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

Urban road pricing has proven to be an effective instrument
for reducing personal car use and consequently traffic congestion
and environmental problems in metropolitan areas (e.g. Gehlert
et al., 2008; Eliasson et al., 2009; Transport for London, 2005).
However, one major obstacle for the wide-spread implementation
is still the lack of public acceptability. Several studies show public
acceptability rates of only up to 20–30% for urban road pricing as
a single measure (e.g. Jaensirisak et al., 2005; Schade and Schlag,
2000).
One way of increasing public acceptability is the design and the
implementation of urban road pricing schemes as packages where
road pricing is combined with investments in alternative travel
modes such as public transport and extensive information campaigns.
Such a package approach does not only increase public acceptability
but also generates revenues for providing alternative transport
options that make the reduction of private car use possible. Thus a
package approach ensures public acceptability as well as the effec-
tiveness of an urban road pricing scheme (Jones, 2001; Kottenhoff
and Brundell Freij, 2009; Schuitema and Steg, 2008).
n
Correspondence to: Accident Research Department, German Insurance Asso-
ciation, Wilhelmstr. 43/43G, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 30 2020 5822;
fax: + 49 30 2020 6822.
E-mail address: Tina.Gehlert@gmx.de (T. Gehlert).
an urban road pricing package needs to take the spatial, econom-
ical and social circumstances of car users into account. Only then
is it possible to design complementary measures that provide and
inform car users about travel behaviour options that are in line
with their life situation.
However, current evidence about the socioeconomic differ-
ences in the reaction towards urban road pricing is inconclusive.
The reason might be that previous studies have focused on
individual socioeconomic variables in relation to public accept-
ability and car use adaptation rather than looking at the life
situation of car users as a whole and taking the interrelations of
socioeconomic characteristics into account. However, there is
evidence that socioeconomic factors such as residential location,
access to public transport and income are related to each other
(e.g. Scheiner, 2009). Furthermore, it is quite possible that vari-
ables or relationships are not relevant for the average car user, but
are quite relevant for certain subgroups (Anable, 2005). Therefore,
this paper aims to investigate how distinct groups of people with
a similar socioeconomic background differ in their public accept-
ability and their car use adaptation towards urban road pricing.
Furthermore, it will be explored how these differences can be
used for designing and implementing an urban road pricing
package.
This study complements a previous paper from Gehlert et al.
(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-
tion and a corresponding pattern of behavioural adaptation
strategies in response towards the AKTA road pricing experiment,
a large urban road pricing field trial in Copenhagen (Denmark).
But they also revealed an unexpected high level of public accept-
ability of urban road pricing and no significant public accept-
ability change after the experiment. The question emerged
whether these results apply to all participants in the same way.
Therefore, data from the AKTA road pricing experiment already
used in Gehlert et al. (2008) has been reanalysed to examine the
socioeconomic differences in the reactions towards urban road
pricing.
This paper will start with a summary of the current knowledge
concerning socioeconomic differences in the acceptability and car
use adaptation towards urban road pricing as well as socio-
economic segmentation approaches in travel behaviour research.
In addition, the results of the study from Gehlert et al. (2008) are
presented. Secondly, the methodology of the AKTA road pricing
experiment is outlined. Furthermore, the application of cluster
analysis to derive distinct groups of people with a similar socio-
economic background is outlined. Thirdly, these groups are
profiled and examined as to how they differ with respect to their
acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing.
In the last section the implications of these differences for the
design of an urban road pricing package will be discussed.
2. Previous research
2.1. Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability of urban road
pricing
Individual differences in public acceptability of urban road pricing
schemes have mostly been studied with respect to the available
household income. The assumption is that people with high income
support road pricing to a higher degree than people with low income.
The reason is that people with high income also have a higher value
of time and thus are willing to pay more for uncongested roads
(Button, 1993). However, the empirical results are mixed. Golob
(2001) found a positive relationship between acceptability and
income, while Rienstra et al. (1999), Jaensirisak et al. (2005)
and Schade (2005) found no significant relationship. Harrington
et al. (2001) even found a negative relationship between income
and acceptability. That means, people with low income supported
road pricing to a higher degree than people with high income.
Contradicting results are also found in cities that have imple-
mented road pricing. Odeck and Bråthen (1997) found no influ-
ence of income on the acceptability of the toll ring in Oslo
(Norway) whereas Kjerkreit and Odeck (2005) found a positive
though small relationship. Studies in Edinburgh (UK) indicated
that the relationship between income and acceptability depends
on the level of charge. People with low income were in favour of a
charge up to £2 (h3) whereas people with high income favoured a
charge of £3 (h4.50) (Cain and Jones, 2002).
