits:

* It usually shows good overall productivity with some types of incentives. The completed
surveys are collected promptly on site.

* It asks for the perceptions of truck drivers on truck operation issues while they are on a trip,
so their experiences are fresh.

* It enables face-to-face interactions between the participants and surveying staff. This helps
yield more completed surveys and reduce the risk of the participants' misunderstanding of
the questions.

However, it is required for the surveying staff to spend a fair amount of time and effort in the

field.

Considering the irregular working hours and j ob characteristics of the truck drivers, it

would be effective to distribute the surveys directly to them. It may be possible that written

surveys are filled out by truck drivers where they can take time to fill them out. At places where

truck drivers stay for a short time, written postage-paid surveys could be distributed to them so

that they can return them later by mail. Otherwise, written postage-paid surveys may be sent to a









number of ticking companies that can distribute the surveys to their drivers. The sources of

contacting trucking companies are listed in the previous section.

Different survey methods can be considered for surveying truck company managers.

Two studies by Lawson and Riis, and Lawson, et al. (2001 and 2002) compared several methods

to survey the freight community (i.e., shippers and carriers) by a literature review and a pilot

study. It was found that the most effective survey method in terms of response rates is a phone-

based survey although a written survey is preferred by the freight firms. In the pilot study, the

highest response rate (60-64%) was achieved by a telephone interview survey (with five

callbacks). The other study (Regan and Golob, 1999) obtained a response rate of 35% with a

phone survey. However, the response rates for previous written surveys of the trucking

community only ranged from 8-24% (Lawson and Riis, 2001).

General characteristics of the survey methods are described in Table 2-1. Mail-based

surveys are less costly and time-consuming while producing relatively low response rate. It

would be helpful to contact the potential respondents in person or by phone to improve the

response rate. In one study (SPRPC, 1996), follow-up phone calls resulted in an 5% increase of

the response rate (from 4% to 9 %). The other study (ATA, 1997) showed a response rate of

13.1% by mailing twice with follow-up phone calls. The surveys were personally distributed to

the potential respondents to improve the response rate in another study (Finnegan, et al., 2005).

This approach also enabled to obtain helpful feedback and comments about the survey issues

directly from them. The survey questions should be clear and simple to reduce the possibility

that the respondents misunderstand them. A postage-paid survey format is typically used to

reduce the respondents' efforts to return the surveys.









Phone-based surveys usually require more money and effort while yielding relatively

high response rate. The two studies (Lawson and Riis, 2001 and Lawson, et al., 2002) indicated

that a traditional structured phone survey is useful in obtaining detailed information about

specific issues, but is not suitable for a sample size large enough to represent the views of a big

population. The Computer-Aided Telephone Interview (CATI) allows for a large sample size

while reducing the opportunity to fully explore a certain aspect of any given topic. The CATI is

typically conducted by survey companies because it requires trained interviewers and interactive

CATI computer systems. The participants' responses are keyed directly into a computer and

administration of the interview is managed by a specifically designed software program. The

program does not accept invalid surveys. In a survey study of freight operators (Regan and

Golob, 1999 and Golob and Regan, 2002), the CATI was conducted by Strategic Consulting and

Research, an Irvine, California-based survey company, yielding a response rate of 35%.

The Web-based survey method is less costly and easy to administer, but the response rate

from this method may greatly depend on publicity and advertisement of the surveys. Some types

of contacts (e.g., phone, email, mail) with potential respondents are highly encouraged to

increase the response rate. Little is known about the use of this method for surveying the

trucking community. The Idaho Technology Transfer Center, in conjunction with the ATA, is

conducting a web-based study about the perceptions of truck drivers or fleet managers on the

benefits of anti-icing chemicals and reductions of potential vehicle corrosion (Alexander and

Moore, 2006).

Regardless of the survey methodss, a clear indication of the contributions) of a survey

study to the trucking community or industry may encourage the potential respondents to

participate in the survey. The sponsorships of trcking-related associations or institutes (e.g.,










FTA, ATA, or FDOT, etc.) may help reinforce the importance of the survey study, resulting in


an improvement of the response rate as well.

Table 2-1. Comparison of Survey Methods


Survey Methods
Phone-based Survey
* Relatively high
response rate
* Chance to correct
misunderstandings
* Chance to get more
detailed information
* No respondents' efforts
required to retum
surveys


0 More costly and time-
consuming
0 Dependent on
respondent availability
o Not suitable for large
sample size
0 Can not be used for
non-audio information
0 May present lack of
uniformity


Characteristics
Advantages


Mail-based Survey
* Less costly and time-
consuming
* Interviewer bias is not
introduced
* Uniform survey method
* Provide respondents
with enough time to
give thoughtful answers
* Suitable for obtaining
larger and more
representative sample
* Relatively low response
rate
* Potential long time
delay
* Hard to ensure that the
right person will
complete the survey
* Potential
misunderstanding of the
questionnaires by the
respondents
* Respondents' efforts
required to return
surveys
8-24%


Lawson and Riis (2001)
Lawson, et al. (2002)
Finnegan, et al. (2005)
SPRPC (1996)
ATA (1997)


Web-based Survey
* Less costly, easy to
administer
* Fast results
* Provide respondents
with enough time to
give thoughtful answers
* No respondents' efforts
required to return
surveys


* Response rates may
greatly depend on
publicity/advertisement
of the surveys
* Hard to ensure that the
right person will
complete the survey








Highly variable


Alexander and Moore
(2003)


Disadvantages















Typical Range
of Response
Rates
Studies in which
used


35-64%


Lawson and Riis (2001)
Lawson, et al. (2002)
Regan and Golob (1999)
Golob and Regan (2002)









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH APPROACH

This exploratory study was aimed at discovering the factors important to estimate LOS on

existing roadway systems, as perceived by truck mode users. This was intended to provide the

FDOT with the information about the determinants of truck LOS and the levels of their

significance with which it can develop methods to effectively evaluate LOS provided for trucks

on various roadway facilities. To accomplish this, it was necessary to obtain the perceptions and

opinions of the trucking community on what factors are important for the quality of a truck trip

on various transportation facilities and the relative significance of each of those factors. Focus

group and survey studies were conducted to satisfy this requirement.

Truck drivers and truck company managers are the two maj or stakeholder groups for the

LOS provided for trucks. Truck drivers deliver goods by driving trucks while truck company

managers operate the trucks and drivers to make a profit. Truck drivers are the most important

group concerning truck LOS, in that they are the ones who actually drive the trucks on the road,

so their performance and satisfaction is directly affected by the LOS provided by various

transportation facilities. Their performance levels also have major effects on trucking business

in such aspects as on-time performance, operating cost, etc. Truck company managers are

primarily concerned with those trucking business concerns, but in most cases they need to

manage their fleet on existing roadway facilities based on the perceptions and opinions of their

drivers due to the lack of regular truck driving experience. Thus, the focus was on the

perceptions of truck drivers, while the perceptions of truck company managers were also sought

to be compared with those of truck drivers.

Initially, very limited knowledge was present on the factors determining LOS perceived by

the trucking community. This required a small number of observations to be obtained through









some type of qualitative study to get enough information to develop a more formal survey, which

would then be used to obtain the perceptions of a larger sample to represent the trucking

community. Typically, there are two types of qualitative study methods; personal interviews and

focus group studies. Individual interviews can require a considerable amount of time and effort.

A respondent is also apt to be unwittingly influenced by an interviewer, or, often not able to

come up with his/her opinions about various aspects of the subj ects during the interview.

Homogeneous and information-rich participants in a focus group study can boost the diverse

conversation about the subjects with little guidance from a moderator. Thus, focus group studies

were performed for this study.

Focus group studies do not provide enough observations for quantitative analysis. Thus, a

follow-on survey study was conducted to confirm the focus group findings with a broader

audience and measure the relative importance of each factor quantitatively. The surveys focused

only on potentially relevant and important items.

Based on the focus group and survey studies, the guidelines for developing truck LOS

estimation methodologies were developed to provide the FDOT with potential service measures

for truck LOS and/or a list of factors that should be considered to develop truck LOS estimation

models on various roadway facilities. The overall description of the research approach of this

study is presented in Figure 3-1.

To develop actual truck LOS estimation models in future studies, experimental data should

be collected to quantitatively measure the correlations between the service measures and/or the

list of factors identified in this study and the perceptions of a representative sample of truck

drivers on trip quality. This often requires some experimental efforts with in-field driving, video

simulation, or driving simulator methods.









