CODEBOOK ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 1,016 Cases ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page i CONTENTS item page Introduction iv IDENTIFICATION CASEID CASE ID 1 ANALYSIS WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT 1 WT WT 1 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIABLES Q94 WILLING TO BE REINTERVIEWED 1 YEAR YEAR OF SURVEY 2 BACKGROUND VARIABLES Q1 TYPE OF CURRENT RESIDENCE 2 Q2 HOW LONG LIVE IN OC 2 Q3 HOW LONG LIVE AT CURRENT RESIDENCE 3 Q4 OWN/RENT PRESENT RESIDENCE 3 Q5 MONTHLY RENTAL PAYMENT 4 Q6 MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT 4 Q72 WORK STATUS 5 Q77 AGE 5 Q78 EDUCATION 5 Q79 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 6 Q80 NUMBER OF FT WORKERS IN HHOLD 6 Q81 RESIDENCE 7 Q82 MARITAL STATUS 7 Q83 NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HHOLD 7 Q84 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME 8 Q86 PARTY 8 Q95 SEX 8 GEOGRAPHIC ORANGE COUNTY ISSUES Q12 QUALITY OF LIFE IN OC 9 Q13 MOST SERIOUS PUBLIC POLICY PROBLEM 9 Q14 MOST SERIOUS SOCIAL PROBLEM 10 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page ii item page Q15 OC IN FUTURE 10 Q16 CURRENT GROWTH REGS IN CITY 11 Q17 FEELING ABOUT FREEWAYS IN OC 11 Q18 HOW OFTEN LIMIT DRIVING 12 Q19 HOW OFTEN BUY ENV SAFE HHOLD PRODUCTS 12 Q20 HOW OFTEN RECYCLE PAPERS, GLASS, CANS 13 Q21 HOW OFTEN CONSERVE WATER USE AT HOME 13 Q22 LIMIT DRIVING COMPARED TO LAST YR 14 Q23 BUY ENV SAFE PRODUCTS COMPARED TO LAST Y 14 Q24 RECYCLE COMPARED TO LAST YR 15 Q25 CONSERVE WATER USE COMPARED TO LAST YR 15 Q26 HOW SERIOUS A THREAT ARE ENV PROBS 16 Q27 PREFERRED TYPE OF REGIONAL GOV'T 16 Q28 HOW SHOULD MEMBERS BE CHOSEN 17 Q29 REG GOV'T MORE/LESS EFFECTIVE 17 Q30 CONCRND REG GOV'T WD TAKE AWAY POWER 18 Q31 CONCRND REG GOV'T UNNECESSARY LAYER 18 Q32 IMPRESSION OF REGIONAL GOV'T 19 Q33 EFFECT OF BUILDING MORE FWYS 19 Q34 EFFECT OF WIDENING EXISTING FREEWAYS 20 Q35 EFFECT OF IMPROVING LOCAL STREETS 20 Q36 EFFECT OF ADDING BUSES TO SYSTEM 21 Q37 EFFECT OF BUILDING RAPID RAIL 21 Q38 EFFECT OF BUILDING THREE TOLLROADS 22 Q39 EFFECT OF BUILDING MONORAIL SYSTEM 22 Q40 EFFECT OF HI-SPD LAS VEGAS-ANAHEIM TRAIN 23 Q41 WHAT PRIORITY: BUILDING NEW FWYS 23 Q42 WHAT PRIORITY: WIDENING EXISTING FWYS 24 Q43 WHAT PRIORITY: IMPROVING LOCAL STREETS 24 Q44 WHAT PRIORITY: IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSP 25 Q45 WHAT PRIORITY: BUILDING LOCAL RAIL SYST 25 Q46 WHAT PRIORITY: EXPANDING LA-SDIEGO RAIL 26 Q47 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY BUS 26 Q48 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY CARPOOL 27 Q49 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY VAN POOL 27 Q50 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY LOCAL RAIL 28 Q51 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED ALONE IN CAR 28 Q52 HOW LIKELY WOULD CARPOOL 29 Q53 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE VAN POOL 29 Q54 HOW LIKELY WOULD DRIVE ALONE IN CAR 30 Q55 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE BUS 30 Q56 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE LOCAL RAIL 31 Q57 MAIN REASON WOULD NOT USE LOCAL RAIL 31 Q58 VOTE ON SALES TAX FOR ROADS ONLY 32 Q59 VOTE ON SALES TAX FOR RDS & PUB TRANS 32 Q60 IF PARKING CHARGE FOR DRIVING ALONE 32 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page iii item page Q61 IF COMMUTER FEE FOR DRIVING ALONE 33 Q62 PARKING FEE TO STOP YOU DRIVING ALONE 33 Q63 HOW IMPORTANT YR HOUSE HAS PRIVACY 34 Q64 HOW SATISFIED W/ YR PRIVACY 34 Q65 HOW IMPORTANT RES ACTIVE IN CITY 34 Q66 HOW SATISFIED /W RES PARTICIPATION 35 Q67 CITY HAS DISTINCT CHARACTER 35 Q68 PERCEIVED CHANGE IN CITY CHARACTER 35 Q69 CITY HAS SENSE OF COMMUNITY 36 Q70 $ GAVE TO ALL CHARITIES LAST YR 36 Q71 VOLUNTEER TIME FOR CHARITY 36 Q73 WORKPLACE 37 Q74 HOW COMMUTE TO WORK 37 Q75 TIME FROM HOME TO WORK 38 Q76 USE FREEWAY IN COMMUTING 38 STATE ISSUES NATIONAL ISSUES Q7 BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF/SAME LAST YEAR 38 Q8 BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF/SAME NEXT YEAR 39 Q9 NAT'L BUSINESS CONDS NEXT 12 MO 39 Q10 NAT'L CONDS NEXT 5 YEARS 40 Q11 GD/BAD TIME TO BUY MAN HSEHOLD ITEMS 40 Q85 CONSIDER YOURSELF POLITICALLY: 41 Q87 VOTE ON PROP 128 (BIG GREEN) 41 Q88 VOTE ON PROP 136 (RT TO VOTE) 41 Q89 HOW THINK FRIENDS WILL VOTE ON 136 42 Q90 HOW THINK NBRS WILL VOTE ON 136 42 Q91 HOW THINK CITY WILL VOTE ON 136 42 Q92 HOW THINK OC WILL VOTE ON 136 43 Q93 HOW THINK STATE WILL VOTE ON 136 43 APPENDIX APPENDIX 44 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page iv INTRODUCTION The theme of this year's report is "Issues of the 1990s." In the 1990 Orange County Annual Survey, we asked questions that allow us to explore three interrelated issues that are central topics in discussions about the county's future. These are the environment, regional government and transportation alternatives. We began our analysis of the environment in last year's survey, in which we found that the public had only sketchy attitudes and knowledge about the Air Quality Management Plan. Since then, local awareness about environmental issues has been raised by events such as the Huntington Beach oil spill, the efforts to preserve open space in Laguna Canyon, discussions surrounding the statewide "Big Green" initiative and the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. This year, we gauge the depth of public concern over environmental threats. We also look at-ways in which environmental concerns may have triggered lifestyle changes. The second issue we consider is regional government. The concept of "regional solutions" has been at the center of many discussions of Southern California's problems, including air quality, housing costs, growth and traffic. Previous surveys have found widespread public distrust of this new approach. In this survey, we explore the public's perceptions of what regional government is, as well as preferences for how such officials should be chosen and for ideal forms of regional government. Third, we examine changing public attitudes about mass transit. It is widely acknowledged that to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution in Southern California, some residents will have to change their habit of driving alone to work. In this survey, we explore public support for encouraging and funding transportation alternatives, such as light rail and public buses. We