Schade (2005) states a similar inconsistent picture concerning age,
gender and education. For example, Rienstra et al. (1999) found a
positive relationship between age and acceptability, Jaensirisak et al.
(2005) found a negative one and Golob (2001) found no relationship.
In Oslo young people accepted road pricing to a higher degree than
older ones (Kjerkreit and Odeck, 2005) whereas in Edinburgh the
reverse holds true (Cain et al., 2001). For gender Golob (2001) found a
tendency that women support road pricing more strongly. On the
other hand in Edinburgh men favoured road pricing more strongly
(Braunholtz and Cumming, 2006). Concerning education a positive
relationship was found by Rienstra et al. (1999) whereas Harrington
et al. (2001) found a negative one.
The results concerning the possession and usage of a private car
are fairly consistent in a way that people without a private car
and less frequent car users support road pricing more strongly
than frequent car users. For example, in Oslo Odeck and Bråthen
(1997) as well as Kjerkreit and Odeck (2005) found that car use
(in contrast to public transport usage), the frequency of car use
and the frequency of toll cordon crossing negatively affected the
acceptability of the Oslo toll ring. A similar relationship was found
in Edinburgh (Cain et al., 2001; Cain and Jones, 2002; Gaunt et al.,
2007) and Stockholm (Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006).
However, that does not necessarily mean that public transport
users are more positive towards road pricing per se. In
Edinburgh Gaunt et al. (2007) showed that public transport users
were not equally as positive as car users were negative towards
road pricing.
Similarly the results concerning place of residence are fairly
consistent. For example in Edinburgh and in Stockholm the
residents outside the road pricing cordons were particularly
negative towards it (Cain et al., 2001; Cain and Jones, 2002,
2004; Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006). However, these
results could be due to the differences in car use. People living
in the cities do not have nor need the car to the same extend as
people from the outside. For them usually other travel-mode
options are available such as public transport or walking. In
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
than people with a conservative orientation. At the same time
these people live more often in the city whereas people with a
conservative orientation more often live in the surrounding areas.
2.2. Socioeconomic differences in car use adaptation towards urban
road pricing
Car use adaption has also been studied in relation to income. The
assumption is that people with low income adapt their car use more
strongly since they cannot afford to pay the charges (in line with
economic theory, Button, 1993). Similarly Schade (2005) and
Steininger et al. (2007) assume that people with low income still
use public transport more often and therefore do not have such a
strong car use habit as high income car users. Thus they are not only
forced to but also able to adapt their car use to changing circum-
stances. There are results indicating such a negative relationship
between income and car use adaptation (e.g. Schade, 2005; Golob,
2001; Steininger et al., 2007). However, there are also results
indicating the reverse direction. For example, Odeck and Bråthen
(1997) found in Oslo that high income car users stated to have
changed their car use more strongly. Also Cao and Mokhtarian (2005)
found that people with high income were more willing to reduce
their car use compared to people with low income. On the other hand
in Stockholm people with an average income reduced their car use
more strongly than people with high or low income (Allström et al.,
2006).
A similar contradictory picture was found for age and gender.
In a field trial in Stuttgart (Germany) young as well as older
participants reduced their car use more strongly in comparison to
middle-aged participants (Hug et al., 1997). In Stockholm stu-
dents who usually are rather young reduced their car use most
compared to other socioeconomic groups (Allström et al.,
2006). Steg (2003) found that young people use alternative
transport modes more often. Thus they might be more likely to
adapt their car use more strongly than older people. Concerning
gender Raney et al. (2000) as well as Polk (2004) showed that
women were more willing and more likely to reduce their car use.
This relationship persisted even if the influence of other
 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694
socioeconomic variables was controlled for. However, in Oslo men
stated a stronger reduction in car use than women (Odeck and
Bråthen, 1997).
Concerning the place of residence, the possession and the
frequency of car use the results are again fairly consistent. For
example, in Oslo residents of the surrounding areas as well as car
users, who were crossing the toll cordon more often, also reduced
their car use more often (Odeck and Bråthen, 1997). However,
most likely there is an interrelationship between the surrounding
areas and frequency of toll cordon crossing in a way that car users
from surrounding areas also had to cross the toll cordon more
frequently.
In summary the results concerning socioeconomic differences
in acceptability and car use adaptation reveal an inconsistent
picture. And even if the results of different studies are consistent
they rather point towards interrelations between various socio-
economic variables. Thus it is most likely that socioeconomic
variables do not influence the reaction towards road pricing
individually. Rather they seem to be interrelated and influence
the acceptability and car use adaptation in a conjoint manner.
2.3. Socioeconomic segmentation approaches in travel behaviour
research
Socioeconomic segmentation approaches used in travel beha-
viour research classify individuals into segments according to
variables such as age, car availability, family and employment
status. Three different typologies based on socioeconomic factors
are currently used (Hunecke and Schweer, 2006). These are
classifications according to
 the type of household,
 the life cycle and
 the life situation.
