Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability and car use adaptation

towards urban road pricing
Tina Gehlert a,n, Christiane Kramer a, Otto Anker Nielsen b, Bernhard Schlag a
a
Traffic and Transportation Psychology, TU Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany
b
DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Available online 21 February 2011 Urban road pricing is regarded as an effective instrument to reduce traffic congestion and environ-
Keywords: mental-related problems in metropolitan areas. Whereas the overall impact of urban road pricing on
Urban road pricing car use adaptation and public acceptability is known, there are only inconsistent results concerning the
Public acceptability socioeconomic differences in the response towards road pricing. However, this knowledge is necessary
Car use adaptation for the development of urban road pricing packages. This paper uses a segmentation approach to
Market segmentation identify groups of car users with a similar background in relevant socioeconomic variables and
Target groups compares their responses towards road pricing. Three groups are identified: young families, suburban
Integrated travel demand management families, and singles and couples. These groups indeed differ in their car use adaptation towards urban
road pricing as well as in their preferred revenues use. While all three groups significantly reduced their
private car use, the young families reduced their car use most, followed by the group of singles and
couples. Complementary measures are discussed that are believed to facilitate car use adaptation of
each group in response towards urban road pricing.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In order to meet the expectations outlined above the design of

an urban road pricing package needs to take the spatial, econom-
Urban road pricing has proven to be an effective instrument ical and social circumstances of car users into account. Only then
for reducing personal car use and consequently traffic congestion is it possible to design complementary measures that provide and
and environmental problems in metropolitan areas (e.g. Gehlert inform car users about travel behaviour options that are in line
et al., 2008; Eliasson et al., 2009; Transport for London, 2005). with their life situation.
However, one major obstacle for the wide-spread implementation However, current evidence about the socioeconomic differ-
is still the lack of public acceptability. Several studies show public ences in the reaction towards urban road pricing is inconclusive.
acceptability rates of only up to 20–30% for urban road pricing as The reason might be that previous studies have focused on
a single measure (e.g. Jaensirisak et al., 2005; Schade and Schlag, individual socioeconomic variables in relation to public accept-
2000). ability and car use adaptation rather than looking at the life
One way of increasing public acceptability is the design and the situation of car users as a whole and taking the interrelations of
implementation of urban road pricing schemes as packages where socioeconomic characteristics into account. However, there is
road pricing is combined with investments in alternative travel evidence that socioeconomic factors such as residential location,
modes such as public transport and extensive information campaigns. access to public transport and income are related to each other
Such a package approach does not only increase public acceptability (e.g. Scheiner, 2009). Furthermore, it is quite possible that vari-
but also generates revenues for providing alternative transport ables or relationships are not relevant for the average car user, but
options that make the reduction of private car use possible. Thus a are quite relevant for certain subgroups (Anable, 2005). Therefore,
package approach ensures public acceptability as well as the effec- this paper aims to investigate how distinct groups of people with
tiveness of an urban road pricing scheme (Jones, 2001; Kottenhoff a similar socioeconomic background differ in their public accept-
and Brundell Freij, 2009; Schuitema and Steg, 2008). ability and their car use adaptation towards urban road pricing.
Furthermore, it will be explored how these differences can be
n
used for designing and implementing an urban road pricing
Correspondence to: Accident Research Department, German Insurance Asso-
ciation, Wilhelmstr. 43/43G, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 30 2020 5822;
package.
fax: + 49 30 2020 6822. This study complements a previous paper from Gehlert et al.
E-mail address: Tina.Gehlert@gmx.de (T. Gehlert). (2008) where car user’s reactions towards urban road pricing

0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.003
686 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

were investigated. The results showed significant car use reduc- The results concerning the possession and usage of a private car
tion and a corresponding pattern of behavioural adaptation are fairly consistent in a way that people without a private car
strategies in response towards the AKTA road pricing experiment, and less frequent car users support road pricing more strongly
a large urban road pricing field trial in Copenhagen (Denmark). than frequent car users. For example, in Oslo Odeck and Bråthen
But they also revealed an unexpected high level of public accept- (1997) as well as Kjerkreit and Odeck (2005) found that car use
ability of urban road pricing and no significant public accept- (in contrast to public transport usage), the frequency of car use
ability change after the experiment. The question emerged and the frequency of toll cordon crossing negatively affected the
whether these results apply to all participants in the same way. acceptability of the Oslo toll ring. A similar relationship was found
Therefore, data from the AKTA road pricing experiment already in Edinburgh (Cain et al., 2001; Cain and Jones, 2002; Gaunt et al.,
used in Gehlert et al. (2008) has been reanalysed to examine the 2007) and Stockholm (Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006).
socioeconomic differences in the reactions towards urban road However, that does not necessarily mean that public transport
pricing. users are more positive towards road pricing per se. In
This paper will start with a summary of the current knowledge Edinburgh Gaunt et al. (2007) showed that public transport users
concerning socioeconomic differences in the acceptability and car were not equally as positive as car users were negative towards
use adaptation towards urban road pricing as well as socio- road pricing.
economic segmentation approaches in travel behaviour research. Similarly the results concerning place of residence are fairly
In addition, the results of the study from Gehlert et al. (2008) are consistent. For example in Edinburgh and in Stockholm the
presented. Secondly, the methodology of the AKTA road pricing residents outside the road pricing cordons were particularly
experiment is outlined. Furthermore, the application of cluster negative towards it (Cain et al., 2001; Cain and Jones, 2002,
analysis to derive distinct groups of people with a similar socio- 2004; Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006). However, these
economic background is outlined. Thirdly, these groups are results could be due to the differences in car use. People living
profiled and examined as to how they differ with respect to their in the cities do not have nor need the car to the same extend as
acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing. people from the outside. For them usually other travel-mode
In the last section the implications of these differences for the options are available such as public transport or walking. In
design of an urban road pricing package will be discussed. Stockholm this result could also be due to the political prefer-
ences in these areas. Gustavsson (2005) found that people with a
liberal or social democratic orientation prefer road pricing more
2. Previous research than people with a conservative orientation. At the same time
these people live more often in the city whereas people with a
2.1. Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability of urban road conservative orientation more often live in the surrounding areas.
pricing