3.1 Focus Group Sessions

The primary obj ective of this focus group study was to identify the roadway, traffic, and

control factors that are important to the trucking community for truck trip quality on various

transportation facilities and to explore the perceptional differences between truck drivers and

truck company managers on the relative importance of each factor.

Ultimately, this study sought to inform transportation service providers of what should be

focused on to better accommodate truck traffic on existing roadway facilities. Thus, the factors

that cannot be controlled by the transportation service providers were of less interest in the

discussions, although the discussions were open to any factor important to the quality of a

complete truck trip from origin to destination. The focus was on the operational and design

policies and issues relative to truck operations on various roadway facilities (e.g., lane widths,

traveler information systems, etc.) as opposed to truck industry regulation issues such as number

of continuous hours of driving, maximum non-permit weight loads, etc. Weather-related factors

were also less of a concern.

Three focus group interviews were conducted to elicit the factors affecting LOS on various

transportation facilities perceived by truck mode users (truck drivers and truck company

managers). The participants for each focus group session were recruited by the cooperation of

the Florida Trucking Association (FTA). Several discussion topics were selected carefully for

the overall obj ective of this study, which is to Eind out what should be focused on to better

accommodate truck traffic on the existing roadway system. During each focus group session, the

topics were introduced to the participants with several open-ended questions so that they discuss

each topic amongst themselves with only a little guidance from the moderator. The focus group

discussions were transcribed and summarized to be used as inputs to a follow-on survey.









3.1.1 Participant Recruitment

Based on the review and considerations of focus group participant recruitment presented in

Chapter 2, it was decided that the most effective and efficient approach to recruiting candidates

for the focus group sessions would be with the cooperation of the FTA. With the FTA' s contacts

and presence in the industry, they would be much more capable of identifying willing

participants for this study. Thus, assistance from the FTA was solicited (Appendix A for a

cooperation request letter), and they were happy to assist. FTA staff were pleased to hear that

the FDOT was conducting a research proj ect targeted at the LOS needs of the trucking

community .

For the focus group participant recruitment, several documents were provided to the FTA

to inform them of preferred participant characteristics, what questions would be asked

throughout the sessions, and how the sessions would be conducted. The documents included

focus group instructions (Appendix B), guidelines for participant selection (Appendix C), and a

focus group moderator's guide (Appendix D). For the truck drivers' focus group sessions, the

FTA recruited members from its Road Team. Two other truck driver candidates were also

recruited. Once they provided a list of these candidates, a follow-up recruitment letter was

emailed to them to ask for confirmation. Focus group instructions and a map to the meeting

place were attached to the email as well. Two focus group sessions were held with the truck

drivers as follows:

* 5 people including 4 FTA Road Team members, 2.5 hours of discussion, on November
15th, 2005

* 4 people including 3 FTA Road Team members, 2.5 hours of discussion, on December 8th,
2005









It was initially planned to also hold two focus group sessions with truck managers, but the

FTA found the recruitment of these individuals to be much more difficult. Ultimately, just one

2-hour focus group session was held with three managers on November 17th, 2005.

3.1.2 Participant Selection

When the FTA agreed to help recruit the participants for the focus group meetings, the

guidelines for selecting the participants were developed and provided to the FTA (Appendix C).

This was intended to ask the FTA to consider the guidelines to obtain a representative sample of

the Florida trucking community. They describe characteristics of eligible participants and the

desirable participant composition for each focus group. This section explains the reasoning

behind the development of the guidelines.

Initially, a total of four focus group interviews were proposed (two with drivers and two

with managers), balancing the scope and resources available for this study. The two distinct

groups of participants were separately invited to different meetings because they were expected

to have different perspectives with regard to the discussion topics. Truck drivers may show more

concerns about the traffic, roadway, and/or control factors affecting truck driving comfort and

amount of earning while truck company managers may be more concerned with the factors

contributing to their trucking businesses. The separation of the two groups not only made the

participants comfortable to share their opinions, but also helped the research team to clearly

identify the perceptions of each group. The desired number of participants in each focus group

was originally 8-10. However, it proved challenging for the FTA to obtain this number of

participants. Thus, about half this number of participants for each focus group was obtained.

Nonetheless, these group sizes worked out well given the depth and breadth of the participants in

each session, and that each of the participants had much to contribute to the discussions.









There are several maj or socio-economic or working characteristics of the trucking

community that may be highly correlated with their perceptions on the factors affecting LOS on

transportation facilities. It is not realistic to take into account all the characteristics of the focus

group participants with the several focus group meetings, but consideration would help recruit a

more representative sample of the Florida trucking community. The following characteristics of

the trucking community were considered in the guidelines:

Hauling distance: Long-haul trucking with frequent travel on the Florida' s SIS facilities

was of main interest in this exploratory study as opposed to local or short-haul trucking, which

only use small portion of the Florida' s SIS facilities.

Carrier type: It was desired to include the participants from both for-hire and private

truck companies. Private trucks moved 32.7 percent, and for-hire trucks transported 43.3 percent

of the total freight value originating in Florida in 2002 (BTS, 2004). The rest of the percent (24

percent) was delivered by other modes such as train, ship, plane, or multiple modes. One survey

study (Golob and Regan, 2002) verified the perceptional difference between private and for-hire

truck companies about various sources of traffic information.

Load type: It was desired to include truck drivers from both Truckload (TL) and Less-

than-Truckload (LTL) carriers. It is likely that the perceptions of TL drivers on truck trip quality

issues are different from those of LTL driver due to the weight of the equipment and goods. The

TL and LTL operations are defined as follows:

* TruckLoad (TL): The quantity of freight required to fi11 a truck. Usually in excess of
10,000 pounds. When used in connection with freight rates, the quantities of freight
necessary to qualify a shipment for a truckload rate.

* Less-than-TruckLoad (LTL): A quantity of freight less than that required for the
application of a truckload rate. Usually less than 10,000 pounds and generally involves the
use of terminal facilities to break and consolidate shipments.









Truck type: It is likely that perceptional difference among the drivers operating different

types of trucks exists due to their discrete size and operational characteristics. The majority of

the trucks on the roads were categorized into the following three types of trucks in terms of truck

configurations:

* Straight Truck (single unit truck)
* Truck-Trailer (truck-trailer, truck-double trailer)
* Tractor-Trailer (tractor-semitrailer, twin-trailer, rocky mountain double, turnpike double)

It was desired that each truck driver focus group include at least three truck drivers, each

operating different three types of the trucks.

Fleet size: It was desired to include truck drivers that represented companies with a

variety of fleet sizes. About 87 percent of the carriers in the U. S. operated 6 or fewer trucks, 9

percent operated the fleet size between 7 and 20, and 4 percent operated more than 20 trucks in

2004 (ATA, 2005).

Others: ATA (2005) showed that 29.4% of the total drivers in the U.S. were minorities in

2003 and the percentage has been going up gradually from the year 1996. Only 4.6 % of the

total truck drivers in the U.S. were women in 2003, but the percentage has been going down

since 2001. So, inclusion of the minority or woman truck drivers in focus group sessions was

desired, but this was obviously difficult to attain, given their limited proportions.

Overall, a good composition of participants was recruited for the two truck driver focus

groups in terms of carrier type and primary load type. The participants were all from major

trucking companies with at least 16 years of truck driving j ob experience. The truck types they

operate include various tractor-trailers. However, no straight truck driver, truck trailer driver,

female driver, or minority driver was present on the meetings. Only one truck company manager

focus group was conducted with three managers. They were all from the TL carriers with at least










5 years of truck company manager experiences. One was from private company while the other

two were from for-hire companies. A detailed description of the focus group participants'

backgrounds is provided in Appendix E.

3.1.3 Focus Group Questionnaires

For each focus group interview, several discussion topics were introduced to the

participants by the moderator through several open-ended questions. Then, the participants

talked about the topics amongst each other with a little guidance of the moderator. An identical

set of questions was presented for each meeting to compare and contrast the perceptions of truck

drivers with those of truck company managers. The issues to be covered were selected according

to the overall obj ectives of this focus group study, which is to investigate which factors

transportation service providers should focus on to better accommodate truck traffic. Following

four topics were considered as most relevant to this study, therefore were covered during each

focus group meeting.