The classification according to the type of household was the
first segmentation approach in travel behaviour research using
socioeconomic variables in this way. The advantage is that the
data necessary for this type of segmentation is nowadays avail-
able from regular national travel surveys. Thus, it is an economic
way of segmentation. The disadvantage is that it lacks important
socioeconomic determinants of travel behaviour such as age and
income.
The life cycle approach defines segments by age, household
size, and employment status. For example, a target-group
approach for the German railway differentiates between nine
different life cycle segments, such as students, members of
households with schoolchildren or pensioners. These life cycle
segments differ considerably in their travel-mode choice. Further-
more, the results of Hunecke and Schweer (2006) indicate that
the life cycle segmentation predicts travel-mode choice more
precisely than a household-based typology. However, the life
cycle approach does not include spatial characteristics such as
place of residence which have been found to determine the
adaptation towards urban road pricing.
The concept of life situation is a broader concept. A life
situation is characterised by a number of structural factors which
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-
economic factors such as age or income. To sharpen this concept
only the objective values of these factors, but not their subjective
perception are included in the definition. Within the boundaries
of their life situation people can act on and react to changing
circumstances such as the introduction of urban road pricing.
687
The previous section has shown that the most important variables
determining different reactions towards urban road pricing are
income, age, gender, education, frequency of car use and spatial
characteristics such as place of residence. The household and life cycle
typologies do include variables of interest such as age and income.
But variables such as travel-mode choice habits and spatial char-
acteristics are not included in these typologies. On the other hand, the
concept of life situation is more broadly defined and can incorporate
aspects of the household, of the current life cycle and other socio-
economic variables relevant to the reaction towards road pricing.
Therefore, the segmentation according to car user’s life situation has
been chosen for this study. Furthermore, a post hoc approach of
segmentation is applied. That means the segments are not deter-
mined ‘‘a priori’’, but ‘‘post hoc’’ using cluster analysis. Beyond the
initial choice of variables the segments are determined by the
empirical data. Thus the number, the size and the characteristics of
the clusters are not known until the segmentation process is finished.
A post hoc approach is appropriate for this study since to date there is
no sound theoretical basis on which the number and the character-
istics of segments could be defined a priori. Doing it anyway would
carry the risk of inappropriate or even false behavioural assumptions
(Anable, 2005).
2.4. Previous results from the AKTA road pricing experiment in
Copenhagen
The analysis of socioeconomic differences in the reaction towards
road pricing complements a previous paper from Gehlert et al. (2008)
where public acceptability and behavioural adaptation has been
analysed on an aggregate level. The aim was to explain the positive
dynamics of public acceptability frequently observed in cities that
have implemented road pricing. Cognitive dissonance was suggested
as a psychological mechanism explaining this attitude change. That
means that people change their acceptability in accordance with their
behavioural adaptation in order to achieve consistency between their
attitudes and their related behaviour. However, in the aggregate
analysis Gehlert et al. (2008) found only a minor public acceptability
change after the field trial even though a significant car use reduction
and a corresponding pattern of behavioural adaptation strategies was
observed. About 50% of the participants did not change their opinion
with regard to urban road pricing. But on average participants
reduced their daily number of trips by 0.3, their trip duration by
4.7 min/day, their trip distance by 2.6 km/day and their trip costs by
0.45 h/day. Furthermore, participants mostly tried to avoid expensive
areas followed by chaining trips, reducing trips as such and changing
departure times (see also Gehlert and Nielsen, 2007).
One reason why the dynamics of public acceptability could not
be uncovered in the aggregate analysis may be that certain groups
of people have reacted in different ways towards urban road
pricing. In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 a number of socioeconomic
differences in public acceptability as well as the behavioural
responses towards urban road pricing have been outlined. If these
reactions are in opposite directions they may mitigate or even out
each other in an aggregate analysis. Thus, the aggregate analysis
may have revealed results that hold true for the average car user
but may not reflect the reaction of certain subgroups of car users.
Thus the picture may be incomplete and the conclusions
premature.
3. Methodology
3.1. The AKTA road pricing experiment in Copenhagen
This study uses data from the AKTA road pricing experiment in
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
(see Nielsen (2004a) and Gehlert (2009) for a detailed description
of the experiment). The city of Copenhagen was equipped with a
virtual urban road pricing system simulating three different
pricing schemes: a low kilometre/distance charging scheme, a
high kilometre/distance charging scheme and a cordon charging
scheme (see Fig. 1). Private cars of voluntary test drivers were
equipped with a global positioning system (GPS)-based on board
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
selected participants.