Individual differences in public acceptability of urban road pricing 2.2. Socioeconomic differences in car use adaptation towards urban
schemes have mostly been studied with respect to the available road pricing
household income. The assumption is that people with high income
support road pricing to a higher degree than people with low income. Car use adaption has also been studied in relation to income. The
The reason is that people with high income also have a higher value assumption is that people with low income adapt their car use more
of time and thus are willing to pay more for uncongested roads strongly since they cannot afford to pay the charges (in line with
(Button, 1993). However, the empirical results are mixed. Golob economic theory, Button, 1993). Similarly Schade (2005) and
(2001) found a positive relationship between acceptability and Steininger et al. (2007) assume that people with low income still
income, while Rienstra et al. (1999), Jaensirisak et al. (2005) use public transport more often and therefore do not have such a
and Schade (2005) found no significant relationship. Harrington strong car use habit as high income car users. Thus they are not only
et al. (2001) even found a negative relationship between income forced to but also able to adapt their car use to changing circum-
and acceptability. That means, people with low income supported stances. There are results indicating such a negative relationship
road pricing to a higher degree than people with high income. between income and car use adaptation (e.g. Schade, 2005; Golob,
Contradicting results are also found in cities that have imple- 2001; Steininger et al., 2007). However, there are also results
mented road pricing. Odeck and Bråthen (1997) found no influ- indicating the reverse direction. For example, Odeck and Bråthen
ence of income on the acceptability of the toll ring in Oslo (1997) found in Oslo that high income car users stated to have
(Norway) whereas Kjerkreit and Odeck (2005) found a positive changed their car use more strongly. Also Cao and Mokhtarian (2005)
though small relationship. Studies in Edinburgh (UK) indicated found that people with high income were more willing to reduce
that the relationship between income and acceptability depends their car use compared to people with low income. On the other hand
on the level of charge. People with low income were in favour of a in Stockholm people with an average income reduced their car use
charge up to £2 (h3) whereas people with high income favoured a more strongly than people with high or low income (Allström et al.,
charge of £3 (h4.50) (Cain and Jones, 2002). 2006).
Schade (2005) states a similar inconsistent picture concerning age, A similar contradictory picture was found for age and gender.
gender and education. For example, Rienstra et al. (1999) found a In a field trial in Stuttgart (Germany) young as well as older
positive relationship between age and acceptability, Jaensirisak et al. participants reduced their car use more strongly in comparison to
(2005) found a negative one and Golob (2001) found no relationship. middle-aged participants (Hug et al., 1997). In Stockholm stu-
In Oslo young people accepted road pricing to a higher degree than dents who usually are rather young reduced their car use most
older ones (Kjerkreit and Odeck, 2005) whereas in Edinburgh the compared to other socioeconomic groups (Allström et al.,
reverse holds true (Cain et al., 2001). For gender Golob (2001) found a 2006). Steg (2003) found that young people use alternative
tendency that women support road pricing more strongly. On the transport modes more often. Thus they might be more likely to
other hand in Edinburgh men favoured road pricing more strongly adapt their car use more strongly than older people. Concerning
(Braunholtz and Cumming, 2006). Concerning education a positive gender Raney et al. (2000) as well as Polk (2004) showed that
relationship was found by Rienstra et al. (1999) whereas Harrington women were more willing and more likely to reduce their car use.
et al. (2001) found a negative one. This relationship persisted even if the influence of other
 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694 687