also look at how often residents have used alternatives to solo driving in the past, and at how likely they would be to use alternative means of commuting in future if such options were available. The 1990 annual survey also includes several questions that have been asked in previous annual surveys. These "tracking" questions allow us to analyze trends over time, some from as early as the 1982 annual survey. We include all the key issues we have explored during the 1980s. First, we examine residents' ratings of the current quality of life in Orange County and their levels of optimism about the county's future. We are especially interested in learning whether ratings of the county's quality of life are still decreasing, and if residents continue to be negative about the county's future. We also look at trends in identification of the county's most important problems. Traffic has always emerged as the most frequently mentioned public policy problem, and drug abuse has been the dominant social problem. While public consensus on these issues is unlikely to change drastically from year to year, we are interested in seeing whether any new policy or social problems are gaining ground. As for traffic congestion, we monitor trends in satisfaction with Orange County's freeways. Further, we look at changes within the county's four regions in support for adding new lanes and building new freeways. We also look for evidence of changes in commuting habits as traffic has worsened in the past nine years. And we repeat questions from the 1982 survey on commuting method, time spent commuting and location of workplace. June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page v Turning to growth policy, we see if the preference for tighter local restrictions is still increasing, or if the slowdown in the housing market has affected this trend. Housing remains a major issue in orange County. While prices may have leveled off this year, housing costs in orange County are still among the highest in the nation. Also, while housing has not been rated as the Number One problem, it is often near the top of the list of many residents' concerns. Thus, we analyze trends in mortgage and rental costs both for the county and its regions. This year, we put special focus on the strains housing costs have caused younger residents. We continue to explore charitable giving. We analyze the trends in giving to all charities over the past three years, and repeat our question on volunteering time to charitable efforts, asked for the first time in last year's annual survey. Of particular relevance this year are changes in economic well-being. We analyze Orange County's responses to the University of Michigan's five-question "Consumer Confidence Index," comparing the answers this year to those of the previous four years. We also compare the overall consumer confidence score for the county and the nation. And we analyze the trends for growth in the median household income. Finally, we look at the political climate in orange county. This year, we asked questions about the 1990 elections, measuring the early support for Big Green (Proposition 128) and the Taxpayer's Right to Vote (Proposition 136) initiatives. Both tap into basic concerns of local residents. In addition, we examine trends in party preference and political ideology over time. In analyzing the 1990 annual survey, we compare this year's results with those found in previous annual surveys. We consider differences in attitudes between various subgroups, such as age, income and residence. When possible, we contrast local attitudes with those found in state and national surveys. June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 1 CASEID CASE ID 1,016 cases (Range of valid codes: 9-4070) Data type: numeric Record/columns: 1/1-4 ________________________________________________________________________ WEIGHT WEIGHT % N VALUE LABEL 100.0 1,016 1.00 ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Decimals: 2 Record/columns: 1/102-109 ________________________________________________________________________ WT WT % N VALUE LABEL 32.1 326 0.85 20.0 203 0.98 29.0 295 1.07 18.9 192 1.17 ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Decimals: 2 Record/columns: 1/110-117 ________________________________________________________________________ Q94 WILLING TO BE REINTERVIEWED % N VALUE LABEL 51.6 445 1 YES 48.4 418 2 NO 153 9 NA ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/100 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 2 YEAR YEAR OF SURVEY % N VALUE LABEL 100.0 1,016 1990 YEAR OF SURVEY ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Record/columns: 1/118-121 ________________________________________________________________________ Q1 TYPE OF CURRENT RESIDENCE IS THE PLACE WHERE YOU CURRENTLY LIVE A: (ROTATE LIST) % N VALUE LABEL 59.9 608 1 SINGLE FAMILY 16.9 172 2 ATTACHED 19.3 196 3 APARTMENT 3.1 31 4 MOBILE 0.8 8 5 OTHER 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/5 ________________________________________________________________________ Q2 HOW LONG LIVE IN OC HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN ORANGE COUNTY? % N VALUE LABEL 12.5 127 1 0-2 YRS 12.2 124 2 3-5 YRS 14.4 146 3 6-10 YRS 28.5 289 4 11-20 YRS 32.3 328 5 21+ YRS 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/6 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 3 Q3 HOW LONG LIVE AT CURRENT RESIDENCE HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR CURRENT RESIDENCE? % N VALUE LABEL 35.5 360 1 0-2 YRS 19.8 201 2 3-5 YRS 13.0 132 3 6-10 YRS 22.1 224 4 11-20 YRS 9.7 98 5 21+ YRS 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/7 ________________________________________________________________________ Q4 OWN/RENT PRESENT RESIDENCE DO YOU OWN OR RENT YOUR PRESENT RESIDENCE? % N VALUE LABEL 63.8 638 1 OWN 36.2 362 2 RENT 16 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/8 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 4 Q5 MONTHLY RENTAL PAYMENT WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT MONTHLY RENTAL PAYMENT? % N VALUE LABEL 14.6 49 1 UNDER $500 39.6 133 2 $501-$750 29.2 98 3 $751-$1,000 12.5 42 4 $1,001-$1,500 4.2 14 5 $1,501+ 680 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/9 ________________________________________________________________________ Q6 MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT, NOT INCLUDING TAXES AND INSURANCE? % N