For the purpose of this paper the socioeconomic characteristics
of the participants have been analysed in more detail. The socio-
economic variables were measured several times during the
experiment. The characteristics of the overall sample are:
 Gender: 32% female and 68% male participants.
 Age: 82% of the participants were between 30 and 59 years old.
 Income: The yearly household income before tax is normally
distributed with an average of 70,000–80,299h. With this
income the sample is representative for one-car households
in Copenhagen.
 Household size and distribution: 13% single households, 35% two
person households, 19% three person households, 26% four
person households and 8% are five or more person households.
68% of the households have no children younger than 10 years.
73% of the households are two person households with both
persons above 18 years of age.
 Driving licence: 30% of the households hold one driving licence,
65% hold two and 5% more than two.
 Working conditions: 41% of the participants work in the Bridge
quarter, the city centre of Copenhagen. 47% commute
between 2.1 and 10 km/day, further 40% need to commute
10.1–30 km/day.
 Living conditions: 56% of the participants live in their own
property, as it is common in Denmark. 23% of participants live
Fig. 1. Design of the virtual road pricing system in Copenhagen.
in the Bridge quarter, 21% in the northern suburbs, 19% in the
outskirts and 16% in the western suburbs.
 Travel-mode choice: 73% of the participants use their private
car as main travel mode for their commuting trips, 13% use the
bicycle and 3% public transport. 56% of the participants use
their car 4–5 times a week for commuting. 33% need their
private car for business trips. The average number of kilo-
metres driven per week is 200–299 km.
This study uses public acceptability, preferred revenue use and
car use adaption as outcome variables. Public acceptability and
car use adaptation have already been analysed in Gehlert et al.
(2008). The same measurements were used in this paper. There-
fore, only a brief description of these measures is given.
Public acceptability of four different transport pricing systems
was measured before and after the experiment: the current
Danish car tax system, urban road pricing, a peak hour charge
and a package solution consisting of road pricing and the
revenues spent as preferred by the participants. Participants were
asked to what degree they regarded these as good systems.
Ratings were obtained on a three-point scale (1¼yes, 2¼neither
nor, and 3¼no).
Car use was measured using the GPS-based device in the
private cars of the participants (see Nielsen (2004b) for details).
Based on this data the following car use indicators were available:
number of trips, trip distance, trip duration and trip costs. The trip
costs were calculated according to the relevant pricing scheme.
Furthermore, participants were asked to what degree they have
employed the following car use reduction strategies: trip sup-
pression, trip chaining, changing departure time, car pooling,
avoiding expensive areas, switching to public transport, using
other cars than the GPS-equipped one, postponing trips to the end
of the experiment. The ratings were obtained on a four-point scale
(1¼no, 2¼to a lesser degree, 3¼to some degree, and 4¼ yes).
In addition and for the purpose of this paper the preferred
revenue use of participants was included in the analysis. In the
 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
analysis procedure. The aim of the segmentation analysis was to
identify homogenous clusters of cases with respect to their
socioeconomic background. Second, the segments were examined
with regards to significant differences in public acceptability,
preferred revenue use and car use adaptation.
For the segmentation analysis a two stage approach was used.
This included an agglomerative procedure to identify structure in
the data and generate cluster centres, using these as a starting
point for a more robust non-hierarchical (K-means) cluster
procedure. Statistical indicators, stability checks and subjective
criteria identified as appropriate from the literature were used to
choose the final number of clusters (see Kramer (2009) for further
details). Nominal scales such as gender or working place have
been dummy-coded. The new scales have been weighted by factor
0.5 to compensate for the increase in attributes because of the
dummy-coding (Bacher, 1994). Once the final cluster solution was
chosen, the segments were profiled with respect to their socio-
economic characteristics.
Differences between the segments in public acceptability and
car use adaptation have been analysed in similar way as
in Gehlert et al. (2008). Therefore, only a brief description of the
statistical analysis is given. Differences in public acceptability and
preferred revenue use were examined using parametric and non-
parametric analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Differences
between the segments in car use adaptation and public accept-
ability change were analysed using difference scores between
pre-test measurement and post-test measurement and a subse-
quent parametric or non-parametric analysis of variance on these
difference scores (see Gehlert et al. (2008) for more details).
Previous analysis revealed no differentiated impact of the three
pricing systems on public acceptability and car use adaptation
(Gehlert et al., 2008). Therefore, in this paper no distinction was
made between the three simulated pricing schemes.