socioeconomic variables was controlled for. However, in Oslo men The previous section has shown that the most important variables
stated a stronger reduction in car use than women (Odeck and determining different reactions towards urban road pricing are
Bråthen, 1997). income, age, gender, education, frequency of car use and spatial
Concerning the place of residence, the possession and the characteristics such as place of residence. The household and life cycle
frequency of car use the results are again fairly consistent. For typologies do include variables of interest such as age and income.
example, in Oslo residents of the surrounding areas as well as car But variables such as travel-mode choice habits and spatial char-
users, who were crossing the toll cordon more often, also reduced acteristics are not included in these typologies. On the other hand, the
their car use more often (Odeck and Bråthen, 1997). However, concept of life situation is more broadly defined and can incorporate
most likely there is an interrelationship between the surrounding aspects of the household, of the current life cycle and other socio-
areas and frequency of toll cordon crossing in a way that car users economic variables relevant to the reaction towards road pricing.
from surrounding areas also had to cross the toll cordon more Therefore, the segmentation according to car user’s life situation has
frequently. been chosen for this study. Furthermore, a post hoc approach of
In summary the results concerning socioeconomic differences segmentation is applied. That means the segments are not deter-
in acceptability and car use adaptation reveal an inconsistent mined ‘‘a priori’’, but ‘‘post hoc’’ using cluster analysis. Beyond the
picture. And even if the results of different studies are consistent initial choice of variables the segments are determined by the
they rather point towards interrelations between various socio- empirical data. Thus the number, the size and the characteristics of
economic variables. Thus it is most likely that socioeconomic the clusters are not known until the segmentation process is finished.
variables do not influence the reaction towards road pricing A post hoc approach is appropriate for this study since to date there is
individually. Rather they seem to be interrelated and influence no sound theoretical basis on which the number and the character-
the acceptability and car use adaptation in a conjoint manner. istics of segments could be defined a priori. Doing it anyway would
carry the risk of inappropriate or even false behavioural assumptions
(Anable, 2005).
2.3. Socioeconomic segmentation approaches in travel behaviour
research
2.4. Previous results from the AKTA road pricing experiment in
Copenhagen
Socioeconomic segmentation approaches used in travel beha-
viour research classify individuals into segments according to
The analysis of socioeconomic differences in the reaction towards
variables such as age, car availability, family and employment
road pricing complements a previous paper from Gehlert et al. (2008)
status. Three different typologies based on socioeconomic factors
where public acceptability and behavioural adaptation has been
are currently used (Hunecke and Schweer, 2006). These are
analysed on an aggregate level. The aim was to explain the positive
classifications according to
dynamics of public acceptability frequently observed in cities that
have implemented road pricing. Cognitive dissonance was suggested
 the type of household, as a psychological mechanism explaining this attitude change. That
 the life cycle and means that people change their acceptability in accordance with their
 the life situation. behavioural adaptation in order to achieve consistency between their
attitudes and their related behaviour. However, in the aggregate
The classification according to the type of household was the analysis Gehlert et al. (2008) found only a minor public acceptability
first segmentation approach in travel behaviour research using change after the field trial even though a significant car use reduction
socioeconomic variables in this way. The advantage is that the and a corresponding pattern of behavioural adaptation strategies was
data necessary for this type of segmentation is nowadays avail- observed. About 50% of the participants did not change their opinion
able from regular national travel surveys. Thus, it is an economic with regard to urban road pricing. But on average participants
way of segmentation. The disadvantage is that it lacks important reduced their daily number of trips by 0.3, their trip duration by
socioeconomic determinants of travel behaviour such as age and 4.7 min/day, their trip distance by 2.6 km/day and their trip costs by
income. 0.45 h/day. Furthermore, participants mostly tried to avoid expensive
The life cycle approach defines segments by age, household areas followed by chaining trips, reducing trips as such and changing
size, and employment status. For example, a target-group departure times (see also Gehlert and Nielsen, 2007).
approach for the German railway differentiates between nine One reason why the dynamics of public acceptability could not
different life cycle segments, such as students, members of be uncovered in the aggregate analysis may be that certain groups
households with schoolchildren or pensioners. These life cycle of people have reacted in different ways towards urban road
segments differ considerably in their travel-mode choice. Further- pricing. In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 a number of socioeconomic
more, the results of Hunecke and Schweer (2006) indicate that differences in public acceptability as well as the behavioural
the life cycle segmentation predicts travel-mode choice more responses towards urban road pricing have been outlined. If these
precisely than a household-based typology. However, the life reactions are in opposite directions they may mitigate or even out
cycle approach does not include spatial characteristics such as each other in an aggregate analysis. Thus, the aggregate analysis
place of residence which have been found to determine the may have revealed results that hold true for the average car user
adaptation towards urban road pricing. but may not reflect the reaction of certain subgroups of car users.
The concept of life situation is a broader concept. A life Thus the picture may be incomplete and the conclusions
situation is characterised by a number of structural factors which premature.
in turn describe and restrict the individual’s scope of action
(Scheiner, 2009). These factors can be spatial characteristics such
as place of residence or public transport provision or socio- 3. Methodology
economic factors such as age or income. To sharpen this concept
only the objective values of these factors, but not their subjective 3.1. The AKTA road pricing experiment in Copenhagen
perception are included in the definition. Within the boundaries
of their life situation people can act on and react to changing This study uses data from the AKTA road pricing experiment in
circumstances such as the introduction of urban road pricing. Copenhagen. This was a field experiment investigating car user’s
688 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

reaction towards urban road pricing under real life conditions in the Bridge quarter, 21% in the northern suburbs, 19% in the
(see Nielsen (2004a) and Gehlert (2009) for a detailed description outskirts and 16% in the western suburbs.
of the experiment). The city of Copenhagen was equipped with a  Travel-mode choice: 73% of the participants use their private
virtual urban road pricing system simulating three different car as main travel mode for their commuting trips, 13% use the
pricing schemes: a low kilometre/distance charging scheme, a bicycle and 3% public transport. 56% of the participants use
high kilometre/distance charging scheme and a cordon charging their car 4–5 times a week for commuting. 33% need their
scheme (see Fig. 1). Private cars of voluntary test drivers were private car for business trips. The average number of kilo-
equipped with a global positioning system (GPS)-based on board metres driven per week is 200–299 km.
unit (OBU), which displayed the costs of a given trip and logged
the car’s movements during the entire experiment. The overall
sample of the AKTA experiment consisted of 517 randomly This study uses public acceptability, preferred revenue use and
selected participants. car use adaption as outcome variables. Public acceptability and
For the purpose of this paper the socioeconomic characteristics car use adaptation have already been analysed in Gehlert et al.
of the participants have been analysed in more detail. The socio- (2008). The same measurements were used in this paper. There-
economic variables were measured several times during the fore, only a brief description of these measures is given.
experiment. The characteristics of the overall sample are: Public acceptability of four different transport pricing systems
was measured before and after the experiment: the current
 Gender: 32% female and 68% male participants. Danish car tax system, urban road pricing, a peak hour charge
 Age: 82% of the participants were between 30 and 59 years old. and a package solution consisting of road pricing and the
 Income: The yearly household income before tax is normally revenues spent as preferred by the participants. Participants were
distributed with an average of 70,000–80,299h. With this asked to what degree they regarded these as good systems.
income the sample is representative for one-car households Ratings were obtained on a three-point scale (1¼yes, 2¼neither
in Copenhagen. nor, and 3¼no).
 Household size and distribution: 13% single households, 35% two Car use was measured using the GPS-based device in the
person households, 19% three person households, 26% four private cars of the participants (see Nielsen (2004b) for details).
person households and 8% are five or more person households. Based on this data the following car use indicators were available:
68% of the households have no children younger than 10 years. number of trips, trip distance, trip duration and trip costs. The trip
73% of the households are two person households with both costs were calculated according to the relevant pricing scheme.
persons above 18 years of age. Furthermore, participants were asked to what degree they have
 Driving licence: 30% of the households hold one driving licence, employed the following car use reduction strategies: trip sup-
65% hold two and 5% more than two. pression, trip chaining, changing departure time, car pooling,
 Working conditions: 41% of the participants work in the Bridge avoiding expensive areas, switching to public transport, using
quarter, the city centre of Copenhagen. 47% commute other cars than the GPS-equipped one, postponing trips to the end
between 2.1 and 10 km/day, further 40% need to commute of the experiment. The ratings were obtained on a four-point scale
10.1–30 km/day. (1¼no, 2¼to a lesser degree, 3¼to some degree, and 4¼ yes).
 Living conditions: 56% of the participants live in their own In addition and for the purpose of this paper the preferred
property, as it is common in Denmark. 23% of participants live revenue use of participants was included in the analysis. In the

Fig. 1. Design of the virtual road pricing system in Copenhagen.