VALUE LABEL 39.3 215 1 UNDER $500 9.0 49 2 $501-$750 13.2 72 3 $751-$1,000 20.3 111 4 $1,001-$1,500 12.1 66 5 $1,501-$2,000 6.2 34 6 $2,001+ 469 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/10 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 5 Q72 WORK STATUS % N VALUE LABEL 65.1 661 1 FULL-TIME 12.2 124 2 PART-TIME 22.7 230 3 NOT EMPLOYED 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/76 ________________________________________________________________________ Q77 AGE % N VALUE LABEL 36.7 369 1 18-34 40.1 403 2 35-54 23.2 233 3 55+ 11 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/82 ________________________________________________________________________ Q78 EDUCATION % N VALUE LABEL 5.7 58 1 < H.S. 19.5 198 2 H.S. GRAD 33.4 339 3 SOME COLLEGE 28.5 289 4 COLLEGE GRAD 12.9 131 5 POST GRAD 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/83 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 6 Q79 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD % N VALUE LABEL 15.9 160 1 1 35.4 356 2 2 21.3 214 3 3 15.1 152 4 4 8.0 80 5 5 2.9 29 6 6 0.9 9 7 7 0.6 6 8 8+ 10 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/84 ________________________________________________________________________ Q80 NUMBER OF FT WORKERS IN HHOLD % N VALUE LABEL 0.0 0 0 NONE 42.1 367 1 1 44.6 389 2 2 11.1 97 3 3 2.2 19 4 4 0.0 0 5 5 0.0 0 6 6 0.0 0 7 7 0.0 0 8 8+ 144 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/85 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 7 Q81 RESIDENCE % N VALUE LABEL 29.0 295 1 NORTH 20.0 203 2 WEST 18.9 192 3 CENTRAL 32.1 326 4 SOUTH ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/columns: 1/86-87 ________________________________________________________________________ Q82 MARITAL STATUS % N VALUE LABEL 55.8 561 1 MARRIED 12.1 122 2 DIVORCED 5.2 52 3 WIDOWED 26.9 271 4 SINGLE 10 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/88 ________________________________________________________________________ Q83 NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HHOLD % N VALUE LABEL 63.3 641 0 NONE 15.4 156 1 1 14.2 144 2 2 7.0 71 3 3+ 4 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/89 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 8 Q84 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME % N VALUE LABEL 28.2 248 1 UNDER $36,000 22.3 196 2 $36,000-$50,000 27.9 245 3 $50,001-$79,999 21.5 189 4 $80,000+ 138 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/90 ________________________________________________________________________ Q86 PARTY % N VALUE LABEL 29.2 289 1 DEMOCRAT 48.4 479 2 REPUBLICAN 6.9 68 3 INDEP/OTHER 15.5 153 4 NOT REGISTERED 27 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/92 ________________________________________________________________________ Q95 SEX % N VALUE LABEL 46.5 472 1 MALE 53.5 544 2 FEMALE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Record/column: 1/101 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 9 Q12 QUALITY OF LIFE IN OC THINKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN ORANGE COUNTY, HOW DO YOU THINK THINGS ARE GOING? % N VALUE LABEL 21.8 218 1 VERY WELL 53.3 534 2 SOMEWHAT WELL 18.7 187 3 SOMEWHAT BADLY 6.2 62 4 VERY BADLY 15 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/16 ________________________________________________________________________ Q13 MOST SERIOUS PUBLIC POLICY PROBLEM CONSIDERING ALL THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN ORANGE COUNTY, WHICH OF THESE DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM? (ROTATE LIST) % N VALUE LABEL 16.9 168 1 GROWTH 40.2 400 2 TRAFFIC 15.3 152 3 HOUSING 12.0 119 4 CRIME 5.6 56 5 SCHOOLS 8.5 85 6 IMMIGRATION 1.5 15 7 OTHER 21 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/17 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 10 Q14 MOST SERIOUS SOCIAL PROBLEM AS FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL ISSUES, WHICH OF THESE DO YOU THINK IS ORANGE COUNTY'S MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM? (ROTATE LIST) % N VALUE LABEL 16.1 153 1 HEALTH CARE 9.3 88 2 CHILD CARE 5.8 55 3 RACE RELATIONS 15.8 150 4 HOMELESS 43.4 412 5 DRUG ABUSE 5.2 49 6 AIDS 4.4 42 7 OTHER 67 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/18 ________________________________________________________________________ Q15 OC IN FUTURE IN THE FUTURE, DO YOU THINK ORANGE COUNTY WILL BE: % N VALUE LABEL 29.1 288 1 BETTER PLACE 44.4 439 2 WORSE PLACE 26.5 262 3 NO CHANGE 27 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/19 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 11 Q16 CURRENT GROWTH REGS IN CITY AS FOR CONTROLLING GROWTH, DO YOU THINK THAT CURRENT GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS IN YOUR CITY OR COMMUNITY ARE: % N VALUE LABEL 8.3 73 1 TOO STRICT 36.2 319 2 ABOUT RIGHT 55.6 490 3 NOT STRICT ENOUGH 134 9 DK,REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/20 ________________________________________________________________________ Q17 FEELING ABOUT FREEWAYS IN OC AND AS FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FREEWAYS IN ORANGE COUNTY? % N VALUE LABEL 9.5 86 1 SATISFACTORY 45.3 410 2 MORE LANES ONLY 45.3 410 3 NEW FREEWAYS 110 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/21 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 12 Q18 HOW OFTEN LIMIT DRIVING ON ANOTHER TOPIC, THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MOST OF THE TIME, SOME OF THE TIME, HARDLY EVER OR NEVER? (ROTATE LIST) LIMIT THE AMOUNT YOU DRIVE TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION. % N VALUE LABEL 34.5 342 1 MOST OF THE TIME 28.9 286 2 SOMETIMES 17.2 170 3 HARDLY EVER 19.5 193 4 NEVER 25 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/22 ________________________________________________________________________ Q19 HOW OFTEN BUY ENV SAFE HHOLD PRODUCTS ON ANOTHER TOPIC, THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MOST OF THE TIME, SOME OF THE TIME, HARDLY EVER OR NEVER? (ROTATE LIST) PURCHASE ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS % N VALUE LABEL 51.7 509 1 MOST OF THE TIME 30.3 298 2 SOMETIMES 10.7 105 3 HARDLY EVER 7.3 72 4 NEVER 32 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/23 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 13 Q20 HOW OFTEN RECYCLE PAPERS, GLASS, CANS ON ANOTHER TOPIC, THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MOST OF THE TIME, SOME OF THE