Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing

Transport Policy

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 685-694

  Gehlert, Tina ^a   Kramer, Christiane ^a   Nielsen, Otto Anker ^b   Schlag, Bernhard ^a  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Car use adaptation; Integrated travel demand management; Market segmentation; Public acceptability; Target groups; Urban road pricing

Indexed keywords

CAR USE; METROPOLITAN AREA; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; ROAD PRICING; SEGMENTATION; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; URBAN TRANSPORT;

EID: 79957828897     PISSN: 0967070X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allström, A., Bengtsson, L., Neergaard, K., Nilsson, A., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., Ström, L., et al., 2006. Changes in travel habits in Stockholm county-effects of the Stockholm trial. Report No. 67, Trivector Traffic, commissioned by Congestion Charging Secretariat, City of Stockholm.
2. Anable J. 'Complacent Car Addicts' or 'Aspiring Environmentalists'? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy 2005, 12:65-78.
3. Bacher J. Clusteranalyse [Cluster Analysis] 1994, Oldenbourg, München.
4. Braunholtz S., Cumming R. Evaluation of Edinburgh Residents' Attitude to the Proposed Road User Charging Scheme (Transport Research Series) 2006, Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh, UK.
5. Button K.J. Transport Economics 1993, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
6. Cain, A., Celikel, N., Jones, P., 2001. Public consultation strategy-phase II preparatory market research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European Commission DG TREN under the 5th Framework Programme.
7. Cain, A., Jones, P., 2002. Public consultation strategy-phase III regional market research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European Commission DG TREN under the 5th Framework Programme.
8. Cain, A., Jones, P., 2004. Edinburgh's integrated transport initiative-phase V market research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European Commission DG TREN under the 5th Framework Programme.
9. Cao X., Mokhtarian P. How do individuals adapt their personal travel? Objective and subjective influences on the consideration of travel-related strategies for San Francisco Bay Area commuters. Transport Policy 2005, 12:291-302.
10. Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006. Facts and results from the Stockholm Trials (Final version). City of Stockholm.
11. Eliasson J., Hultkranz L., Nerhagen L., Smidfelt Rosqvist L. The Stockholm congestion-charging trial 2006: overview of effects. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43(3):240-250.
12. Gaunt M., Rye T., Allen S. Public acceptability of road user charging: the case of Edinburgh and the 2005 referendum. Transport Reviews 2007, 27(1):85-102.
13. Gehlert T. Straßenbenutzungsgebühren in Städten: Akzeptanz und Mobilitätsverhalten [Acceptability and Travel Behaviour Change in Response to Urban Road Pricing] 2009, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
14. Gehlert T., Nielsen J., Rich J., Schlag B. Public acceptability change of urban road pricing schemes. in: Proceedings of ICE, Transport 2008, 161(3):111-121.
15. Gehlert, T., Nielsen, O.A., 2007. Triangulation of data sources for analysing car drivers' responses to road pricing in Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
16. Golob T.F. Joint models of attitudes and behavior in evaluation of the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project. Transportation Research Part A 2001, 35:495-514.
17. Gustavsson, H., Åke., 2005. Kunskapen om och attityder till Stockholmsförsöket försöket med miljöavgifter/trängselskatt och utbyggd kollektivtrafik. Slutrapport Resultat från intervjuer med boende i Stockholms län 2 maj-23 maj 2006 [Knowledge and attitude of the Stockholm congestion charging field trial and expanded public transport. Final Report, Results from May 2006]. Stockholm Office of Research and Statistics (USK), Stockholm.
18. Harrington W., Krupnick A., Alberini A. Overcoming public aversion to congestion pricing. Transportation Research Part A 2001, 35:87-105.
19. Hug K., Mock-Hecker R., Würtenberger J. Transport demand management by electronic fee collection in a zone-based pricing scheme: the Stuttgart MobilPass field trial. Transportation Research Record 1997, 1576:69-76.
20. Hunecke M., Schweer I. Einflussfaktoren der Alltagsmobilität-Das Zusammenwirken von Raum, Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Lebensstil und Mobilitätseinstellungen [Determinants of daily mobility-the interaction of space, traffic infrastructure, life styles and mobility-related attitudes]. StadtLeben-Wohnen, Mobilität und Lebensstil 2006, 148-166. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. K.J. Beckmann, M. Hesse, C. Holz-Rau, M. Hunecke (Eds.).
21. Jaensirisak S., Wardman M., May A. Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2005, 39:127-153.
22. Jones P. Gaining public support for road pricing through a package approach. Traffic Engineering and Control 2001, 32(4):194-196.
23. Kjerkreit A., Odeck J. Users' attitudes towards road user charges: a time series analysis of the Oslo toll ring. ECTRI Young Researchers Seminar 2005, The Hague, Netherlands.
24. Kramer, C., 2009. The impact of the life situation on the response towards urban road pricing. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Dresden University of Technology.
25. Kottenhof K., Brundell Freij K. The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging-The case of Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2009, 43(3):297-305.
26. Nielsen O.A. Behavioral responses to road pricing schemes: description of the Danish AKTA experiment. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 2004, 8:233-251.
27. Nielsen, O.A., 2004b. Map-matching algorithms for GPS-Data-methodology and test on data from the AKTA road pricing experiment in Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Instanbul, Turkey.
28. Nielsen, O.A., Kristensen, J.P., Würtz, C., 2003. Using GPS for road pricing-experiences from Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Madrid, Spain.
29. Odeck J., Bråthen S. On public attitudes toward implementation of toll roads-the case of Oslo toll ring. Transport Policy 1997, 4(2):73-83.
30. Polk M. The influence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to reduce car use in Sweden. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12(3):185-195.
31. Raney E.A., Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. Modeling individuals' consideration of strategies to cope with congestion. Transportation Research Part F 2000, 3(3):141-165.
32. Rienstra S.A., Rietveld P., Verhoef E.T. The social support for policy measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D 1999, 4:181-200.
33. Schade J., Schlag B. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Traffic Engineering and Control 2000, 41:314-318.
34. Schade J. Akzeptanz von Straßenbenutzungsgebühren: Entwicklung und Überprüfung eines Modells [Acceptability of Road Pricing: Model Development and Validation] 2005, Pabst, Lengerich.
35. Scheiner J. Is travel mode choice driven by subjective or objective factors?. Subject-oriented Approaches to Transport 2009, 53-69. Technical University Dortmund, Germany. C. Holz-Rau, J. Scheiner (Eds.).
36. Schuitema G., Steg L., Forward S. Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 2010, 44:99-109.
37. Schuitema G., Steg L. The role of revenue use in the acceptability of transport pricing policies. Transportation Research Part F 2008, 11:221-231.
38. Steg L. Can public transport compete with the private car?. IATSS Research 2003, 27(2):27-35.
39. Steininger K.W., Friedl B., Gebetsroither B. Sustainability impacts of car road pricing: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Austria. Ecological Economics 2007, 1:59-69.
40. Transport for London, 2005. Central London congestion charging. Impacts monitoring. Third Annual Report, London.