Truck travel route and departure time selection:

* Who is responsible for selecting a truck travel route and departure time for a delivery?

* When selecting a travel route and departure time for a delivery, what factor are considered
and what is their relative significance?

Truck trip quality on various transportation facilities:

* When you drive a truck on Florida's roadway facilities (i.e., freeways, arterials, and two-
lane highways) for a delivery, what factors affect the quality of a truck trip and how
significant is each of those factors for it? (for truck driver groups)

* When you consider truck operations on Florida' s roadway facilities (i.e., freeways,
arterials, and two-lane highways), what factors affect the quality of a truck trip and how
significant is each of those factors for it? (for truck company manager groups)

Transportation service improvement priority for trucking industry:

* What types of transportation facilities (e.g., freeways, urban arterials) would you
emphasize most for improving truck operations in Florida?










* What are your top priorities for improving trip quality/travel condition for commercial
trucks?

Truck delivery schedule reliability:

* What factors affect the truck drivers' ability to reach a destination on time?
* How often does a late delivery take place?
* What are the typical consequences for you/your company of a late delivery?

The most important contributors to quality of a truck trip perceived by the trucking

community were thought to be the factors that they consider for truck route and departure time

decision, so they were asked in the first place. The participants provided their valuable insight

about in what respect certain routes and times of day are preferred or avoided by them and which

specific factors contributes to each of those aspects. The performance levels of those factors

have most significant impacts on their trucking business and truck trip quality perceived by them.

Secondly, the participants were directly asked to list the factors affecting quality of a truck

trip. The topic was introduced by each roadway type, in that it was generally admitted in the first

focus group meeting that the importance of a factor on truck trip quality vary by which type of a

roadway it is on. For example, it was discussed that the importance of shoulder width and

condition on truck trip quality for two-lane highways was considered to be much bigger than that

on freeways. The participants also indicated how and how much each factor influences truck trip

quality based on their direct or indirect experiences.

Improvement priorities among various transportation issues and facilities were asked next.

It was intended to search for the facilities or specific factors which are getting relatively less

attention by transportation service providers compared to their relative importance on truck trip

quality. The participants' comments on this issue will be a good reference for prioritizing

transportation improvement plans.









As the truck volume and the demand for just-in-time deliveries have increased in Florida,

the importance of truck delivery schedule reliability has become critical. Thus, at the last part of

the discussion, the participants were asked to list the factors contributing to the issue and indicate

their level of impact on it. Truck company manager participants explicitly mentioned that their

customers assess the performance level of their truck companies based primarily upon on-time

delivery performance. The factors affecting on-time performance, frequency and consequences

of a late delivery were explored within this topic.

The factors identified as important to any of the topics covered in the focus group

discussion were used as a primary input for a follow-on survey so that the importance of each of

those factors could be verified by a larger audience and the relative significance among the

factors on truck trip quality could be quantitatively investigated.

3.1.4 Conducting Interviews

The focus group meetings were held at the Civil Engineering Conference Room or

Transportation Research Center Conference Room at the University of Florida. All the meetings

were moderated by a researcher who is knowledgeable to direct the discussions for the purpose

of this study. Upon the arrival of the participants, they were asked to fi11 out an informed

consent form and a two-page participant background survey (Appendix F and G). During the

main session, the moderator introduced the selected topics to the participants with several

general open-ended questions (Appendix D). Each question was displayed on a big screen to

help keep the participants focused on the issue being discussed. The participants discussed each

topic amongst each other with just a little guidance from the moderator. Although all the issues

were planned to be covered within the two hours, it turned out to not be enough time because

they had so much to say about each topic. The truck driver focus groups were extended by about










30 minutes with the permission of the participants. Participation in the focus group meetings

was voluntary.

The audio from the focus group meetings was recorded on a laptop computer through

external microphones and a specialized software product that enabled every comment to be

associated with the corresponding speaker. The recorded audio mies (.way mies) were

transcribed into an electronic text format. The transcriptions were reviewed in detail by the

research team to ensure their accuracy. After the transcriptions were complete and accurate, the

focus group discussions were summarized and used as guidance in the development of the

follow-on surveys.

3.1.5 Summary of Discussions

The results of the focus group studies were summarized by each issue covered in the

discussions. The participants did not always focus on the issue being discussed. They

sometimes jumped onto the previously discussed issues or the issues to be discussed later. As

long as the discussions remained on relevant topics, the moderator did not redirect the

conversation. Thus, it was required to collect participants' comments about each issue spread

over the transcriptions. Some of the comments were paraphrased for clarity and brevity, but care

was taken not to place any personal perceptions on the summary. The factors perceived to affect

truck trip quality were categorized by each transportation facility type (e.g., freeways). Each of

the factors was listed and described with the participants' comments about its contribution to the

truck trip quality and their direct or indirect experiences with it. The perceptions of truck

company managers were separately summarized to be compared with those of truck drivers.

The focus group meetings covered many issues in a limited amount of time. The

discussions were directed by the moderator to draw out a list of the factors important to truck trip

quality, not spending too much time on one or two specific factors. Thus, it was not appropriate









to make quantitative implications of the discussions on the relative importance of each factor. It

was investigated quantitatively in a follow-on survey, which was developed based on the focus

group discussion summary.

3.2 Survey Studies

The primary obj ective of this survey study was to verify the importance of each factor

identified in the previous focus group study with a larger audience and to quantitatively measure

the relative significance of each of those factors on truck trip quality on Florida' s roadway

system. Preference of the respondents on truck driving time of day was also investigated to

explore how quality of truck driving environment varies by time of day. The background

characteristics of the respondents that were correlated with their perceptions on truck trip quality

or preference on truck driving time of day were identified.

The survey included following three parts: working and socio-economic backgrounds of

the respondents; their perceptions on the relative importance of each factor on truck trip quality;

and their opinions about the importance of each hypothetical truck LOS performance measure.

Two sets of survey forms were distributed; one for truck drivers and the other for truck company

managers. Some questions about the backgrounds of the respondents differed in the two survey

forms, but identical sets of factors and hypothetical performance measures were evaluated in

both surveys. They were carefully selected based on the previous focus group study results.

Only truck trip quality determinants on the following three roadway types were investigated

considering the lengths and complexity of the surveys: freeways; urban arterials; and two-lane

highways.

A total of 459 truck drivers and 38 truck company managers responded to the written

surveys collected at Florida Truck Driving Championship (FTDC) event or the postage-paid

mail-back surveys distributed at four agricultural inspection stations. The survey responses were










analyzed with various statistical methods such as descriptive statistics, Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA), multiple comparisons of the means, non-parametric tests, and chi-squared tests

of independence.

3.2.1 Question Types

When the issues to be questioned in the survey were selected, a questions type for each of

those issues was carefully determined to effectively carry out the study. It involved such various

considerations as applicability of statistical analyses, respondent burden, respondent error (or

complexity level), measurement accuracy, etc. Following fiye question types were utilized in

this survey study: interval-rating questions; ratio-scale questions; forced-ranking questions;

discrete-choice questions; and Eixed-sum questions. This sections describes characteristics

(advantages and disadvantages) of those question types based on which the question types for

each survey issue of this study were determined.

3.2.1.1 Interval-rating questions

This question type is often used to ask for the perceptions of the respondents. Respondents

are asked to present their perceptions on the level of importance, satisfaction, or agreement for

each item on an interval-rating scale (e.g., 1 = Not at all Important, 7 = Extremely Important).

The accuracy of the participants' opinions may be improved as the number of selectable points in

a rating scale increases. However, more points require the respondent to think about the

differentiation along the extended scale, increasing response burden and time to complete the

survey. It is typical to have at least Hyve points on the scale, since fewer than five points

generally do not generate normally distributed data which are usually obtained when the data are

truly interval in nature. Seven-and ten-point scales are most common. Even-numbered scale

may be used when there is a need to force the respondents to commit to one side or the other, but










it typically creates a downward bias as they tend to choose five as a neutral point in a ten-point

scale.