4. Results
4.1. Socioeconomic profile of the segments
In order to identify the appropriate number of clusters the
statistical indicators for cluster solutions ranging from two to six
clusters were compared to each other (see Table 1). The results
indicate that the proportional reduction in error (PREK2) is highest
for the three-cluster solution (7.6%) followed by the five-cluster
solution (3.7%). To examine the cluster solution’s stability, the
sample of N ¼516 was randomly divided into two subsamples
(n1 ¼ 271 and n2 ¼245). Subsequently, cluster analyses were
carried out on both subsamples and the statistical indicators
were compared (see Table 1). Again, the results indicate that
the proportional reduction in error (PREK2) is highest for the
three-cluster solution for both subsamples with 8.2% and 7.2%,
respectively.
The three-cluster solution has been further analysed for its
stability using the Rand Index as indicator (Bacher, 1994). For this
purpose the membership of participants to the clusters was com-
pared between the overall sample and each subsample. The Rand
Index describes the match of membership between the overall
sample and the subsamples respectively. For the first subsample
the Rand Index reached 97% correspondence of participants allocated
to the three clusters. This corresponds to a very good fit (Bacher,
1994). The Rand Index for the second subsample reached 86%, still
corresponding to a good fit. Thus, it can be concluded that the cluster
analysis revealed a stable three-cluster solution.
Subsequently the three clusters or segments were profiled
with respect to their socioeconomic characteristics. For this
purpose the variable means within each cluster were examined.
Next, the cluster means were compared to each other looking for
significant differences between them. There were significant
differences in all socioeconomic variables apart from gender and
workplace. The most prominent differences were found for age,
household size and composition, income and private car use.
Finally, the segments were given a name to represent their main
characteristics. The results are summarised in Table 2. The
differences between the clusters are shown in superscript. All
differences are significant at p o0.05.
The first group, the young families, consists of 28.3% of the overall
sample. People in that group are on average 30–39 years old. 28% are
women. The household consists of two adults and one or two
children 10 years of age or younger. They have the lowest yearly
income per person compared to the other groups. The majority lives
and works in the Bridge quarter. Consequently they have a short
commuting distance. Moreover, they have good access to public
transport and use not only their car but also other modes for
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
2–4 person households without small children. 29% are women.
There are most likely teenagers or young adults in the households
since the household composition indicates 3 adult members in
the household. They have a higher yearly income per person than
the young families. Since they live in the suburban areas and work
in the Bridge quarter, the city centre of Copenhagen, they have the
longest commuting distance. Moreover, access to public transport
is restricted and they have the highest share of private car
commuting.
The third group, the singles and couples, consists of 34.7% of the
overall sample. They are on average 40–49 years old and live in
1 or 2 person households without small children. There are more
women in this group although this difference is not statistically
significant. Just as the group of young families, this group lives
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
their car but also other travel modes, but not to the same extent
as the group of young families does. The average weekly driving
distance is similar to the group of young families, but the
percentage of car commuting is higher.
families with 12.8% and singles and couples with 18.4%. Further-
more, with 69.4% more suburban families do not change their
opinion regarding a package solution compared to young families
and singles and couples with about 50%. Again, these differences
are not statistically significant.

4.2. Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability of road pricing
Table 3 presents the differences between the three groups in
public acceptability before the experiment. Young families eval-
uate all three road pricing schemes most favourable followed by
suburban families and singles and couples. The current Danish car
tax system is assessed most favourable by suburban families
followed by young families and singles and couples, even though
on an overall low level of agreement. However, these differences
are not statistically significant.
It was further analysed whether there are changes in public
acceptability after the experiment and whether the groups of
similar life situation revealed differences in the acceptability
change (see Table 4). There are differences between the groups
of similar life situation in the evaluation of the urban road pricing
scheme and the package solution (see Table 4). With 7.1% young
families changed their opinion least in a negative direction
regarding the urban road pricing scheme followed by suburban
4.3. Socioeconomic differences in car use adaptation towards road
pricing
Table 5 shows the differences in the reduction of the GPS-
based trip indicators for the groups of similar life situation. First,
all groups reduced their GPS-based trip indicators and their car
use in response to urban road pricing respectively. The minus sign
indicates a reduction in the respective mean value in the pricing
period compared to the control period. Second, there were
significant differences in the size of reduction between the groups
of similar life situation. The group of young families reduced their
car use most, followed by the singles and couples. The suburban
families reduced their car use least. This ranking holds true for all
trip indicators.
Table 6 shows the differences in the stated car use adaptation
strategies between the groups of similar life situation. Partici-
pants were asked which strategies they have applied to reduce
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
chained trips, reduced trips and postponed fewer trips to the
end of the experiment compared to the remaining two groups.
This corresponds to the results of the GPS-based trip indicators,
which show the strongest reduction for the group of young
families. The descriptive differences between the group of sub-
urban families and the group of singles and couples are less
pronounced compared to the GPS-based trip indicators.