 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694 689

AKTA road pricing experiment preferred revenue use was mea- Table 1
sured with two items. One item focused on revenue use for the Statistical indicators of different cluster solutions.
general public and one item on revenue use for the transport
Cluster Overall sample (N ¼ 516) Subsample 1 Subsample 2
system. For the general public, participants had to choose solution (N ¼ 271) (N ¼ 245)
between local traffic improvements, national traffic improve-
ments, local tax reduction, national tax reduction or others. For Error PREK2 Explained Error PREK2 Error PREK2
the transport system, participants could choose three out of seven variance (%) variance variance (%) variance (%)

options: Extension of the road network, extension of parking 2 21.28 – 1067.74 21.93 – 20.55 –
space in the city centre, improvement of traffic safety, extension 3 19.66 7.6 925.00 20.13 8.2 19.08 7.2
of Park & Ride facilities outside the city centre, extension of public 4 19.13 2.8 714.515 19.32 4.0 18.25 4.4
transport, reduction of public transport fares, or others. 5 18.405 3.7 627.648 18.93 2.0 17.94 1.7
6 17.944 2.5 554.315 18.26 3.5 17.33 3.4

3.2. Statistical analysis PREK2 ¼ proportional reduction in error.

The statistical analysis of this study consisted of two steps.

First, a segmentation analysis was carried out using cluster three-cluster solution for both subsamples with 8.2% and 7.2%,
analysis procedure. The aim of the segmentation analysis was to respectively.
identify homogenous clusters of cases with respect to their The three-cluster solution has been further analysed for its
socioeconomic background. Second, the segments were examined stability using the Rand Index as indicator (Bacher, 1994). For this
with regards to significant differences in public acceptability, purpose the membership of participants to the clusters was com-
preferred revenue use and car use adaptation. pared between the overall sample and each subsample. The Rand
For the segmentation analysis a two stage approach was used. Index describes the match of membership between the overall
This included an agglomerative procedure to identify structure in sample and the subsamples respectively. For the first subsample
the data and generate cluster centres, using these as a starting the Rand Index reached 97% correspondence of participants allocated
point for a more robust non-hierarchical (K-means) cluster to the three clusters. This corresponds to a very good fit (Bacher,
procedure. Statistical indicators, stability checks and subjective 1994). The Rand Index for the second subsample reached 86%, still
criteria identified as appropriate from the literature were used to corresponding to a good fit. Thus, it can be concluded that the cluster
choose the final number of clusters (see Kramer (2009) for further analysis revealed a stable three-cluster solution.
details). Nominal scales such as gender or working place have Subsequently the three clusters or segments were profiled
been dummy-coded. The new scales have been weighted by factor with respect to their socioeconomic characteristics. For this
0.5 to compensate for the increase in attributes because of the purpose the variable means within each cluster were examined.
dummy-coding (Bacher, 1994). Once the final cluster solution was Next, the cluster means were compared to each other looking for
chosen, the segments were profiled with respect to their socio- significant differences between them. There were significant
economic characteristics. differences in all socioeconomic variables apart from gender and
Differences between the segments in public acceptability and workplace. The most prominent differences were found for age,
car use adaptation have been analysed in similar way as household size and composition, income and private car use.
in Gehlert et al. (2008). Therefore, only a brief description of the Finally, the segments were given a name to represent their main
statistical analysis is given. Differences in public acceptability and characteristics. The results are summarised in Table 2. The
preferred revenue use were examined using parametric and non- differences between the clusters are shown in superscript. All
parametric analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Differences differences are significant at p o0.05.
between the segments in car use adaptation and public accept- The first group, the young families, consists of 28.3% of the overall
ability change were analysed using difference scores between sample. People in that group are on average 30–39 years old. 28% are
pre-test measurement and post-test measurement and a subse- women. The household consists of two adults and one or two
quent parametric or non-parametric analysis of variance on these children 10 years of age or younger. They have the lowest yearly
difference scores (see Gehlert et al. (2008) for more details). income per person compared to the other groups. The majority lives
Previous analysis revealed no differentiated impact of the three and works in the Bridge quarter. Consequently they have a short
pricing systems on public acceptability and car use adaptation commuting distance. Moreover, they have good access to public
(Gehlert et al., 2008). Therefore, in this paper no distinction was transport and use not only their car but also other modes for
made between the three simulated pricing schemes. commuting, as indicated by the lowest percentage of car commuting.
The second group, the suburban families, consists of 37% of the
overall sample. They are on average 50–59 years old and live in
4. Results 2–4 person households without small children. 29% are women.
There are most likely teenagers or young adults in the households
4.1. Socioeconomic profile of the segments since the household composition indicates 3 adult members in
the household. They have a higher yearly income per person than
In order to identify the appropriate number of clusters the the young families. Since they live in the suburban areas and work
statistical indicators for cluster solutions ranging from two to six in the Bridge quarter, the city centre of Copenhagen, they have the
clusters were compared to each other (see Table 1). The results longest commuting distance. Moreover, access to public transport
indicate that the proportional reduction in error (PREK2) is highest is restricted and they have the highest share of private car
for the three-cluster solution (7.6%) followed by the five-cluster commuting.
solution (3.7%). To examine the cluster solution’s stability, the The third group, the singles and couples, consists of 34.7% of the
sample of N ¼516 was randomly divided into two subsamples overall sample. They are on average 40–49 years old and live in
(n1 ¼ 271 and n2 ¼245). Subsequently, cluster analyses were 1 or 2 person households without small children. There are more
carried out on both subsamples and the statistical indicators women in this group although this difference is not statistically
were compared (see Table 1). Again, the results indicate that significant. Just as the group of young families, this group lives
the proportional reduction in error (PREK2) is highest for the and works in the Bridge quarter as well. Consequently, they do
690 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

Table 2
Description of the groups of similar life situation.