A critical differentiator between interval-rating and ordinal scale questions is that equal

intervals exist between each adj oining pair of response options. If all response options are

literally presented (e.g., 1 = Not At All Important, 2 = Little Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very

Important, 5 = Extremely Important), the difference between each adj oining pair of response

options are not the same, resulting in ordinal scale data. Thus, the response values from an

ordinal scale question do not have numerical meaning, and categorical or nonparametric

statistical analyses can only be applicable to the data. It is also true for a forced-ranking question,

which is one type of the ordinal scale questions. The responses from an interval-rating scale

question are appropriate for the numerical interpretation (although not perfectly), enabling

further statistical analyses (e.g., parametric statistical analyses). However, an interval-rating

scale question allows respondents to indicate that everything is almost equally

important/satisfied, making the distinction among the factors difficult, while a forced-ranking

question require them to make clear distinctions among the factors.

3.2.1.2 Ratio-scale questions

Respondents are asked to provide their answer as a ratio to a basic unit of measurement

(e.g., year, dollar, hour, etc.) assigned to each question. The ratio scale of measurement is the

most informative scale and widely used to obtain participants' background data (e.g., age,

number of children, how long their phone call was on hold, etc.). It has zero position indicating

the absence of the quantity being measured and is an open-ended interval-rating scale, in that

there is no designated upper-end point.

The use of a ratio-scale question for respondents' perceptions or opinions (e.g., perceived

importance or satisfaction levels) may not be a good idea. It may decrease a response rate,










increase respondent error, and bring about unreasonably large variances among the responses or

participants, rather than increase level of precision in their responses with numerous numbers of

points in the scale.

3.2.1.3 Forced-ranking questions

Respondents are given a number of factors and asked to place them in order based on a

certain criterion (e.g., importance level). For example, six factors might be presented and the

respondent is asked to place a "1" next to the most important factor, a "2" next to the second

most important factor, and so on. Again, the response values from this scale do not have a

meaning numerically, so the data should be analyzed categorically or nonparametrically. These

data are often analyzed with a cumulative frequency distribution for each factor. For example,

"90 percent of the respondents perceived that factor A is at least secondly important among the

listed factors." This approach forces them to clearly distinguish one factor from others, usually

producing a larger variance among the responses than an interval-rating scale question.

A forced ranking question is heavily prone to respondent error. Respondents might

interpret it as an interval-rating question, use the top and bottom rankings more than once, or

rank the top and bottom items skipping the middle ones. In a telephone survey, you could train

the interviewers to prompt the respondent for full and correct answers. For a web-based survey,

you could insert an error feedback system, not letting the respondents move through the survey

without completing the question correctly. These practices are as likely to annoy the respondent

as to get real answers. It could also require the respondents to make a considerable effort to

complete the survey as the number of factors to be ranked increases. Rank ordering of 10 factors

is, in fact, extremely difficult.









3.2.1.4 Discrete-choice questions

Respondents are given a list of items and asked to choose one answer that best applies, or

specific number of answers that best applies, or all the choices that apply. A survey developer

decides which type of discrete-choice question is appropriate for a survey issue, considering the

characteristics of the issue, study purpose, and respondents' burden accompanied by the question.

This question type is widely used in a survey to ask for the respondents' background

characteristics as well as their perceptions on certain issues. The responses are nominal (or

categorical), so it is easier for the respondents to reply to the question than other question types.

The discrete-choice data are often presented by (cumulative) frequency distributions of each

option category. If the respondents' perceptions are asked with a discrete-choice question, logit

modeling technique can be applied where the responses data are used as a response variable and

other background characteristic data as explanatory variables. Relationships between the

perceptions and background characteristics of the respondents are identified by the logit

modeling technique, which provides an equation to predict the response once a set of background

characteristics are given. This question type is often used to ask about the topics that may be

potentially sensitive to the respondents (e.g., income level) because it is less personally obtrusive

than a ratio-scale question to the respondents. In that case, the response data can be used in logit

modeling process as a potential explanatory variable.

Multiple choices, multiple responses: Respondents are given multiple response

categories and asked to select either all the response choices that apply, or specific number of

response options that apply. The former question type is usually used for some background

characteristics (e.g., choose all the types of foods you can cook) and the latter is often used to

investigate the perceptions of the respondents (e.g., select 2 types of foods you like the most).

The response data are often analyzed by (cumulative) frequency distributions. When the former










question type is used, the data are often converted to binary data for each response category and

used as potential explanatory variables for various statistical modeling (e.g., logit, probit, or

regression modeling). The latter question type requires less respondent burden than other

question types for respondents' perceptions. The respondents only have to choose a certain

number of factors (e.g., 2, 3, or 5 factors) from a list of factors according to their perceptions.

Two or three factors are most commonly asked to be selected, but the number of factors to be

selected basically should be determined based on the purposes of a study. One study by

Washburn, et al. (2004) used this question type to identify most important user-perceived trip

quality determinants on rural freeways. The respondents were asked to select 3 factors most

important to their perception of trip quality among 16 listed factors. The importance of each

factor was presented by the percent of the respondents who selected the factor in their top 3 most

important factors.

Multiple choices, single response: Respondents are asked to select only one most

appropriate response out of multiple response options. A survey designer should be careful to

direct the respondents to select only one most appropriate response, not just any responses that

may apply. If the perceptions of the respondents are asked with this question type, the

relationships between their perceptions and background characteristics can be modeled by multi-

category logit or probit modeling technique, which provides a means of predicting response

probability, given a set of background characteristics. This question type can also be used to ask

for some background characteristics of the respondents (e.g., race). In that case, the responses

are often converted to a set of binary data to be used as explanatory variables for other models.

Binary choice: The respondent is asked to select one out of two choices. Typically, these

choices are true or false, or yes or no (e.g., existence of any dependent). If the perceptions of the










respondents are asked with this question type, the relationships between their perceptions and

background characteristics can be modeled by binary logit or probit modeling technique, which

provides a means of predicting response probability, given a set of background characteristics.

This question type can also be used to ask for some background characteristics of the

respondents (e.g., gender) and defined as an explanatory variable for other models. In all cases,

the data can be easily represented by frequency distributions.

3.2.1.5 Fixed-sum questions

Fixed-sum or fixed-allocation questions are combination of the interval-rating scale and

the forced-ranking questions. Respondents are given a set of factors and asked to allocate a total

of 100 points to the factors for a certain aspect (e.g., importance level). They are encouraged not

only to consider rankings of all the listed factors before the allocations, but also to present level

of each factor for the aspect by a number. This question type is also used to obtain some

background characteristics of the respondents (e.g., percent of your trip purposes: business;

leisure; social). The block of points to allot is typically 100 since most people are comfortable

thinking in percentages, but allocated scores often tend not to add up to 100 as the number of

factors in question increases. Time-consuming data cleansing is required for the responses not

summing to 100. For this reason, it is common to present not more than 10 factors and state

what an equal weighting would be. Typically, 4, 5, or 10 factors are listed to be evaluated

because the equal weighting (i.e., 25, 20, and 10) is easily recognized by the respondents. The

response data are often presented with descriptive statistics and can be considered as a response

variable or an explanatory variable for various statistical analyses.

3.2.2 Survey Development

The survey issues covered in this study were selected for the ultimate obj ective of this

study which is to find out what should be focused on by transportation service providers to better









accommodate truck traffic on current roadway systems. They are presented in Table 3-1 with

their corresponding question types and analysis methods utilized in the survey to address those

issues. Two different survey forms were prepared (Appendix H for truck driver survey and

Appendix I for truck company manager survey). Identical sets of factors were evaluated in the

two surveys to compare the perceptions of the two groups, but most questions regarding

respondents' background characteristics necessarily differed between the two surveys.

Participant's background: Background characteristics of each participant were asked in

the first part of the survey. It was intended to discover the relationships between their

backgrounds and perceptions on truck trip quality. Thus, the characteristics suspected to explain

the potential variances in their perceptions were included in the first place.

The background survey section includes the questions about socio-economic status and

working characteristics of the respondents. Various question types were used for this section

according to the characteristics of the selected issues. Discrete-choice questions were used to

ask for socio-economic backgrounds (e.g., age, annual income) to be less personally intrusive to

the respondents than ratio-scale questions. All the response options for working characteristics

questions (e.g., types of goods hauled, truck types used, duties of truck company managers, etc.)

were determined through extensive literature search and discussions with members of Florida

trucking industry to reflect the current state of Florida trucking industry.