TIME, HARDLY EVER OR NEVER? (ROTATE LIST) RECYCLE NEWSPAPERS, GLASS AND ALUMINUM CANS USED IN YOUR HOME. % N VALUE LABEL 67.6 684 1 MOST OF THE TIME 15.2 154 2 SOMETIMES 5.9 60 3 HARDLY EVER 11.3 114 4 NEVER 4 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/24 ________________________________________________________________________ Q21 HOW OFTEN CONSERVE WATER USE AT HOME ON ANOTHER TOPIC, THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MOST OF THE TIME, SOME OF THE TIME, HARDLY EVER OR NEVER? (ROTATE LIST) CONSERVE WATER USE AT YOUR HOME. % N VALUE LABEL 76.1 772 1 MOST OF THE TIME 18.6 189 2 SOMETIMES 2.9 29 3 HARDLY EVER 2.5 25 4 NEVER 1 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/25 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 14 Q22 LIMIT DRIVING COMPARED TO LAST YR COMPARING TODAY TO A YEAR AGO, ARE YOU MUCH MORE LIKELY, SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY, ABOUT THE SAME, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY, OR MUCH LESS LIKELY TO..... (ROTATE LIST) LIMIT THE AMOUNT YOU DRIVE TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION. % N VALUE LABEL 24.6 245 1 MUCH MORE LIKELY 21.2 211 2 SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY 42.9 427 3 SAME 6.6 66 4 SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY 4.7 47 5 MUCH LESS LIKELY 20 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/26 ________________________________________________________________________ Q23 BUY ENV SAFE PRODUCTS COMPARED TO LAST Y COMPARING TODAY TO A YEAR AGO, ARE YOU MUCH MORE LIKELY, SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY, ABOUT THE SAME, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY, OR MUCH LESS LIKELY TO..... (ROTATE LIST) PURCHASE ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS. % N VALUE LABEL 38.9 386 1 MUCH MORE LIKELY 21.6 214 2 SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY 34.0 338 3 SAME 2.8 28 4 SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY 2.7 27 5 MUCH LESS LIKELY 23 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/27 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 15 Q24 RECYCLE COMPARED TO LAST YR COMPARING TODAY TO A YEAR AGO, ARE YOU MUCH MORE LIKELY, SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY, ABOUT THE SAME, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY, OR MUCH LESS LIKELY TO..... (ROTATE LIST) RECYCLE NEWSPAPERS, GLASS AND ALUMINUM CANS USED IN YOUR HOME. % N VALUE LABEL 50.5 507 1 MUCH MORE LIKELY 14.9 150 2 SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY 29.9 300 3 SAME 2.7 27 4 SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY 2.0 20 5 MUCH LESS LIKELY 12 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/28 ________________________________________________________________________ Q25 CONSERVE WATER USE COMPARED TO LAST YR COMPARING TODAY TO A YEAR AGO, ARE YOU MUCH MORE LIKELY, SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY, ABOUT THE SAME, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY, OR MUCH LESS LIKELY TO..... (ROTATE LIST) CONSERVE WATER USE AT YOUR HOME. % N VALUE LABEL 53.7 544 1 MUCH MORE LIKELY 19.2 194 2 SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY 25.1 254 3 SAME 1.3 13 4 SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY 0.8 8 5 MUCH LESS LIKELY 3 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/29 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 16 Q26 HOW SERIOUS A THREAT ARE ENV PROBS IN GENERAL, HOW SERIOUS A THREAT DO YOU THINK ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS--SUCH AS AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ARE TO YOUR WELL-BEING AND HEALTH TODAY? % N VALUE LABEL 59.7 605 1 VERY SERIOUS 30.7 311 2 SOMEWHAT SERIOUS 8.3 84 3 NOT TOO SERIOUS 1.4 14 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/30 ________________________________________________________________________ Q27 PREFERRED TYPE OF REGIONAL GOV'T WHAT TYPE OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD YOU IDEALLY PREFER? WOULD THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF YOUR CHOICE INCLUDE...(ROTATE) % N VALUE LABEL 18.4 185 1 ALL SO CAL COUNTIES 12.4 125 2 LA AND OC 22.6 227 3 ALL OC 18.7 188 4 YOUR AREA 1.8 18 5 OTHER 16.8 169 6 NONE 9.3 94 8 DK 10 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/31 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 17 Q28 HOW SHOULD MEMBERS BE CHOSEN IF A REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WERE FORMED, SHOULD ITS MEMBERS BE... (ROTATE) % N VALUE LABEL 5.6 55 1 APPOINTED 25.4 249 2 ELECTED AT LARGE 60.0 589 3 ELECTED IN DISTRICTS 9.1 89 8 DK 34 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/32 ________________________________________________________________________ Q29 REG GOV'T MORE/LESS EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK A REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE, LESS EFFECTIVE OR ABOUT THE SAME AS THE CURRENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SOLVING PROBLEMS SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, GROWTH AND POLLUTION? % N VALUE LABEL 43.8 438 1 MORE EFFECTIVE 18.1 181 2 LESS EFFECTIVE 28.3 283 3 SAME 9.8 98 8 DK 16 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/33 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 18 Q30 CONCRND REG GOV'T WD TAKE AWAY POWER ARE YOU CONCERNED OR NOT CONCERNED THAT A REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH POWER FROM YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT? % N VALUE LABEL 40.1 401 1 CONCERNED 51.0 510 2 NOT CONCERNED 8.9 89 8 DK 16 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/34 ________________________________________________________________________ Q31 CONCRND REG GOV'T UNNECESSARY LAYER AND, IN GENERAL, ARE YOU CONCERNED OR NOT CONCERNED THAT A REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY LAYER OF GOVERNMENT? % N VALUE LABEL 56.2 560 1 CONCERNED 33.3 332 2 NOT CONCERNED 10.5 105 8 DK 19 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/35 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 19 Q32 IMPRESSION OF REGIONAL GOV'T GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT... % N VALUE LABEL 8.7 87 1 VERY FAVORABLE 42.0 422 2 SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 20.1 202 3 SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 19.3 194 4 VERY UNFAVORABLE 10.0 100 8 DK 11 