IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ndjtrf/207142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Kockelman, Kara M.
  • Podgorski, Kaethe
  • Bina, Michelle
  • Gadda, Shashank

Abstract

This work illuminates public opinion on various transportation policies and issues. Statewide survey results reveal considerable agreement on two issues (higher tolls for heavy vehicles and dedicated truck lanes) and reasonable support for conversion of non-tolled roads to tolled roads. Under congestion pricing, older persons report being more likely to reduce their travel during peak periods, members of larger households are more likely to change travel routes, and full-time workers are more likely not to change their current travel patterns. Other results tie into the information content of messages, highway safety policies and revenue generation for transportation agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kockelman, Kara M. & Podgorski, Kaethe & Bina, Michelle & Gadda, Shashank, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 48(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ndjtrf:207142
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.207142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/207142/files/2316-4626-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.207142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    4. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Podgorski, Kaethe V. & Kockelman, Kara M., 2006. "Public perceptions of toll roads: A survey of the Texas perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 888-902, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gomez, Juan & Papanikolaou, Anestis & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2016. "Measuring regional differences in users' perceptions towards interurban toll roads," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 22-33.
    2. Kockelman, Kara M. & Lemp, Jason D., 2011. "Anticipating new-highway impacts: Opportunities for welfare analysis and credit-based congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 825-838, October.
    3. Juan Gomez & Anestis Papanikolaou & José Manuel Vassallo, 2017. "Users’ perceptions and willingness to pay in interurban toll roads: identifying differences across regions from a nationwide survey in Spain," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 449-474, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    2. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    3. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    4. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    5. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    6. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    7. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    8. Denise Doiron & Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Deborah J. Street, 2014. "Job preferences of students and new graduates in nursing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 924-939, March.
    9. Hunt, Priscillia E & Smart, Rosanna, 2020. "Investigation of Employers' Preferences for the Design of Staffing Agency Incentives to Hire Ex-Felons," IZA Discussion Papers 13520, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    11. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    12. Nakamura, A., 2011. "Estimating switching costs after introducing Fixed-Mobile Convergence in Japan," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 59-71, March.
    13. Zheng, Qiujie & Wang, H. Holly, 2016. "Chinese preferences for sustainable attributes for food away from home: A rank-ordered model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 148-158.
    14. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    15. Costanigro, Marco & Deselnicu, Oana & Kroll, Stephan, 2012. "Truthful, Misguiding Labels: The Implications of Labeling Production Processes rather than their Outcomes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124615, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Lee, Paul H. & Yu, Philip L.H., 2010. "Distance-based tree models for ranking data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1672-1682, June.
    17. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    18. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    19. Yuan Cheng & John K. Dagsvik & Xuehui Han, 2014. "Real Estate Market Policy and Household Demand for Housing," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 237-253, May.
    20. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ndjtrf:207142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.trforum.org/journal/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.