Preference on truck driving time of day: Truck driver respondents were asked to

present current and preferred truck driving times of day, while only preferred truck driving times

of day could be asked in the manager survey. It was intended to investigate how quality of truck

driving condition varies by time of day. This offered valuable information about the preference

of the trucking community on night-time delivery and how the preference of truck drivers on









truck driving time of day is different by their background characteristics. Time of day was

divided into 6 time periods and preference on each of the periods was asked with a binary choice

question to reduce respondent burden.

Relative importance/satisfaction of each factor on truck trip quality: Relative

importance of each factor on truck trip quality was asked simultaneously with relative

satisfaction of each factor on overall Florida roadway facilities. Importance-sati sfaction (or

importance-performance) analysis approach is often used in the field of marketing research to

prioritize attributes of a product for improvement (Martilla and James, 1977). That is,

manufacturers should firstly focus on improving the attributes of a product that are perceived to

be important, or are unsatisfied by the customers. In this study, this approach provided

transportation service providers with valuable insights about what should be firstly focused on to

improve LOS for trucks (i.e., the factors that are perceived to be important, but are not well

satisfied by truck drivers).

Basically, the factors identified in the previous focus group studies were presented in the

survey to be evaluated, but a couple of other factors that the research team considered to be

important were also included (e.g., frequency of faster vehicles following your truck). Weather

factors (e.g., thunder storms, heavy rain falls) were excluded from this survey study even though

they were perceived to be fairly important in the focus group studies, because they cannot be

controlled by transportation service providers. The relative significance/sati sfaction of each

factor on following three roadway facilities was evaluated: freeways; urban arterials; two-lane

highways. Truck trip quality issues on multilane highways were not covered in this study to

keep the proper length of the surveys. It was indicated in the focus group studies that the

trucking community was least concerned about truck trip quality on multilane highways among









those on various roadway facilities (i.e., freeways, urban arterials, two-lane highways, and

multilane highways).

The importance/satisfaction of each factor was asked on a 7-point relative interval rating

scale (-3 = Least Important (or Satisfied), O = As Important (or Satisfied) As Others, +3 = Most

Important (or satisfied)). It was not appropriate to use typical interval-rating scale, ordinal scale,

or ranking scale types of questions. As mentioned in a previous section, a typical interval-rating

scale question allows respondents to indicate that everything is almost equally important, making

the distinction among the factors difficult. An ordinal scale or forced-ranking questions do not

allow mathematical interpretation of the survey responses, restricting the applicability of various

statistical analyses. The number of factors to be evaluated ranged from 18 to 19 by roadway type,

so the use of a forced-ranking scale question was strongly discouraged because it would

significantly increase respondents' burden and error, or decrease the response rate. Bubble-

shaped option boxes were displayed for participants to reply to this survey question easily. A 7-

point scale was used for this question, balancing the precision in measuring respondents'

perceptions and the respondent burden. A small number of points in scale decrease level of

measurement precision, while a large number of scale increase the respondent burden.

Improvement Priority Score (IP~S): Although not asked directly in the survey,

improvement priority of each of the listed factors could be assessed through a combination of

Relative Importance Score (RIS) and Relative Satisfaction Score (RSS). Improvement priority is

proportional to RIS and inversely proportional to RS~S. That is, the more important or the less

satisfied a factor was, the more the factor is in need of improvement. Based on this reasoning,

Equation 3.1 was devised to calculate the Improvement Priority Score (IPS) for each factor.










SRIS \
IPS =I x (RIS -RSS) (3.1)
SRSS

where,

IPS = Improvement Priority Score (-42 +42)

RIS = Relative Importance Score (1 7)

RSS = Relative Satisfaction Score (1 7)

a = +1 if RIS >= RS~S, otherwise -1

RIS and RS~S of each factor collected on an interval-rating scale of -3 to +3 were converted

to a scale of 1 to 7 for calculating IPS for each factor. The greater the IPS of a factor is, the more

improvement on the factor is anticipated. When the importance level of a certain factor is equal

to the satisfaction level, IPS will be zero. A total of 49 (7 RIS x 7 RS~S) possible responses and

their corresponding IPS are tabulated in Appendix J. One survey response presents one IPS for

each factor. An average IPS of each factor from all the responses is used to estimate its relative

need of improvement.

Relative importance of each factor on overall trucking business: Relative importance

of each factor on Operating Cost (OC), On-time Performance (OP), and truck drivers' Trip

Satisfaction (75) was asked individually on a 7-point relative interval rating scale (-3 = Least

Important, O = As Important As Others, +3 = Most Important) in the manager survey. The

percent allocation of the managers' concerns on each of these issues was also asked with a fixed-

sum question. OC, OP, and TS values were converted to a scale of 1 to 7 and relative importance

of each factor on Overall Trucking Business (OTB) was calculated by summing the OC, OP, and

TS values weighted by their corresponding portion of the managers' concerns.









Relative importance of each category of factors on truck trip quality: All the listed

factors for each roadway type were divided into four categories for each roadway type and the

relative importance of each of the categories on truck trip quality was evaluated with a forced-

ranking question (1-4, 1 = Most Important, 4 = Least Important). This was intended to

investigate which types of transportation service are relatively important to LOS perceived by

truck mode users for each roadway type and how this importance priority varies for various

roadway facilities. The relative importance of four identical categories were evaluated for

freeway and two-lane highway facilities (i.e., physical roadway condition, traffic condition,

traveler information systems, and other drivers' behavior), but 'signal condition' replaced

'traveler information systems' category to be evaluated for urban arterial facilities. A forced-

ranking question was used for this issue to focus on the distinctions among the importance of the

categories of factors. The use of an interval-rating scale question was not appropriate because

there is much chance that most respondents simply state that every category is equally extremely

important.

Applicability of single hypothetical performance measure to estimate truck trip

quality: Based on the focus group studies, several hypothetical truck LOS performance measure

were developed by the research team for each roadway facility (e.g., Ease of Driving at or above

the Speed Limit for freeways). This was intended to investigate whether it is possible to use only

one or two performance measures to adequately evaluate truck trip quality on each roadway type.

The hypothetical performance measures for each roadway type were selected in a way they are

independent one another. That is, each performance measure presents different aspect of truck

driving condition. Each performance measure can be considered as a function of multiple

specific factors that were evaluated in a former part of the survey. The applicability of each










hypothetical performance measure solely to evaluate truck LOS was asked on a typical 7-point

interval-rating scale (1 = Not at all Applicable, 7 = Perfectly Applicable). It was expected to

obtain large enough variances for the distinction amongst the factors since it is not reasonable for

the respondents to indicate that most of the different performance measures are perfectly

applicable solely to assess truck LOS. Again, a 7-point scale was used for this question,

balancing the precision in measuring respondents' perceptions and the respondent burden.

Relative improvement priority for each roadway type: The relative improvement

priority among various roadway types was asked at the last part of the survey. It was intended to

find out which roadway facility types are more in need of improvement for the trucking

community among the four roadway facility types (i.e., freeways, urban arterials, two-lane

highways, and multilane highways). A forced-ranking question was used for this issue to focus

on the distinctions among the roadway facility types while keeping the respondent burden at a

reasonable level (1-4, 1 = Most in Need of Improvement, 4 = Least in Need of Improvement).

The survey data is beneficial for prioritizing the improvement needs of various roadway facility

types for truck traffic.

3.2.3 Data Collection

Truck drivers and truck company managers, as the maj or truck mode users on the Florida' s

SIS facilities, are the target population in this study. A truly random sample is impossible to

obtain considering expected difficulties with recruitment, time, and budget. However, an effort

has been made to get a reasonably representative sample for this study.

Based on the review and considerations of truck driver survey methods discussed in

Chapter 2, two different approaches were used for survey data collection of the truck drivers.

The first method involved the distribution of the written surveys at the Florida Truck Driving










Championship (FTDC) event. The second method consisted of distributing the postage-paid

surveys at several agricultural inspection stations.

The first truck driver survey was conducted at the FTDC event (on June 1-3, 2006 in

Tampa). This event is co-sponsored by the FTA and they assisted the research team with the

distribution of the surveys. They were given to the drivers while they were in a session where

they were required to fill out other paper work as well.

There were some concerns expressed by the research team about the original length (six

pages) of the survey, and the research team discussed this with the FDOT and the FTA.

However, the FTA representatives felt that the length would not be a problem because they

would require the drivers to fill them out as part of their participation in the event, so it was

decided to leave it at that length.