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/36 ________________________________________________________________________ Q33 EFFECT OF BUILDING MORE FWYS I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SHORT LIST OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FACING US IN ORANGE COUNTY TODAY. AS I READ THE LIST, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. FIRST, BUILD MORE FREEWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 61.6 626 1 WOULD HELP 35.7 363 2 WOULD NOT HELP 2.7 27 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/37 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 20 Q34 EFFECT OF WIDENING EXISTING FREEWAYS I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SHORT LIST OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FACING US IN ORANGE COUNTY TODAY. AS I READ THE LIST, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. WIDEN EXISTING FREEWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 79.3 806 1 WOULD HELP 18.6 189 2 WOULD NOT HELP 2.1 21 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/38 ________________________________________________________________________ Q35 EFFECT OF IMPROVING LOCAL STREETS I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SHORT LIST OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FACING US IN ORANGE COUNTY TODAY. AS I READ THE LIST, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. IMPROVE LOCAL STREETS. % N VALUE LABEL 68.5 696 1 WOULD HELP 28.8 293 2 WOULD NOT HELP 2.7 27 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/39 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 21 Q36 EFFECT OF ADDING BUSES TO SYSTEM I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SHORT LIST OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FACING US IN ORANGE COUNTY TODAY. AS I READ THE LIST, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. ADD MORE BUSES TO THE SYSTEM. % N VALUE LABEL 56.0 568 1 WOULD HELP 36.7 373 2 WOULD NOT HELP 7.3 74 8 DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/40 ________________________________________________________________________ Q37 EFFECT OF BUILDING RAPID RAIL I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SHORT LIST OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FACING US IN ORANGE COUNTY TODAY. AS I READ THE LIST, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. BUILD A NEW RAPID RAIL SYSTEM. % N VALUE LABEL 80.9 820 1 WOULD HELP 13.9 141 2 WOULD NOT HELP 5.1 52 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/41 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 22 Q38 EFFECT OF BUILDING THREE TOLLROADS ALSO, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THESE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. BUILDING THREE TOLLROADS THAT PARALLEL EXISTING FREEWAYS IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY. % N VALUE LABEL 48.5 492 1 WOULD HELP 43.0 436 2 WOULD NOT HELP 8.5 86 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/42 ________________________________________________________________________ Q39 EFFECT OF BUILDING MONORAIL SYSTEM ALSO, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THESE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. BUILDING A MONORAIL SYSTEM IN CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY, WITH STATIONS IN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM, COSTA MESA, IRVINE, ORANGE AND SANTA ANA. % N VALUE LABEL 83.6 847 1 WOULD HELP 11.9 121 2 WOULD NOT HELP 4.4 45 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/43 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 23 Q40 EFFECT OF HI-SPD LAS VEGAS-ANAHEIM TRAIN ALSO, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU THINK THESE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY WOULD HELP OR WOULD NOT HELP SOLVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. BUILDING A LAS VEGAS TO ANAHEIM HIGH-SPEED TRAIN, WITH STOPS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND LINKING THE ANAHEIM TERMINAL TO THE MONORAIL SYSTEM. % N VALUE LABEL 56.0 567 1 WOULD HELP 36.0 365 2 WOULD NOT HELP 8.0 81 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/44 ________________________________________________________________________ Q41 WHAT PRIORITY: BUILDING NEW FWYS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? BUILDING NEW FREEWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 39.5 401 1 HIGH PRIORITY 27.6 280 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 31.0 315 3 LOW PRIORITY 2.0 20 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/45 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 24 Q42 WHAT PRIORITY: WIDENING EXISTING FWYS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? WIDENING EXISTING FREEWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 56.0 569 1 HIGH PRIORITY 23.6 240 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 18.3 186 3 LOW PRIORITY 2.1 21 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/46 ________________________________________________________________________ Q43 WHAT PRIORITY: IMPROVING LOCAL STREETS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? IMPROVING LOCAL STREETS. % N VALUE LABEL 37.3 378 1 HIGH PRIORITY 32.2 327 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 29.5 299 3 LOW PRIORITY 1.0 10 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/47 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 25 Q44 WHAT PRIORITY: IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSP THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. % N VALUE LABEL 56.7 576 1 HIGH PRIORITY 22.8 231 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 18.0 183 3 LOW PRIORITY 2.5 25 8 DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/48 ________________________________________________________________________ Q45 WHAT PRIORITY: BUILDING LOCAL RAIL SYST THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? BUILDING A LOCAL RAIL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. % N VALUE LABEL 55.9 566 1 HIGH PRIORITY 22.5 228 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 20.0 203 3 LOW PRIORITY 1.6 16 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/49 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 26 Q46 WHAT PRIORITY: EXPANDING LA-SDIEGO RAIL THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR ORANGE COUNTY. DO YOU CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS TO BE OF HIGH PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY OR LOW PRIORITY IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE? EXPANDING THE LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO RAIL SERVICE THROUGHOUT ORANGE COUNTY, AND DEVELOPING A COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM LINKING ORANGE COUNTY CITIES. % N VALUE LABEL 57.0 579 1 HIGH PRIORITY 25.0 254 2 MEDIUM PRIORITY 15.2 154 3 LOW PRIORITY 2.9 29 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/50 ________________________________________________________________________ Q47 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY BUS CONSIDERING ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A COMMUTER, BOTH NOW AND IN THE PAST, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMMUTE TO WORK? PUBLIC BUSES. % N VALUE LABEL 5.8 58 1 OFTEN 7.7 78 2 SOMETIMES 13.9 140 3 RARELY 69.9 705 4 NEVER 2.7 27 5 NEVER WORKED 0.0 0 8 DK 8 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/51 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 27 Q48 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY CARPOOL CONSIDERING ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A COMMUTER, BOTH NOW AND IN THE PAST, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMMUTE TO WORK? CARPOOLS WITH NEIGHBORS OR CO-WORKERS. % N VALUE LABEL 12.5 126 1 OFTEN 23.0 232 2 SOMETIMES 14.5 146 3 RARELY 47.2 475 4 NEVER 2.8 28 5 NEVER WORKED 0.0 0 8 DK 9 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/52 ________________________________________________________________________ Q49 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY VAN POOL CONSIDERING ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A COMMUTER, BOTH NOW AND IN THE PAST, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMMUTE TO WORK? EMPLOYER VAN POOLS. % N VALUE LABEL 2.2 22 1 OFTEN 3.6 36 2 SOMETIMES 3.2 32 3 RARELY 88.0 881 4 NEVER 3.0 30 5 NEVER WORKED 0.0 0 8 DK 15 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/53 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 28 Q50 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED BY LOCAL RAIL CONSIDERING ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A COMMUTER, BOTH NOW AND IN THE PAST, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMMUTE TO WORK? LOCAL RAIL TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS MONORAILS, TRAINS AND SUBWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 3.6 36 1 OFTEN 5.9 59 2 SOMETIMES 5.6 56 3 RARELY 82.4 827 4 NEVER 2.6 26 5 NEVER WORKED 0.0 0 8 DK 12 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/54 ________________________________________________________________________ Q51 HOW OFTEN COMMUTED ALONE IN CAR CONSIDERING ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A COMMUTER, BOTH NOW AND IN THE PAST, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMMUTE TO WORK? DRIVING ALONE IN AN AUTOMOBILE. % N VALUE LABEL 81.3 819 1 OFTEN 10.3 104 2 SOMETIMES 3.2 32 3 RARELY 2.9 29 4 NEVER 2.3 23 5 NEVER WORKED 0.0 0 8 DK 9 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/55 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 29 Q52 HOW LIKELY WOULD CARPOOL THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO COMMUTE FROM HOME TO WORK, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THEM? CARPOOLS WITH NEIGHBORS AND COWORKERS. % N VALUE LABEL 29.7 300 1 DEFINITELY WOULD 26.7 270 2 PROBABLY WOULD 11.6 117 3 MAY OR MAY NOT 12.3 124 4 PROBABLY NOT 15.4 156 5 DEFINITELY NOT 4.3 43 8 DK 6 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/56 ________________________________________________________________________ Q53 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE VAN POOL THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO COMMUTE FROM HOME TO WORK, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THEM? EMPLOYER VAN POOLS. % N VALUE LABEL 29.8 301 1 DEFINITELY WOULD 23.3 235 2 PROBABLY WOULD 8.1 82 3 MAY OR MAY NOT 12.8 129 4 PROBABLY NOT 21.1 213 5 DEFINITELY NOT 4.9 49 8 DK 7 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/57 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 30 Q54 HOW LIKELY WOULD DRIVE ALONE IN CAR THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO COMMUTE FROM HOME TO WORK, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THEM? DRIVING ALONE IN AN AUTOMOBILE. % N VALUE LABEL 44.2 447 1 DEFINITELY WOULD 19.8 200 2 PROBABLY WOULD 11.7 118 3 MAY OR MAY NOT 12.0 121 4 PROBABLY NOT 8.2 83 5 DEFINITELY NOT 4.2 42 8 DK 5 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/58 ________________________________________________________________________ Q55 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE BUS THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO COMMUTE FROM HOME TO WORK, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THEM? PUBLIC BUSES. % N VALUE LABEL 11.3 114 1 DEFINITELY WOULD 13.9 140 2 PROBABLY WOULD 11.5 116 3 MAY OR MAY NOT 18.9 191 4 PROBABLY NOT 39.7 401 5 DEFINITELY NOT 4.8 48 8 DK 6 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/59 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 31 Q56 HOW LIKELY WOULD USE LOCAL RAIL THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS WERE EQUALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO COMMUTE FROM HOME TO WORK, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THEM? LOCAL RAIL TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS MONORAILS, TRAINS AND SUBWAYS. % N VALUE LABEL 35.1 354 1 DEFINITELY WOULD 25.9 261 2 PROBABLY WOULD 8.2 83 3 MAY OR MAY NOT 8.9 90 4 PROBABLY NOT 17.6 178 5 DEFINITELY NOT 4.3 43 8 DK 7 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/60 ________________________________________________________________________ Q57 MAIN REASON WOULD NOT USE LOCAL RAIL % N VALUE LABEL 4.4 17 1 COST 43.8 171 2 CONVENIENCE 4.4 17 3 DEPENDABILITY 2.3 9 4 COMFORT 9.2 36 5 TIME 25.9 101 6 OTHER 10.0 39 8 DK 626 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/61 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 32 Q58 VOTE ON SALES TAX FOR ROADS ONLY % N VALUE LABEL 56.2 568 1 YES 39.9 403 2 NO 3.9 39 8 DK 6 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/62 ________________________________________________________________________ Q59 VOTE ON SALES TAX FOR RDS & PUB TRANS % N VALUE LABEL 61.4 622 1 YES 33.6 340 2 NO 5.0 51 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/63 ________________________________________________________________________ Q60 IF PARKING CHARGE FOR DRIVING ALONE % N VALUE LABEL 35.2 340 1 DRIVE ALONE 14.7 142 2 CARPOOL 34.6 334 3 PUBLIC TRANSIT 5.3 51 4 OTHER 10.2 98 5 NOT WORKING 51 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/64 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 33 Q61 IF COMMUTER FEE FOR DRIVING ALONE % N VALUE LABEL 18.1 174 1 DRIVE ALONE RUSH HR 28.8 277 2 DRIVE ALONE NON-RUSH 28.7 276 3 CARPOOL RUSH HR 11.3 109 4 PUBLIC TRANSIT RUSH 3.5 34 5 OTHER 9.6 92 6 NOT WORKING 54 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/65 ________________________________________________________________________ Q62 PARKING FEE TO STOP YOU DRIVING ALONE % N VALUE LABEL 26.8 263 1 LESS THAN $2 22.0 216 2 $2-$4.99 13.2 130 3 $5-$6.99 3.1 30 4 $7-$9.99 14.1 138 5 $10+ 10.1 99 6 NOT WORKING 10.8 106 8 DK 34 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/66 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 34 Q63 HOW IMPORTANT YR HOUSE HAS PRIVACY % N VALUE LABEL 67.5 685 1 VERY IMPORTANT 25.1 255 2 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 6.8 69 3 NOT IMPORTANT 0.6 6 8 DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/67 ________________________________________________________________________ Q64 HOW SATISFIED W/ YR PRIVACY % N VALUE LABEL 55.4 562 1 VERY SATISFIED 30.8 313 2 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 13.2 134 3 NOT SATISFIED 0.6 6 8 DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/68 ________________________________________________________________________ Q65 HOW IMPORTANT RES ACTIVE IN CITY % N VALUE LABEL 66.4 673 1 VERY IMPORTANT 26.2 266 2 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 5.7 58 3 NOT IMPORTANT 1.7 17 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/69 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 35 Q66 HOW SATISFIED /W RES PARTICIPATION % N VALUE LABEL 25.0 253 1 VERY SATISFIED 41.3 419 2 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 22.6 229 3 NOT SATISFIED 11.1 113 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/70 ________________________________________________________________________ Q67 CITY HAS DISTINCT CHARACTER % N VALUE LABEL 75.7 769 1 YES 17.4 177 2 NO 6.9 70 8 DK ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/71 ________________________________________________________________________ Q68 PERCEIVED CHANGE IN CITY CHARACTER % N VALUE LABEL 44.6 345 1 CHANGING FOR BETTER 24.8 192 2 CHANGING FOR WORSE 26.5 205 3 NOT CHANGING 4.0 31 8 DK 243 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/72 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 36 Q69 CITY HAS SENSE OF COMMUNITY % N VALUE LABEL 69.7 707 1 YES 23.4 238 2 NO 6.9 70 8 DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/73 ________________________________________________________________________ Q70 $ GAVE TO ALL CHARITIES LAST YR % N VALUE LABEL 7.3 68 1 NOTHING 26.7 247 2 $1-$100 19.1 177 3 $101-$250 18.6 172 4 $251-$500 9.1 84 5 $501-$999 19.2 178 6 $1000+ 90 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/74 ________________________________________________________________________ Q71 VOLUNTEER TIME FOR CHARITY % N VALUE LABEL 28.9 292 1 YES 71.1 720 2 NO 4 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/75 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 37 Q73 WORKPLACE % N VALUE LABEL 25.2 190 1 NORTH 10.6 80 2 WEST 19.0 143 3 CENTRAL 28.2 213 4 SOUTH 14.2 107 5 LA COUNTY 2.8 21 8 OTHER 262 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/columns: 1/77-78 ________________________________________________________________________ Q74 HOW COMMUTE TO WORK % N VALUE LABEL 82.9 649 1 DRIVE ALONE 9.2 72 2 CARPOOL 0.8 6 3 VANPOOL 1.0 8 4 PUBLIC TRANSIT 6.1 48 5 OTHER 233 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/79 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 38 Q75 TIME FROM HOME TO WORK % N VALUE LABEL 27.0 209 1 LESS THAN 10 MIN 33.4 258 2 10-20 MIN 18.4 142 3 21-30 MIN 15.7 121 4 31-60 MIN 5.6 43 5 1 HOUR + 243 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/80 ________________________________________________________________________ Q76 USE FREEWAY IN COMMUTING % N VALUE LABEL 50.3 396 1 YES 49.7 391 2 NO 229 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/81 ________________________________________________________________________ Q7 BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF/SAME LAST YEAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY) ARE FINANCIALLY BETTER OFF OR WORSE OFF THAN YOU WERE A YEAR AGO? % N VALUE LABEL 49.1 491 1 BETTER OFF 20.3 203 2 WORSE OFF 30.7 307 3 SAME 15 9 DK, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/11 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 39 Q8 BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF/SAME NEXT YEAR NOW LOOKING AHEAD, DO YOU THINK THAT A YEAR FROM NOW YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY) WILL BE BETTER OFF, WORSE OFF, OR JUST ABOUT THE SAME AS NOW? % N VALUE LABEL 52.1 528 1 BETTER OFF 7.4 75 2 WORSE OFF 35.6 361 3 SAME 4.8 49 8 DK 3 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/12 ________________________________________________________________________ Q9 NAT'L BUSINESS CONDS NEXT 12 MO TURNING TO BUSINESS CONDITIONS IN THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE, DO YOU THINK THAT DURING THE NEXT 12 MONTHS WE WILL HAVE GOOD TIMES FINANCIALLY OR BAD TIMES? % N VALUE LABEL 40.2 408 1 GOOD TIMES 43.8 444 2 BAD TIMES 16.0 162 8 DK 2 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/13 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 40 Q10 NAT'L CONDS NEXT 5 YEARS LOOKING AHEAD, IN THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE WILL WE HAVE CONTINUED GOOD TIMES DURING THE NEXT 5 YEARS OR WILL WE HAVE PERIODS OF WIDESPREAD UNEMPLOYMENT OR DEPRESSION? % N VALUE LABEL 30.5 308 1 GOOD TIMES 54.6 552 2 DEPRESSION 14.9 151 8 DK 5 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/14 ________________________________________________________________________ Q11 GD/BAD TIME TO BUY MAN HSEHOLD ITEMS ABOUT THE BIG THINGS THAT PEOPLE BUY FOR THEIR HOMES, SUCH AS FURNITURE, A REFRIGERATOR, A STOVE, TELEVISION AND THINGS LIKE THAT--GENERALLY SPEAKING, DO YOU THINK NOW IS A GOOD OR A BAD TIME FOR PEOPLE TO BUY MAJOR HOUSEHOLD ITEMS? % N VALUE LABEL 46.0 467 1 GOOD TIME 30.7 312 2 BAD TIME 23.3 236 8 NEITHER, DK 