C1: Young families C2: Suburban families C3: Singles and couples

N 146 (28.3%) 191 (37.0%) 179 (34.7%)

Person
Age 30–392,3 50–591,3 40–491,2
Sex (% male) 71.9 71.2 63.7

Household size and composition

No. of persons in household 4 persons: 58.2%2,3 3 persons: 21.6%1,3 2 persons: 48.6%1,2
No. of adults Z 18 years and children r10 years 2 adults: 93.2%2,3 2 adults: 74.3%1,3 2 adults: 54%1,2
2 children: 40.7%2,3 No children: 90.1%1 No children: 95.5%1

Household income per person in thousand h (gross/year) M ¼ 20,951h2,3 M ¼34,837h1 M ¼34,159h1

SD ¼ 6400h SD ¼ 13,581h SD ¼ 16,723h

Living conditions
Place of residence Bridge quarter: 27.4%2 Suburban areas: 40.3%1,3 Bridge quarter: 33.5%2

Workplace conditions
Workplace Bridge quarter: 36.1% Bridge quarter: 50.8% Bridge quarter: 34.7%
Commuting distance 5.1–10 km: 30.1%2 10.1–15 km: 22%1,3 5.1–10 km: 41.9%2
Flexible work schedule Partly no: 9.6%3 Partly no: 10%3 Partly no: 14.9%1,2

Travel-mode choice
No. of driving licence/household 2: 78.6%2,3 2: 76.6%1,3 1: 58.9%1,2
Weekly car use 200–299.9 km: 28.4%2,3 300–399.9 km: 30.6%1,3 200–299.9 km: 32.1%1,2
Commuting mode (% car) 61.6%2 83.8%1,3 72.1%2
Availability of public transport for commuting Next PT stop: 0–500 m: 65.9%2 Next PT stop: 500 m-1 km: 39.6%1,3 Next PT stop: 0–500 m: 75.9%2
Frequency: every 10 min: 49%2 Frequency: every 20 min: 39.4% 1,3 Frequency: every 10 min: 40.8%2

Numbers in superscript indicate which groups differ significantly from each other (ANOVA post hoc analysis (Scheffe test), non-parametric ANOVA (Kruskal–Wallis) or
w2-test searching for differences among all combinations of groups, p o 0.05).

Table 3
Public acceptability of road pricing before the experiment (% agreement).

C1: Young C2: Suburban C3: Singles and Difference between clusters
families families couples H (df, N), p

Current Danish car tax system 19.6 24.8 15.4 H (2, 321)¼ 3.44, p¼ 0.18, n.s.
Urban road pricing 79.1 71.0 68.0 H (2, 318)¼ 2.47, p¼ 0.29, n.s.
Peak hour charge 66.7 61.1 56.7 H (2, 320)¼ 1.21, p ¼ 0.55, n.s.
Package solution 46.2 44.7 41.2 H (2, 316)¼ 5.77, p¼ 0.75, n.s.

have good access to public transport. Moreover, they use not only families with 12.8% and singles and couples with 18.4%. Further-
their car but also other travel modes, but not to the same extent more, with 69.4% more suburban families do not change their
as the group of young families does. The average weekly driving opinion regarding a package solution compared to young families
distance is similar to the group of young families, but the and singles and couples with about 50%. Again, these differences
percentage of car commuting is higher. are not statistically significant.

4.2. Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability of road pricing 4.3. Socioeconomic differences in car use adaptation towards road
pricing
Table 3 presents the differences between the three groups in
public acceptability before the experiment. Young families eval- Table 5 shows the differences in the reduction of the GPS-
uate all three road pricing schemes most favourable followed by based trip indicators for the groups of similar life situation. First,
suburban families and singles and couples. The current Danish car all groups reduced their GPS-based trip indicators and their car
tax system is assessed most favourable by suburban families use in response to urban road pricing respectively. The minus sign
followed by young families and singles and couples, even though indicates a reduction in the respective mean value in the pricing
on an overall low level of agreement. However, these differences period compared to the control period. Second, there were
are not statistically significant. significant differences in the size of reduction between the groups
It was further analysed whether there are changes in public of similar life situation. The group of young families reduced their
acceptability after the experiment and whether the groups of car use most, followed by the singles and couples. The suburban
similar life situation revealed differences in the acceptability families reduced their car use least. This ranking holds true for all
change (see Table 4). There are differences between the groups trip indicators.
of similar life situation in the evaluation of the urban road pricing Table 6 shows the differences in the stated car use adaptation
scheme and the package solution (see Table 4). With 7.1% young strategies between the groups of similar life situation. Partici-
families changed their opinion least in a negative direction pants were asked which strategies they have applied to reduce
regarding the urban road pricing scheme followed by suburban their personal car use. The group of young families, states to a
 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694 691

Table 4
Public acceptability change towards road pricing (frequency in %).

Negative change No change Positive change Difference between clusters

H (df, N), p
2 1 0 1 2

Current Danish car tax system H (2, 294)¼ 2.21, p¼ 0.33, n.s.
C1: Young families 1.2 21.2 55.3 18.8 3.5
C2: Suburban families 2.7 19.8 46.8 21.6 9.0
C3 Singles and couples 3.1 23.5 53.1 14.3 6.1

Urban road pricing H (2, 292)¼ 1.22, p¼ 0.54, n.s.

C1: Young families 0.0 7.1 66.7 20.2 6.0
C2: Suburban families 5.5 7.3 60.9 20.9 5.5
C3 Singles and couples 0.0 18.4 56.1 18.4 7.1

Peak hour charge H (2, 294)¼ 0.19, p ¼ 0.91, n.s.

C1: Young families 3.7 8.5 61.8 17.1 9.8
C2: Suburban families 3.5 7.1 62.8 19.5 7.1
C3 Singles and couples 8.1 5.1 55.6 20.2 11.1

Package solution H (2, 282)¼ 0.67, p ¼ 0.72, n.s.

C1: Young families 17.5 3.8 48.8 11.3 18.8
C2: Suburban families 6.5 5.6 69.4 9.3 9.3
C3 Singles and couples 13.8 4.3 51.1 11.7 19.1

Table 5
Socioeconomic differences in the reduction of the GPS-based trip indicators (difference score M(SD)).