The first two pages of the survey included the questions regarding the socio-economic and

working characteristics of the respondents. The relative importance/sati sfaction of each factor

on truck trip quality on freeways, urban arterials, and two-lane highways were asked on pages 3,

4, and 5 of the survey, respectively. The last page was used to ask about the applicability of

several different performance measures being suitable as a single performance measure to

estimate truck trip quality on each roadway type (Appendix H for the truck driver survey form).

As FTA recommended, a total of 220 truck driver survey forms were provided for

distribution at the driving competition. This number was based on the number of registered

participants in the event. Of this total, 148 surveys were returned to the researchers.

Unfortunately, only 3 8 respondents out of the total of 148 respondents (25.7%) completed all

sections of the survey as directed. Most participants chose to not fill out the survey in its entirety,

even though they were instructed to do so. Most respondents may have not taken the surveys










seriously, or they might have thought that the survey was a bit long or hard for them to complete,

especially the survey sections for relative importance/satisfaction of each factor on each roadway

type.

Given these results, it was decided to also conduct an in-field survey data collection effort.

With the assistance of FDOT personnel, postage-paid mail-back surveys were distributed at

several agricultural inspection stations. For this survey effort, a reduced version of the surveys

was prepared in hopes of obtaining a good response rate and a higher level of completion of the

surveys. The response rate statistic from the FTDC survey data indicated that the survey sections

for relative importance/sati sfaction of each factor required the most amount of respondent burden

among all the sections in the survey. Most survey participants did not have problems or

difficulties filling out the last page on applicability of a single performance measure. Thus, the

survey was reduced to three pages in length; the first page for background information, the

second page for relative importance/sati sfaction of each factor on one of the 3 roadway types

(freeways, arterials, or two-lane highways), and the last for applicability of a single performance

measure. This survey (one with freeway related factors on the second page) is included in

Appendix K. A total of 4000 postage-paid surveys were supplied to the FDOT for distribution at

the inspection stations. A total of 1000 surveys were distributed at each of four inspection

stations.

The four stations were located at northern border locations, and included:

* Pensacola station on I-10 (West)
* Suwannee station on I-10 (near Live Oak)
* Hamilton station on I-75
* Yulee station on I-95

The previous focus groups indicated that most truck drivers' concerns are on freeways or

two-lane highways as alternatives to freeways. A significant portion of their trips are also on









freeways, distance-wise as well as time-wise. Thus, of the 1000 surveys distributed at each site,

500 surveys were freeway related (i.e., the second page asked questions about relative

importance and satisfaction of factors affecting freeway quality of service), 250 surveys were

two-lane highway related, and 250 were arterial related. The research team was informed by

FDOT that only about 3 percent of all the truck drivers traveling on the Interstates could bypass

the agriculture stations. These vehicles generally include pre-pass users, car haulers, and empty

flat beds. The surveys were distributed during the week of August 14-20, 2006. A return date

of September 1st was put on the surveys. Most surveys were returned by that date, but some

were still received up to a month later. Surveys received after October 1st were not included in

the data set because data reduction was complete at that point and analysis had started. A total of

311 surveys were returned by October 1st, yielding a response rate of 7.8%. As shown in Table

3-2, the response rate for the freeway-related surveys was much higher than those for arterials or

two-lane highways. It implies that this particular population of truck drivers was more

concerned or interested about transportation services on freeways. The completion rate of these

surveys was much higher than those from the FTDC. It is likely that the reduced length and

greater flexibility of when they could fill them out contributed to this.

According to the advantages and disadvantages of the various survey methods reviewed

and discussed in Chapter 2, the phone-based survey method was considered as the most efficient

way to survey truck company managers. However, this method was not well suited for this study

because it does not allow the respondents to complete the second section of the survey without

bias. This section requires the respondents to present their perceptions on the relative

importance/sati sfaction of each factor among a total of ~18-19 factors. It would be possible only

when the respondents can skim through all the factors simultaneously.









With these considerations, truck company managers were surveyed with two different

approaches. One method was the in-field survey during the FTDC event. The other method was

the postage-paid mail-back survey with a number of trucking companies listed in the FTA

membership directory.

A survey data collection effort for truck company managers was made on June 1, 2006 at

the Fairgrounds in Tampa, where the truck driving championship was taking place (Figure 3-2).

There was a modest crowd present on this day, with a mix of company managers, other truck

company employees, as well as family and friends. The research team set up a table with several

chairs, covered by a large umbrella. A survey poster describing the purpose and background of

this research proj ect was placed on the table to solicit participation of truck company managers

(Figure 3-3). The announcers for the driving competition also made several announcements

throughout the day about our effort. Eleven truck company managers filled out the surveys, with

seven of them answering most of the survey questions as directed (Appendix I for the truck

company manager survey form).

For the second survey data collection effort of truck company managers, potential

recipients were identified from the FTA membership directory, which contains a list of all carrier

and allied members with their affiliation and contact information. All the Florida-based carriers

in the directory (a total of 180 trucking companies) were considered as potential survey

participating trucking companies. All the allied members were removed from consideration

because they do not operate trucks. They support trucking companies by offering various

services such as accident investigation, insurance, truck driver training, truck sales or rentals, etc.

In the FTA directory, the carriers can be divided into 5 chapters (geographical locations), or 6

conferences (carrier types). A total of 50 Florida-based carriers were selected for the survey










using the stratified random sampling procedure that preserves the proportional composition of all

the Florid-based carriers in terms of conference and chapter (a total of 30 strata).

A reduced version of the manager survey (one with freeway related factors on the second

page) was used (Appendix L). The background section of the manager survey is different from

that of the driver survey. For the rest of the sections, the same sets of roadway, traffic, and/or

control factors are presented, but questioned differently. For instance, the relative importance of

each factor on operating cost, on-time performance, and truck drivers' trip quality were asked

respectively in the manager survey, while the importance and satisfaction of each factor on truck

trip quality were asked in the driver survey.

Five postage-paid surveys were mailed to each of the 50 FTA carrier members (5 x 50 =

250 surveys) with a cover letter asking them to distribute the surveys to the managers

(transportation, safety, dispatch, logistics, etc.) at their companies (Appendix M for the cover

letter). As can be seen in the cover letter, it was mentioned that this study was being conducted

with the cooperation of the FTA. It was hoped that this would encourage managers to respond to

the survey. Follow-up phone contacts were made to each of the companies to whom surveys

were mailed (about one week later) to confirm that they received them and ask for their support

in filling them out. Initially, a total of 300 surveys were prepared in case some the 50 carriers do

not receive the surveys. Of 50 additional surveys, 5 surveys were resent to one carrier that did

not receive the survey and 45 surveys were mailed to 9 different newly-selected carriers. As a

result, 27 surveys were obtained from all the Florida regions except for West Florida. Nineteen

surveys were from common (for-hire) carriers, 6 from private carriers, and 2 from tank carriers.

Table 3-3 shows the number of carriers that participated in the survey from each conference by










each chapter, out of the total of 59 carriers. Table 3-4 indicates the number of surveys received

from each conference by each chapter, out of the total of 300 surveys.

3.2.4 Data Reduction

It turned out that most respondents completed only parts of the surveys and there was also

some evidence that some of the respondents did not pay enough attention to fi11 out the surveys

as directed. The length, or the perceived complexity, of the survey may have kept the

participants from completing them correctly. Considering that the purpose of this survey is to

potentially identify ways of improving the working environments of the participants, there is no

other source of non-response bias expected in this study. Thus, given an overall low response

rate, it was decided that in addition to complete surveys, partially completed surveys would be

utilized for data analyses once surveys with unreliable responses were screened out according to

certain criteria. The usability of survey responses for data analysis was determined for each

survey question. Survey data filtering criteria were developed to assess the validity of the survey

responses (Appendix N). However, for a few surveys, it was still difficult to determine their

validity with the filtering criteria. The research team had to make decisions in those cases

through discussions. In that process, the researchers were stricter on the validity of survey

responses collected during FTDC than of the postage-paid surveys due to the larger respondent

burden to complete the surveys distributed at the FTDC event. Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 illustrate

the number of valid surveys out of total number of returned truck driver surveys from the FTDC

event, the postage-paid surveys, and both combined. Table 3-8 describes the number of valid

surveys out of the total number of returned manager surveys from all the survey data collection

sources.