There were no significant differences in changing departure
time, switching to public transport, using other cars than GPS-
equipped ones and car pooling between the three groups. Further-
more, comparing the ranking of the strategies for each group, there
is no qualitative differences in the application. That means they
only differ in the extent to which they use the various adaptation
strategies, not in the choice of strategies as such. Postponing trips to
the end of the experiment, using other cars than the one equipped
with GPS and car pooling were used least in response to urban road
pricing, which speaks for the validity of the experiment.
4.4. Socioeconomic differences in preferred revenue use
In the course of the experiment the participants were asked
how they want the revenues from road pricing to be spent.
Overall, participants preferred the revenues to be spent for traffic
improvements rather than for lowering taxes, to be spent on a
local rather than on the national level, and to be spent for
investments in public transport rather than in road infrastructure
investments (Gehlert, 2009).
The preferred revenue use for each group of similar life
situation was analysed for explaining differences in the responses
towards urban road pricing. The results are presented in Table 7.
First, there were no significant differences between the groups of
similar life situation concerning the revenues use for the general
public. Second, it was analysed where in the transport sector the
different groups want the revenues to be spent. Significant
differences were found for the suburban families in contrast to
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
families
Revenue use for the general public
Local traffic improvements 25.7
National traffic improvements 44.4
Local tax reductions 35.0
National tax reductions 37.5
Others 20.8
Revenue use for the transport system
Investments in road network 32.4
Extension of parking space in the city 35.3
Improvement of traffic safety 47.1
Extension of Park&Ride outside 25.0
Extension of public transport 70.6
Reduction of public transport fares 69.1
Others 7.4
preferred to a lesser degree the extension in new parking space in
the city centre and to a higher degree the investment in Park &
Ride facilities, the public transport network and the reduction of
public transport fares.
5. Discussion
The aim of this paper was to analyse socioeconomic differ-
ences in response towards urban road pricing. In contrast to
previous studies a holistic approach was used putting the car user
and his or her life situation as a whole in the focus of analysis.
Three questions emerged for the analysis. Is it possible to
distinguish groups of similar life situation according to the
relevant socioeconomic variables as identified in the literature?
Do these groups really differ in their responses towards urban
road pricing? Could this knowledge be used for designing and
implementing urban road pricing packages?
The results of the segmentation analysis revealed three stable
groups with a similar background in relevant socioeconomic
variables for the response towards urban road pricing. These
groups were labelled as young families, suburban families and
singles and couples. The most prominent socioeconomic differ-
ences between these groups were found for age, household size
and composition, income and car use. Thus, the segmentation
according to the life situation shares some characteristics with
the life cycle approach. Age as well as the number and age of
children were important characteristics of the groups. But over
and above the life cycle income, place of residence and related
commuting distance and car use for commuting contributed to
the distinction of the groups as well. This confirms the impor-
tance of individual characteristics as well as spatial dimensions
and transport infrastructure variables for the response towards
urban road pricing. Thus, the broader concept of life situation is
appropriate to analyse the comprehensive impact of the social
background on the response towards urban road pricing.
Concerning the differences between the three groups in their
responses towards road pricing no statistically significant differ-
ences were found for public acceptability and public acceptability
change, but again for car use adaptation. This seems to confirm
the aggregate analysis from Gehlert et al. (2008) where no public
acceptability change was observed as well. It also seems to
disconfirm the assumption that the dynamics of public accept-
ability could not have been uncovered because distinct groups of
people may have reacted in opposite directions. However, another
explanation could be that even the more differentiated analysis
C2: Suburban C3: Singles and Difference between clusters
families couples w2 (df, N), p
w2 (10,281) ¼16.94, p ¼0.07, n.s.
39.0 35.3
50.0 5.6
35.0 30.0
34.4 28.1
29.2 50.0
w2 (10,244) ¼25.57, p ¼0.03, sign.
29.5 28.4
16.8 37.0
38.9 44.4
41.1 38.3
75.8 63.0
71.6 58.0
12.6 9.9
failed to reveal existing differences in public acceptability and
acceptability change as well. The aggregate analysis showed an
unusual high percentage of agreement towards urban road pri-
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
between the groups of similar life situation point towards this
line of reasoning. The group of young families evaluate the three
urban road pricing schemes most favourable compared to the
other two groups and has changed their opinion least in a
negative direction in the course of the experiment. That makes
sense if one takes into account which group would benefit most
from an urban road pricing system. The young families are least
car dependent with the lowest percentage of private car com-
muting, the lowest weekly car use and good public transport
accessibility. This group may have the best options and current
habits to use other modes besides the car which is reflected in
their more favourable view towards road pricing. Thus, further
research on public acceptability should adopt a more differen-
tiated view to be able to explain the dynamics in the implemen-
tation process. There are indications that public acceptability is
also determined by the perceived effects of an urban road pricing
scheme (e.g. Schuitema et al., 2010). But the perception of
benefits may strongly depend on one’s own life situation.