C1: Young families C2: Suburban C3: Singles and Differences between
(N ¼ 72) families (N ¼ 93) couples (N ¼86) clusters (F (df), p)

Trip cost (h)  0.71 (1.28)  0.16 (1.18)  0.52 (1.30) C1 vs. C2 F(2, N ¼252) ¼4.18, p o 0.05
Number of trips  0.56 (1.11)  0.05 (1.14)  0.41 (1.03) C1 vs. C2 F(2, N ¼252) ¼4.92, p o 0.01
Trip distance (km)  4.82 (8.77)  0.55 (11.77)  2.88 (10.10) C1 vs. C2 F(2, N ¼252) ¼3.47, p o 0.05
Trip duration (min)  8.43 (11.99)  1.25 (15.35)  5.35 (12.64) C1 vs. C2 F(2, N ¼252) ¼5.86, p o 0.01

Due to problems with the GPS technology the overall sample size reduced to N¼ 252 (see Nielsen et al. (2003) for details).

Table 6
Car use adaptation strategies in response towards road pricing (M(SD)).

Overall C1: Young C2: Suburban C3: Singles Difference between

families families and couples clusters (F (df), p)

Avoid expensive areas 2.02 (1.15) 2.80 (1.21) 2.72 (1.20) C1 vs. C2, C3 F(2, N ¼163) ¼5.96, p o0.01
Trip chaining 2.32 (1.23) 2.85 (1.13) 2.98 (1.06) C1 vs. C3 F(2, N ¼163) ¼4.53, p o0.05
Trip reduction 2.44 (1.16) 3.08 (1.13) 2.90 (1.16) C1 vs. C2 F(2, N ¼161) ¼3.88, p o0.05
Change departure time 2.73 (0.95) 3.05 (1.05) 3.20 (1.11) n.s.
Switch to PT 3.12 (1.21) 3.49 (0.99) 3.59 (0.92) n.s.
Postpone trips 3.54 (0.92) 3.84 (0.52) 3.88 (0.42) C1 vs. C2, C3 F(2, N ¼162) ¼4.27, p o0.05
Use other cars 3.93 (0.35) 3.92 (0.38) 3.81 (0.65) n.s.
Car pooling 3.85 (0.48) 3.95 (0.28) 3.95 (0.38) n.s.

higher degree that they have avoided expensive areas, have 4.4. Socioeconomic differences in preferred revenue use
chained trips, reduced trips and postponed fewer trips to the
end of the experiment compared to the remaining two groups. In the course of the experiment the participants were asked
This corresponds to the results of the GPS-based trip indicators, how they want the revenues from road pricing to be spent.
which show the strongest reduction for the group of young Overall, participants preferred the revenues to be spent for traffic
families. The descriptive differences between the group of sub- improvements rather than for lowering taxes, to be spent on a
urban families and the group of singles and couples are less local rather than on the national level, and to be spent for
pronounced compared to the GPS-based trip indicators. investments in public transport rather than in road infrastructure
There were no significant differences in changing departure investments (Gehlert, 2009).
time, switching to public transport, using other cars than GPS- The preferred revenue use for each group of similar life
equipped ones and car pooling between the three groups. Further- situation was analysed for explaining differences in the responses
more, comparing the ranking of the strategies for each group, there towards urban road pricing. The results are presented in Table 7.
is no qualitative differences in the application. That means they First, there were no significant differences between the groups of
only differ in the extent to which they use the various adaptation similar life situation concerning the revenues use for the general
strategies, not in the choice of strategies as such. Postponing trips to public. Second, it was analysed where in the transport sector the
the end of the experiment, using other cars than the one equipped different groups want the revenues to be spent. Significant
with GPS and car pooling were used least in response to urban road differences were found for the suburban families in contrast to
pricing, which speaks for the validity of the experiment. the young families and singles and couples. The suburban families
692 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

Table 7
Preferred revenue use of road user charges (% of agreement).

C1: Young C2: Suburban C3: Singles and Difference between clusters
families families couples w2 (df, N), p

Revenue use for the general public w2 (10,281) ¼16.94, p ¼0.07, n.s.
Local traffic improvements 25.7 39.0 35.3
National traffic improvements 44.4 50.0 5.6
Local tax reductions 35.0 35.0 30.0
National tax reductions 37.5 34.4 28.1
Others 20.8 29.2 50.0

Revenue use for the transport system w2 (10,244) ¼25.57, p ¼0.03, sign.
Investments in road network 32.4 29.5 28.4
Extension of parking space in the city 35.3 16.8 37.0
Improvement of traffic safety 47.1 38.9 44.4
Extension of Park&Ride outside 25.0 41.1 38.3
Extension of public transport 70.6 75.8 63.0
Reduction of public transport fares 69.1 71.6 58.0
Others 7.4 12.6 9.9