3.2.5 Data Analysis

A variety of statistical methods were used to analyze the survey data to satisfy the

obj ectives of this study. All the variables observed in the survey were first summarized by

descriptive statistics and/or (cumulative) frequency distribution to investigate overall

distributions of the responses. The following five statistical methods were applied to the survey

data for further analyses: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA); Games-Howell multiple

comparison test; Kruskal-Wallis test; Mann-Whitney test; and chi-squared test. Exploratory

Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed with Relative Importance Score (RIS) of all the factors to

look for common latent factors that are important to truck trip quality. Each pair of the mean

importance of hypothetical truck LOS performance measures for each roadway type was

compared with Games-Howell tests to find out which performance measure is more important

than others statistically. Potential relationship between each background characteristics of the

respondents and their perceptions on each potential truck LOS performance measure was

investigated through nonparametric tests such as Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test.

Chi-squared test, in particular, was performed to discover potential relationship between each

background characteristics of the respondents and their preference on each truck driving time of

day.

3.2.5.1 Descriptive statistics

Two most important descriptive statistics were calculated for all the interval-rating and

ratio-scale questions; mean and standard deviation. A central tendency of each variable was

presented by its mean, while its standard deviation was presented to measure a typical degree of

spread of the variable. For nominal (categorical) data, (cumulative) frequency distributions were

presented to describe overall distribution of the survey responses. Histograms and scatter plots

were used to display the results.









3.2.5.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a statistical method to explain a large number of

metric variables in terms of their common, underlying dimensions, that is, latent factors. Latent

factors are unobserved entities that influence a set of measures (variables) and are extracted from

the correlations among the variables. EFA results provide how the variables are grouped into a

small number of latent factors from the respondents' perspectives and how much each latent

factor is correlated with each of the variables. Factor analysis is a multivariate interdependence

technique with which all the variables are simultaneously considered, rather than multiple

regression, discriminate or canonical analyses, in which one or more variables are explicitly

considered as dependent variables (Hair, et al., 2005). This technique is often used in social

science research to summarize the data by identifying a set of latent factors that influence each

set of variables, which correlate highly amongst each other. The following seven steps are

typically taken to perform EFA (Field, 2005).

Calculation of correlation matrix: The starting point of factor analysis is to create a

correlation matrix, in which the inter-correlations between each pair of observed variables are

presented. A basic assumption of a factor analytic procedure is that a group of variables that

significantly correlate with each other do so because they are measuring the same common,

underlying dimension. Thus, if a group of variables seem to correlate highly with each other

within the group, but correlate very badly with variables outside of that group, they are

considered to well measure a common, underlying dimension, which is called a 'latent factor'.

The ultimate obj ective of the EFA procedure is to reduce the correlation matrix to a factor matrix,

which provides the correlations between the latent factors and each of the observed variables (i.e.,

factor loadings). This can be done by various factor extraction methods that are introduced later

in this section.









Factorability investigation: To identify common underlying dimensions that explain

the patterns of collinearity among the variables, the observed variables have to be inter-

correlated enough to be factorable, but they should not correlate too highly. It is important to

avoid multicollinearity (i.e., variables that are very highly correlated) and singularity (i.e.,

variables that are perfectly correlated) as these would cause difficulty in determining the unique

contribution of the variables to a factor.

The communality of a variable is the sum of the loadings of the variable on all extracted

factors. This represents the proportion of the variance in that variable that can be accounted for

by all extracted factors. Thus, if the communality of a variable is high, the extracted factors

account for a large proportion of the variables' variance. This means that this particular variable

is reflected well via the extracted factors, and hence the factor analysis is reliable. When the

communalities are not high, the sample size has to be large enough to compensate for this. To

examine whether the sample is large enough to elicit a meaningful factor solution, the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is used. The KMO statistic varies between

0 and 1. A value of 0 represents that the sum of partial correlations is large relative to the sum of

correlations, indicating that factor analysis is likely to be inappropriate. A value close to 1

represents that patterns of correlations are relatively compact, so factor analysis should yield

distinct and reliable factors. Typically, a KMO statistic value of greater than 0.5 is acceptable to

perform factor analysis.

Bartlett' s test of spherity tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an

identity matrix. When the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, there would be no correlations

between the variables, eliminating the need for a factor analytic procedure. Thus, this test has to










be significant. A significance value (p value) less than 0.05 is usually necessary to justify the

factor analytic procedure.

Multicollinearity and singularity problems can be detected by investigating the

determinant of the correlation matrix. Usually, it is considered to not be a problem if the

determinant is greater than 0.00001.

Extraction of factors: A variety of statistical methods have been developed to extract

latent factors from an inter-correlation matrix of the observed variables. They include the

principal component extraction method, the principle axis extraction method, the maximum

likelihood extraction method, the unweighted least-squares extraction method, the generalized

least squares extraction method, the alpha extraction method, and the image factoring extraction

method.

The two most commonly used extraction methods are the principle component and

principle axis methods. There are three types of variance in the variables: common, specific, and

error. Common variance is the variance in a variable which is shared with all other variables in

the analysis. Specific (unique) variance is the variance associated with only a specific variable.

Error variance is the inherently unreliable random variation. The principle component method

Einds latent factors that maximize the amount of total variance (i.e., sum of common, specific,

and error variances) that is explained, while the principle axis method Einds latent factors that

maximize the amount of common variance that is explained. The main difference between the

two types of methods lies in the way the communalities are used. Communality of a given

variable is the proportion of its variance that can be accounted for by extracted factors. In the

principle component method, it is assumed that all the communalities are initially one (unities

are inserted in the diagonal of the correlation matrix). That is, the total variance of the variables









can be accounted for by the extracted factors. On the other hand, with the principle axis method

the initial communalities are not assumed to be one (it does assume error variance). They are

usually estimated by taking the squared multiple correlations of the variables with other variables.

These estimated communalities are then represented on the diagonal of the correlation matrix,

from which the eigenvalues are determined and factors are extracted.

Theoretically, when the analyst is primarily concerned about determining the minimum

number of factors needed to account for the maximum portion of the variance represented in the

original set of variables, and has prior knowledge suggesting that specific and error variance

represent a relatively small portion of the total variance, the principle component method is

appropriate. In contrast, when the primary objective is to identify the latent dimensions or

constructs represented in the original variables, and the analyst has little knowledge about the

amount of specific and error variance and therefore wishes to eliminate these variances, the

principle axis method is appropriate. Practically, however, both methods are widely used and the

solutions generated by each usually do not differ significantly.

Figure 3-4 shows an example of a path diagram for an exploratory factor analytic model

by the principle component extraction method. As discussed, this method finds latent factors

that maximize the amount of total variance (of the observed variables) that is explained, and it is

assumed that there is no error variance. An EFA model is constructed in the way that series of

regression equations are set up to summarize its configuration. Equation 3.2 describes an EFA

model by the principle component extraction method. Each of the variables is defined as a linear

combination of the factors (i.e., sum of the products of each latent factor variable and the factor

loading of each observed variable on the corresponding factor). Results from the EFA include

derived loadings of each variable on each factor and calculated factor scores for each subj ect on


































Az, = a factor loading of the ih Variable on the fh latent factor


F, = fh latent factor variable (a common, underlying dimension, j= 1 to k, k = number of

observed variables). These correspond to Fl, F2, and F3 in Figure 3-4.

Determination of number of factors to be retained: The maximum number of factors

that can be extracted is equal to the number of observed variables. However, the purpose of an

EFA is to adequately explain a relatively large number of variables with a small number of

factors. Thus, the analyst seeks to identify the smallest number of factors that explain a

considerably large amount of variance in the observed variables.

There are several criteria for the number of factors to be extracted, but these are just

empirical guidelines rather than an exact quantitative solution. In practice, most factor analysts

seldom use a single criterion to decide on the number of factors to extract. Some of the most

commonly used guidelines are latent root, percentage of variance, and scree test criteria. With

the latent root (eigenvalue) criterion, only the factors having an eigenvalue greater than one are


each factor. The factor scores are a composite measure that can be used for subsequent analyses.

When an orthogonal rotation method is used, the scores of the factors can be considered to be

independent of each other, and thus can be used as explanatory variables in a multiple regression

analy si s.


k
V, = [ ( A z, x F, )
]=1


(3 .2)


re,

ith observed variable (i = 1 to k, k = number of observed variables). These correspond to Vl,

V2, ..., V10 in Figure 3-4.


where

V =









retained. It should be noted that the total sum of eigenvalues from the data is equal to the total

number of variables and the variance of a single variable is considered as the eigenvalue of one.