Concerning car use adaptation there were significant differ-
ences between the three groups of similar life situation. While all
three groups reduced their car use significantly the young families
reduced their car use most followed by the singles and couples.
This became apparent in the GPS-based trip indicators as well as
the degree of stated adaptation strategies. Again, it seems that the
group of young families is not only willing but also able to adjust
its personal travel pattern most in response towards road pricing.
These differences were not visible in the aggregate analysis
(Gehlert et al., 2008). Therefore, a more differentiated perspective
on behavioural adaptation towards urban road pricing yields a
more complex picture of the results. The results also confirm the
assumption of the concept of life situation that the socioeconomic
background determines and restricts the individual’s scope for
action and thus the possibilities of adapting to changing circum-
stances such as the introduction of road pricing.
Knowing the distinct patterns of response towards urban road
may help to design and implement more effective urban road
pricing packages. Urban road pricing packages consist not only of
pricing components but investments in alternative travel modes
such as public transport and extensive information campaigns.
These complementary measures could be tailor-made to the
 T. Gehlert et al. / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 685–694
social background of different target groups. For example, a
communication strategy that takes the social background into
account may be more effective in gaining public support.
Looking at the group of young families there are a number of
factors already contributing to the successful behavioural adapta-
tion such as short commuting distances and the number of
transport alternatives beside the car. People in this group already
use other transport options. Thus compared to the other groups
their potential for further car use reduction is rather low. For this
group urban road pricing packages should be aimed at stabilising
their low car use and high public transport use. Therefore,
investments in public transport are essential for this group. Given
the lower income per person attractive public transport fares
could be developed that support public transport usage of this
group. Furthermore, transport options and information material
that correspond to the complex travel chains of families with
young children could be provided.
The suburban families show the lowest car use reduction in
the course of the experiment and thus seem to have the greatest
potential for further reductions. The main barriers to behaviour
change seem to be place of residence, long commuting distance
and insufficient public transport availability. Thus improving the
availability as well as the awareness of other transport options
such as car pooling or Park & Ride facilities seem to be the ‘‘first
best’’ options for this group to facilitate car use adaptation in
response towards road pricing. This line of reasoning is supported
by the way this group wants the revenues from road pricing to be
spent. Compared to the other two groups the suburban families
preferred the extension in new parking space in the city centre to
a lesser degree and the investment in Park & Ride facilities, in the
public transport network and in the reduction of public transport
fares to a higher degree. One could conclude that this group is
willing but not able to reduce their car use in response towards
urban road pricing.
The group of singles and couples is more heterogeneous. Like
the group of young families they have good access to public
transport and short commuting distances because they live in the
city centre or close by. On the other hand they have higher
income and more frequent car use. Obviously the group of singles
and couples is able to reduce its car use but not necessarily forced
to do so. For this group it is more difficult to derive supportive
measures. Socioeconomic factors may not be the driving force for
their car use adaption. Other variables, such as attitudes, norms or
values may become dominant for the reaction towards urban road
pricing. Consequently, extending their current scope of action
may not be sufficient for further car use reduction. Other instru-
ments such as social marketing need to be applied to motivate
further car use reduction in response towards urban road pricing.
This highlights one of the drawbacks of relying solely on socio-
economic factors for designing urban road pricing packages.
While this kind of data is often already available within cities or
can be obtained at low cost there might be groups of citizens
whose reaction is only insufficiently explained by these factors.
That could be expected for groups whose scope of action is
already medium or high.
Summarising the discussion above it becomes apparent that
urban road pricing schemes can and should be tailored to the
social background of different user groups. This increases the
effectiveness of the package by facilitating behavioural adaptation
and ensures public acceptability and credibility of the package. A
segmentation approach as presented here integrates relevant
socioeconomic variables into a comprehensive picture. The result
is a small, manageable number of target groups. Knowing the
characteristics of a manageable number of target groups in detail
opens up the possibility to combine various interventions in a
complex but still conclusive urban road pricing package.
693
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by PhD scholarships from the
Dr. Joachim und Hanna Schmidt Foundation for Environment and
Transport as well as the Free State of Saxony awarded to Tina
Gehlert. We would like to thank one anonymous reviewer for
helpful feedback. A previous version of the paper has been
presented at the 4th International Conference on Traffic & Trans-
port Psychology in Washington, DC.
References
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.
Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identi-
fying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy 12,
65–78.
Bacher, J., 1994. Clusteranalyse [Cluster Analysis]. Oldenbourg, München.
Braunholtz, S., Cumming, R., 2006. Evaluation of Edinburgh Residents’ Attitude to
the Proposed Road User Charging Scheme (Transport Research Series). Scottish
Executive Social Research, Edinburgh, UK.