1 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/15 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 41 Q85 CONSIDER YOURSELF POLITICALLY: % N VALUE LABEL 9.2 90 1 VERY LIBERAL 19.4 190 2 SOMEWHAT LIBERAL 25.1 245 3 MIDDLE OF ROAD 33.1 323 4 SOMEWHAT CONSERV 13.2 129 5 VERY CONSERV 39 9 REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/91 ________________________________________________________________________ Q87 VOTE ON PROP 128 (BIG GREEN) % N VALUE LABEL 57.8 482 1 YES 27.0 225 2 NO 15.2 127 8 DK 182 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/93 ________________________________________________________________________ Q88 VOTE ON PROP 136 (RT TO VOTE) % N VALUE LABEL 72.7 607 1 YES 15.1 126 2 NO 12.2 102 8 DK 181 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/94 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 42 Q89 HOW THINK FRIENDS WILL VOTE ON 136 % N VALUE LABEL 64.2 536 1 YES 11.4 95 2 NO 24.4 204 8 DK 181 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/95 ________________________________________________________________________ Q90 HOW THINK NBRS WILL VOTE ON 136 % N VALUE LABEL 50.0 418 1 YES 9.4 79 2 NO 40.6 339 8 DK 180 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/96 ________________________________________________________________________ Q91 HOW THINK CITY WILL VOTE ON 136 % N VALUE LABEL 54.4 456 1 YES 11.7 98 2 NO 33.9 284 8 DK 178 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/97 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 43 Q92 HOW THINK OC WILL VOTE ON 136 % N VALUE LABEL 58.6 490 1 YES 13.0 109 2 NO 28.3 237 8 DK 180 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/98 ________________________________________________________________________ Q93 HOW THINK STATE WILL VOTE ON 136 % N VALUE LABEL 53.8 449 1 YES 14.3 119 2 NO 32.0 267 8 DK 181 9 NA, REFUSE ----- ----- 100.0 1,016 cases Data type: numeric Missing-data code: 9 Record/column: 1/99 June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 44 Methods The Orange County Annual Survey was co-directed by Mark Baldassare, a UC Irvine professor of social ecology and Cheryl Katz, research associate. For the survey, 1,017 adult Orange County residents were interviewed by telephone Sept. 5 to 21. In Orange County, where more than 97 percent of households have telephones, this method of interview gives highly representative data. Interviewing was conducted on weekend days and weekday nights, using a random sample of 4,000 listed and unlisted telephone numbers. These were generated by computer from a list of working blocks of telephone exchanges. The telephone sample was generated by Pijacki and Associates of Shoreham, N.Y. The field work was conducted at the Center for Survey Research by UCI's Public Policy Research Organization. Of the telephone numbers called, 25 percent resulted in completed interviews and 15 percent were refusals. The completion rate for the survey (completions divided by completions plus refusals) was 63 percent, consistent with earlier annual surveys. Other telephone outcomes include the following: 21 percent disconnected numbers; 3 percent computer or fax lines; 15 percent businesses and other non-Orange County households; 20 percent persistent no answers and 1 percent persistently unavailable respondents. Two percent were not completed because of language problems, including non-English speaking households and hearing impairment. These figures are also consistent with earlier annual surveys. Within a household, respondents were chosen for interview using the Troldahl-Carter method. This method randomly selects a household member from a grid that includes information on the number of adult household members and the number of adult men in the household. Up to six callbacks were attempted per telephone number. Each interview included 95 questions and took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Most interviews ranged in length from 15 to 25 minutes. The surveys were designed in three stages over eight months. The first stage involved feedback on survey topics and questions from the annual survey's Steering Committee, Advisory Committee and UCI colleagues. In the second stage, during the spring, UCI graduate students conducted focus group interviews on Orange County topics and pretested survey questions. After a draft was reviewed by the advisory committee, final revisions of the survey questions were made. The interview began with questions about housing, consumer confidence and perceptions of life in Orange County. These were followed by questions on the environment, regional governance and transportation alternatives. A major section of the interview was devoted to questions about mass transit. Later in the interview, we turned to other topics, including privacy, civic participation and charitable giving. The conclusion of the survey was devoted to questions about work, commuting, demographic characteristics and political attitudes. The survey's validity was checked by comparing the sample characteristics to Orange County population data. We compared the 1990 survey results to previous annual surveys and other recent survey data. Age, income and other demographic features of our sample were comparable with those noted in other studies. For the purposes of analysis, we statistically weighted the sample to represent the actual regional distribution of Orange County residents. The population estimates for north, west, central and south June 3, 2010 ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY 1990 Page 45 county regions were from data issued by the Demographic Research Unit, County of Orange. The 1990 U.S. Census preliminary population estimates by city were also reviewed. Several other efforts were made to correct for possible errors in interviewing or data processing. Approximately 10 percent of the completed interviews were verified through callbacks. All questionnaires were checked by a supervisor immediately after completion. Finally, keypunched data were verified for all respondents in the survey sample. The sampling error for this survey is +/- 3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in Orange County were interviewed. The sampling error for any subgroup would be larger. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be influenced by factors such as question wording, survey timing and other aspects of survey design. June 3, 2010