Thus, the rationale for the eigenvalue criteria is that any individual factor should account for at

least the variance of a single variable if it is to be retained for interpretation. The percentage of

variance criterion is a different approach. Using this method, the cumulative percentages of the

variance extracted by successive factors is the criterion. It is common in social science research

to consider a solution that accounts for at least 60% of the total variance as a satisfactory solution.

Another common approach is the scree test criterion. The scree test is derived by plotting the

latent roots (eigenvalues) against the number of factors in their order of extraction. The scree

plot illustrates the rate of change in the magnitude of the eigenvalues for the factors. The rate of

decline tends to be fast for the first few factors, but then levels off. The "elbow", or the point at

which the curve bends, is considered to indicate the maximum number of factors to extract.

Rotation of factors: Once the number of factors to be retained is decided, the next

logical step is to determine the method of rotation. The fundamental theorem of factor analysis

is invariant within rotations. That is, the initial factor matrix is not unique. There are an infinite

number of solutions, which produce the same correlation matrix, by rotating the reference axes

of the factor solution. A primary obj ective of the rotation is to make each variable load highly

on only one factor and have nearly zero loadings on the other factors. This simplifies the factor

structure and helps to achieve a more meaningful and interpretable solution. The simplest case

of rotation is an orthogonal rotation in which the angles between the reference axes of factors are

maintained at 90 degrees. Thus, there is no correlation between the extracted factors. A more

complicated form of rotation allows the angle between the reference axes to be other than a right

angle and is referred to as an oblique rotation. The factors are allowed to be correlated with each










other in this type of rotation. Orthogonal rotation procedures are more commonly used than

oblique rotation procedures because researchers often try to obtain an independent set of factors

to clarify the meaning of each factor. Three maj or orthogonal approaches are varimax,

quartimax, and equamax rotation methods, and two maj or oblique approaches are direct oblimin

and promax rotation methods.

Criteria for the significance of factor loadings: If there are variables that load highly

on two or more factors, or do not load highly on any factor, they are excluded from a factor

solution because it is not clear which factors) has an influence on the variables and this

ambiguous relationship between the factors and the variables blur the interpretation of a factor

solution. Whether a factor loading of a variable is significant or not depends on the sample size,

the total number of observed variables, and the total number of extracted factors. The larger the

sample size, the smaller the loading is considered to be significant. The larger the total number

of variables, the smaller the loading is considered to be significant. The larger the number of

factors, the larger the size of the loading on latent factors is considered to be significant. As a

rule of thumb, factor loadings greater than f 0.5 are considered to be significant when the

sample size is 120 or more, and factor loadings greater than f 0.65 are considered to be

significant when the sample size is 70 or more.

Naming of factors: Once the latent factors to be retained, and the variables associated

with each of those factors are identified, the analyst attempts to assign some meaning to the

factors based on the patterns of the factor loadings. It should be noted that the factor loadings

represent the correlation, or linear association, between a variable and the latent factors. Thus,

the analyst makes a determination as to what an underlying factor may represent, investigating

all the variables' loadings on the factor in terms of their size and sign. The larger the absolute










magnitude of the factor loading for a variable, the more important the variable is in interpreting

the factor. The sign of the loadings also need to be considered in labeling the factors. It may be

important to reverse the scoring of the negatively worded items in Likert-type instruments to

prevent ambiguity. That is, in Likert-type instruments some items are often negatively worded

so that high scores on these items actually reflect low degrees of the attitude or construct being

measured.

As the importance level of each traffic, roadway, and/or control variable was evaluated

on a 7-point interval-rating scale, EFA was applied to search for a set of latent factors that

accounts for the patterns of collinearity among the variables. The extracted factors and their

correlations with observed variables reflect in what respect each variable contributes to truck trip

quality and the degree to which the importance of each variable is explained by the underlying

latent factors. The principle component extraction method was used to find the set of latent

factors that accounts for the maximum amount of variance of the observed variables. The results

of the EFA presented a set of extracted latent factors, the percent of trace, that is, the portion of

the total variance (of the observed variables) that is explained by each latent factor, and the

correlations between each observed variable and latent factor (i.e., factor loadings). It was not

possible to apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

statistical techniques to the survey data because no previous hypothetical model construct exists

for the truck trip quality issue.

3.2.5.3 Multiple comparison test

When an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test verifies that the means of multiple variables

(i.e., more than two) are statistically different, multiple comparison procedures are widely used

to determine which means are different from one another. Fisher's Least Significance Difference

(LSD), Tukey's W, Student-Newman-Keuls (S-N-K), and Duncan's tests are often used (Ott and










Longnecker, 2006), assuming each sample from the groups is selected from a normal population

with an equal variance. However, if it is not reasonable to assume equal variance, pair-wise

multiple comparison procedures such as Tamhane's T2, Dunnett's T3, Games-Howell, or

Dunnett' s C tests can be used (Dunnett, 1980).

As the importance of each hypothetical performance measure was evaluated in a 7-point

interval rating scale, the Games-Howell pair-wise multiple comparison test was performed to

investigate if the differences among the mean importance levels of the performance measures are

statistically significant. Normal Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots showed that each sample was

approximately normally distributed (Figure 3-5), but the equal variance assumption did not hold

according to Levene' s tests (Levene, 1960).

Thus, it was necessary to perform the multiple comparison tests with methods that do not

rely on the equal variance assumption. The Games-Howell test was performed among the

multiple comparison tests with unequal variances to investigate every possible statistical

difference in the pair-wise mean comparisons among the groups. The Games-Howell test is the

most liberal, meaning that differences between group means are identified as being significant

more readily with this test than the other tests. The Games-Howell test is a modification of S-N-

K procedure, using the q test statistic (i.e., studentized range statistic). Equation 3.3 is used to

calculate the test statistic, reflecting heterogeneous variances and sample sizes in the error term

in the denominator.



q = (3.3)






where,










q = studentized range test statistic


pu, = calculated mean of the group i

s, = calculated standard deviation of the group i

nl = sample size of the group i

Equation 3.4 is also used to calculate the degrees of freedom for each pair-wise comparison to

adjust the error term. The calculated test statistics are compared with critical q values with the

corresponding degrees of freedom found in the studentized range tables.





df = n n(3.4)



n -1 n -1


where,

df = degrees of freedom for each pair-wise comparison

3.2.5.4 Non-parametric test

The survey respondents' backgrounds were collected from various question types (i.e.,

ratio-scale, discrete choice, forced ranking, etc.) and their perceptions on the importance of each

hypothetical performance measure were evaluated on a 7-point interval rating scale. Thus,

ordered probit modeling technique (Greene, 2000) was first applied in an attempt to explore

respondents' backgrounds that may explain the variance in their perceptions. However, with the

ordered probit modeling, only a small number of potential explanatory variables were found to

be statistically significant, resulting in generally poor model fits. The Kruskal-Wallis test and

Mann-Whitney test (non-parametric version of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-test) were










applied to the data. The use of parametric ANOVA and the t-test was not appropriate even

though it is more powerful, because it was not reasonable to assume normality and equal

variances with the data.

The Kruskal-Wallis test (Conover, 2001) is a non-parametric one-way ANOVA by ranks.

It is used with k independent groups, where k is equal to or greater than 3, and measurement is at

least ordinal. The sample sizes across the groups can vary because the samples are independent.

The null hypothesis is that the k samples come from the same population. The alternative

hypothesis states that at least one sample comes from a different population. Following H test

statistic is used to test the hypothesis.


H = 12 '2 3 x (N + 1) (3.5)
N (N + 1) nl


where,

H= Kruskal-Wallis test statistic

N = total sample size

k = number of independent samples

RI = sum of the ranks of group i

n, = sample size of group i

The calculated Htest statistic approximately follows a Chi-Squared distribution (X2) with k-1

degrees of freedom. Thus, for a specified value ofa the null hypothesis is rejected when

calculated H value exceeds the critical value of X2 for k-1 degrees of freedom.

The Mann-Whitney test (Conover, 2001) is a non-parametric t-test by ranks. It is used

specifically with two independent groups, and measurement is also at least ordinal. The sample

sizes between the two groups can vary because the samples are independent. The null hypothesis