Button, K.J., 1993. Transport Economics. Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
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.
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.
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.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., 2005. 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 12, 291–302.
Congestion Charging Secretariat, 2006. Facts and results from the Stockholm Trials
(Final version). City of Stockholm.
Eliasson, J., Hultkranz, L., Nerhagen, L., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., 2009. The Stockholm
congestion—charging trial 2006: overview of effects. Transportation Research
Part A 43 (3), 240–250.
Gaunt, M., Rye, T., Allen, S., 2007. Public acceptability of road user charging: the
case of Edinburgh and the 2005 referendum. Transport Reviews 27 (1),
85–102.
Gehlert, T., 2009. Straßenbenutzungsgebühren in Städten: Akzeptanz und Mobi-
litätsverhalten [Acceptability and Travel Behaviour Change in Response to
Urban Road Pricing]. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Gehlert, T., Nielsen, J., Rich, J., Schlag, B., 2008. Public acceptability change of urban
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
drivers’ responses to road pricing in Copenhagen. In: Proceedings of the
European Transport Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
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,
495–514.
Gustavsson, H., Åke., 2005. Kunskapen om och attityder till Stockholmsförsöket
försöket med miljöavgifter/trängselskatt och utbyggd kollektivtrafik. Slutrap-
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
expanded public transport. Final Report, Results from May 2006]. Stockholm
Office of Research and Statistics (USK), Stockholm.
Harrington, W., Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., 2001. Overcoming public aversion to
congestion pricing. Transportation Research Part A 35, 87–105.
Hug, K., Mock-Hecker, R., Würtenberger, J., 1997. Transport demand management
by electronic fee collection in a zone-based pricing scheme: the Stuttgart
MobilPass field trial. Transportation Research Record 1576, 69–76.
Hunecke, M., Schweer, I., 2006. Einflussfaktoren der Alltagsmobilität—Das Zusam-
menwirken von Raum, Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Lebensstil und Mobilitätsein-
stellungen [Determinants of daily mobility—the interaction of space, traffic
infrastructure, life styles and mobility-related attitudes]. In: Beckmann, K.J.,
Hesse, M., Holz-Rau, C., Hunecke, M. (Eds.), StadtLeben—Wohnen, Mobilität
und Lebensstil. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 148–166.
Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., May, A., 2005. Explaining variations in public
acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy 39, 127–153.
Jones, P., 2001. Gaining public support for road pricing through a package
approach. Traffic Engineering and Control 32 (4), 194–196.
Kjerkreit, A., Odeck, J., 2005. Users’ attitudes towards road user charges: a time
series analysis of the Oslo toll ring, ECTRI Young Researchers Seminar. The
Hague, Netherlands.
Kramer, C., 2009. The impact of the life situation on the response towards urban
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
and acceptability of congestion charging—The case of Stockholm. Transporta-
tion Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43 (3), 297–305.
Nielsen, O.A., 2004a. Behavioral responses to road pricing schemes: description of the
Danish AKTA experiment. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 8, 233–251.
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.
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.
Odeck, J., Bråthen, S., 1997. On public attitudes toward implementation of toll
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
reduce car use in Sweden. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (3), 185–195.
Raney, E.A., Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 2000. Modeling individuals’ considera-
tion of strategies to cope with congestion. Transportation Research Part F 3 (3),
141–165.
Rienstra, S.A., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E.T., 1999. The social support for policy
measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands.
Transportation Research Part D 4, 181–200.
Schade, J., Schlag, B., 2000. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in
Europe. Traffic Engineering and Control 41, 314–318.
Schade, J., 2005. Akzeptanz von Straßenbenutzungsgebühren: Entwicklung und
Überprüfung eines Modells [Acceptability of Road Pricing: Model Develop-
ment and Validation]. Pabst, Lengerich.
Scheiner, J., 2009. Is travel mode choice driven by subjective or objective factors?.
In: Holz-Rau, C., Scheiner, J. (Eds.), Subject-oriented Approaches to Transport.
Technical University Dortmund, Germany, pp. 53–69.
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., Forward, S., 2010. Explaining differences in acceptability
before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in
Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 44, 99–109.
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., 2008. The role of revenue use in the acceptability of
transport pricing policies. Transportation Research Part F 11, 221–231.
Steg, L., 2003. Can public transport compete with the private car? IATSS Research
27 (2), 27–35.
Steininger, K.W., Friedl, B., Gebetsroither, B., 2007. Sustainability impacts of car
road pricing: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Austria. Ecological
Economics 1, 59–69.
Transport for London, 2005. Central London congestion charging. Impacts mon-
itoring. Third Annual Report, London.