preferred to a lesser degree the extension in new parking space in failed to reveal existing differences in public acceptability and
the city centre and to a higher degree the investment in Park & acceptability change as well. The aggregate analysis showed an
Ride facilities, the public transport network and the reduction of unusual high percentage of agreement towards urban road pri-
public transport fares. cing in the overall sample before the experiment. This so-called
ceiling effect makes it difficult to find any further differentiated
effects from a statistical point of view. The descriptive differences
5. Discussion between the groups of similar life situation point towards this
line of reasoning. The group of young families evaluate the three
The aim of this paper was to analyse socioeconomic differ- urban road pricing schemes most favourable compared to the
ences in response towards urban road pricing. In contrast to other two groups and has changed their opinion least in a
previous studies a holistic approach was used putting the car user negative direction in the course of the experiment. That makes
and his or her life situation as a whole in the focus of analysis. sense if one takes into account which group would benefit most
Three questions emerged for the analysis. Is it possible to from an urban road pricing system. The young families are least
distinguish groups of similar life situation according to the car dependent with the lowest percentage of private car com-
relevant socioeconomic variables as identified in the literature? muting, the lowest weekly car use and good public transport
Do these groups really differ in their responses towards urban accessibility. This group may have the best options and current
road pricing? Could this knowledge be used for designing and habits to use other modes besides the car which is reflected in
implementing urban road pricing packages? their more favourable view towards road pricing. Thus, further
The results of the segmentation analysis revealed three stable research on public acceptability should adopt a more differen-
groups with a similar background in relevant socioeconomic tiated view to be able to explain the dynamics in the implemen-
variables for the response towards urban road pricing. These tation process. There are indications that public acceptability is
groups were labelled as young families, suburban families and also determined by the perceived effects of an urban road pricing
singles and couples. The most prominent socioeconomic differ- scheme (e.g. Schuitema et al., 2010). But the perception of
ences between these groups were found for age, household size benefits may strongly depend on one’s own life situation.
and composition, income and car use. Thus, the segmentation Concerning car use adaptation there were significant differ-
according to the life situation shares some characteristics with ences between the three groups of similar life situation. While all
the life cycle approach. Age as well as the number and age of three groups reduced their car use significantly the young families
children were important characteristics of the groups. But over reduced their car use most followed by the singles and couples.
and above the life cycle income, place of residence and related This became apparent in the GPS-based trip indicators as well as
commuting distance and car use for commuting contributed to the degree of stated adaptation strategies. Again, it seems that the
the distinction of the groups as well. This confirms the impor- group of young families is not only willing but also able to adjust
tance of individual characteristics as well as spatial dimensions its personal travel pattern most in response towards road pricing.
and transport infrastructure variables for the response towards These differences were not visible in the aggregate analysis
urban road pricing. Thus, the broader concept of life situation is (Gehlert et al., 2008). Therefore, a more differentiated perspective
appropriate to analyse the comprehensive impact of the social on behavioural adaptation towards urban road pricing yields a
background on the response towards urban road pricing. more complex picture of the results. The results also confirm the
Concerning the differences between the three groups in their assumption of the concept of life situation that the socioeconomic
responses towards road pricing no statistically significant differ- background determines and restricts the individual’s scope for
ences were found for public acceptability and public acceptability action and thus the possibilities of adapting to changing circum-
change, but again for car use adaptation. This seems to confirm stances such as the introduction of road pricing.
the aggregate analysis from Gehlert et al. (2008) where no public Knowing the distinct patterns of response towards urban road
acceptability change was observed as well. It also seems to may help to design and implement more effective urban road
disconfirm the assumption that the dynamics of public accept- pricing packages. Urban road pricing packages consist not only of
ability could not have been uncovered because distinct groups of pricing components but investments in alternative travel modes
people may have reacted in opposite directions. However, another such as public transport and extensive information campaigns.
explanation could be that even the more differentiated analysis These complementary measures could be tailor-made to the
 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694 693

social background of different target groups. For example, a Acknowledgements

communication strategy that takes the social background into
account may be more effective in gaining public support. This research was supported by PhD scholarships from the
Looking at the group of young families there are a number of Dr. Joachim und Hanna Schmidt Foundation for Environment and
factors already contributing to the successful behavioural adapta- Transport as well as the Free State of Saxony awarded to Tina
tion such as short commuting distances and the number of Gehlert. We would like to thank one anonymous reviewer for
transport alternatives beside the car. People in this group already helpful feedback. A previous version of the paper has been
use other transport options. Thus compared to the other groups presented at the 4th International Conference on Traffic & Trans-
their potential for further car use reduction is rather low. For this port Psychology in Washington, DC.
group urban road pricing packages should be aimed at stabilising
their low car use and high public transport use. Therefore, References
investments in public transport are essential for this group. Given
the lower income per person attractive public transport fares
Allström, A., Bengtsson, L., Neergaard, K., Nilsson, A., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., Ström, L.,
could be developed that support public transport usage of this et al., 2006. Changes in travel habits in Stockholm county—effects of the Stockholm
group. Furthermore, transport options and information material trial. Report No. 67, Trivector Traffic, commissioned by Congestion Charging
that correspond to the complex travel chains of families with Secretariat, City of Stockholm.
Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identi-
young children could be provided. fying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy 12,
The suburban families show the lowest car use reduction in 65–78.
the course of the experiment and thus seem to have the greatest Bacher, J., 1994. Clusteranalyse [Cluster Analysis]. Oldenbourg, München.
Braunholtz, S., Cumming, R., 2006. Evaluation of Edinburgh Residents’ Attitude to
potential for further reductions. The main barriers to behaviour the Proposed Road User Charging Scheme (Transport Research Series). Scottish
change seem to be place of residence, long commuting distance Executive Social Research, Edinburgh, UK.
and insufficient public transport availability. Thus improving the Button, K.J., 1993. Transport Economics. Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Cain, A., Celikel, N., Jones, P., 2001. Public consultation strategy—phase II
availability as well as the awareness of other transport options preparatory market research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European
such as car pooling or Park & Ride facilities seem to be the ‘‘first Commission DG TREN under the 5th Framework Programme.
best’’ options for this group to facilitate car use adaptation in Cain, A., Jones, P., 2002. Public consultation strategy—phase III regional market
research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European Commission DG TREN
response towards road pricing. This line of reasoning is supported
under the 5th Framework Programme.
by the way this group wants the revenues from road pricing to be Cain, A., Jones, P., 2004. Edinburgh’s integrated transport initiative—phase V
spent. Compared to the other two groups the suburban families market research. EU-Project PRoGReSS funded by the European Commission
DG TREN under the 5th Framework Programme.
preferred the extension in new parking space in the city centre to
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., 2005. How do individuals adapt their personal travel?
a lesser degree and the investment in Park & Ride facilities, in the Objective and subjective influences on the consideration of travel-related
public transport network and in the reduction of public transport strategies for San Francisco Bay Area commuters. Transport Policy 12, 291–302.
fares to a higher degree. One could conclude that this group is Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006. Facts and results from the Stockholm Trials
(Final version). City of Stockholm.
willing but not able to reduce their car use in response towards Eliasson, J., Hultkranz, L., Nerhagen, L., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., 2009. The Stockholm
urban road pricing. congestion—charging trial 2006: overview of effects. Transportation Research
The group of singles and couples is more heterogeneous. Like Part A 43 (3), 240–250.
Gaunt, M., Rye, T., Allen, S., 2007. Public acceptability of road user charging: the
the group of young families they have good access to public case of Edinburgh and the 2005 referendum. Transport Reviews 27 (1),
transport and short commuting distances because they live in the 85–102.
city centre or close by. On the other hand they have higher Gehlert, T., 2009. Straßenbenutzungsgebühren in Städten: Akzeptanz und Mobi-
litätsverhalten [Acceptability and Travel Behaviour Change in Response to
income and more frequent car use. Obviously the group of singles Urban Road Pricing]. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
and couples is able to reduce its car use but not necessarily forced Gehlert, T., Nielsen, J., Rich, J., Schlag, B., 2008. Public acceptability change of urban
to do so. For this group it is more difficult to derive supportive road pricing schemes. in: Proceedings of ICE, Transport 161 (3), 111–121.
Gehlert, T., Nielsen, O.A., 2007. Triangulation of data sources for analysing car
measures. Socioeconomic factors may not be the driving force for drivers’ responses to road pricing in Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the
their car use adaption. Other variables, such as attitudes, norms or European Transport Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
values may become dominant for the reaction towards urban road Golob, T.F., 2001. Joint models of attitudes and behavior in evaluation of the San
Diego I-15 congestion pricing project. Transportation Research Part A 35,
pricing. Consequently, extending their current scope of action
495–514.
may not be sufficient for further car use reduction. Other instru- Gustavsson, H., Åke., 2005. Kunskapen om och attityder till Stockholmsförsöket
ments such as social marketing need to be applied to motivate försöket med miljöavgifter/trängselskatt och utbyggd kollektivtrafik. Slutrap-
further car use reduction in response towards urban road pricing. port Resultat från intervjuer med boende i Stockholms län 2 maj–23 maj 2006
[Knowledge and attitude of the Stockholm congestion charging field trial and
This highlights one of the drawbacks of relying solely on socio- expanded public transport. Final Report, Results from May 2006]. Stockholm
economic factors for designing urban road pricing packages. Office of Research and Statistics (USK), Stockholm.
While this kind of data is often already available within cities or Harrington, W., Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., 2001. Overcoming public aversion to
congestion pricing. Transportation Research Part A 35, 87–105.
can be obtained at low cost there might be groups of citizens Hug, K., Mock-Hecker, R., Würtenberger, J., 1997. Transport demand management
whose reaction is only insufficiently explained by these factors. by electronic fee collection in a zone-based pricing scheme: the Stuttgart
That could be expected for groups whose scope of action is MobilPass field trial. Transportation Research Record 1576, 69–76.
Hunecke, M., Schweer, I., 2006. Einflussfaktoren der Alltagsmobilität—Das Zusam-
already medium or high. menwirken von Raum, Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Lebensstil und Mobilitätsein-
Summarising the discussion above it becomes apparent that stellungen [Determinants of daily mobility—the interaction of space, traffic
urban road pricing schemes can and should be tailored to the infrastructure, life styles and mobility-related attitudes]. In: Beckmann, K.J.,
Hesse, M., Holz-Rau, C., Hunecke, M. (Eds.), StadtLeben—Wohnen, Mobilität
social background of different user groups. This increases the und Lebensstil. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 148–166.
effectiveness of the package by facilitating behavioural adaptation Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., May, A., 2005. Explaining variations in public
and ensures public acceptability and credibility of the package. A acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy 39, 127–153.
segmentation approach as presented here integrates relevant
Jones, P., 2001. Gaining public support for road pricing through a package
socioeconomic variables into a comprehensive picture. The result approach. Traffic Engineering and Control 32 (4), 194–196.
is a small, manageable number of target groups. Knowing the Kjerkreit, A., Odeck, J., 2005. Users’ attitudes towards road user charges: a time
characteristics of a manageable number of target groups in detail series analysis of the Oslo toll ring, ECTRI Young Researchers Seminar. The
Hague, Netherlands.
opens up the possibility to combine various interventions in a Kramer, C., 2009. The impact of the life situation on the response towards urban
complex but still conclusive urban road pricing package. road pricing. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dresden University of Technology.
694 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694

Kottenhof, K., Brundell Freij, K., 2009. The role of public transport for feasibility Schade, J., Schlag, B., 2000. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in
and acceptability of congestion charging—The case of Stockholm. Transporta- Europe. Traffic Engineering and Control 41, 314–318.
tion Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43 (3), 297–305. Schade, J., 2005. Akzeptanz von Straßenbenutzungsgebühren: Entwicklung und
Nielsen, O.A., 2004a. Behavioral responses to road pricing schemes: description of the Überprüfung eines Modells [Acceptability of Road Pricing: Model Develop-
Danish AKTA experiment. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 8, 233–251. ment and Validation]. Pabst, Lengerich.
Nielsen, O.A., 2004b. Map-matching algorithms for GPS-Data—methodology and test Scheiner, J., 2009. Is travel mode choice driven by subjective or objective factors?.
on data from the AKTA road pricing experiment in Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of In: Holz-Rau, C., Scheiner, J. (Eds.), Subject-oriented Approaches to Transport.
the 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Instanbul, Turkey. Technical University Dortmund, Germany, pp. 53–69.
Nielsen, O.A., Kristensen, J.P., Würtz, C., 2003. Using GPS for road pricing—
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., Forward, S., 2010. Explaining differences in acceptability
experiences from Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Congress
before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in
on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Madrid, Spain.
Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 44, 99–109.
Odeck, J., Bråthen, S., 1997. On public attitudes toward implementation of toll
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., 2008. The role of revenue use in the acceptability of
roads—the case of Oslo toll ring. Transport Policy 4 (2), 73–83.
Polk, M., 2004. The influence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to transport pricing policies. Transportation Research Part F 11, 221–231.
reduce car use in Sweden. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (3), 185–195. Steg, L., 2003. Can public transport compete with the private car? IATSS Research
Raney, E.A., Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 2000. Modeling individuals’ considera- 27 (2), 27–35.
tion of strategies to cope with congestion. Transportation Research Part F 3 (3), Steininger, K.W., Friedl, B., Gebetsroither, B., 2007. Sustainability impacts of car
141–165. road pricing: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Austria. Ecological
Rienstra, S.A., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E.T., 1999. The social support for policy Economics 1, 59–69.
measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transport for London, 2005. Central London congestion charging. Impacts mon-
Transportation Research Part D 4, 181–200. itoring. Third Annual Report, London.