Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Green transportation taxes and fees: A survey of public preferences

in California
Asha Weinstein Agrawal a,*, Jennifer Dill b, Hilary Nixon a
a
b

MTI National Transportation Finance Center, San Jos State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0185, USA
Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords:
Transportation taxes and fees
Public opinion
Mileage fees
Vehicle registration fees
Feebates
Environmental attitudes

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the results of a survey testing whether California residents would support the concept of green transportation taxes and fees. Green taxes and fees would be
set at variable rates, with higher rates for more polluting vehicles and lower rates for those
that pollute less. The results show that the concept of green transportation taxes and fees
strongly appeals to Californians. The survey data were also analyzed to identify if subgroups within the state were particularly likely to support or oppose green transportation
taxes and fees. Support for the green taxes and fees held at 50% or higher across most population sub-groups. Bivariate analysis showed that demographic factors were generally
poor predictors of support, but that some attitudinal and knowledge variables did correlate
with increased support for the green taxes and fees. Multivariate analysis conrmed that
pro-environment and pro-government attitudes are signicant and strong predictors of
support for increasing transportation revenues.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
This paper presents the results of a survey looking at whether California residents would support the concept of green
transportation taxes and fees. As explained to the survey respondents, green taxes and fees are set at variable rates, with
higher rates for more polluting vehicles and lower rates for vehicles that pollute less. Currently, three trends converge to
point to green transportation taxes and fees as a promising approach to revising the current transportation nance system.
First, there is a growing desire to encourage people to choose transportation behaviors and vehicles that will reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and US dependency on oil imports. There is also increasing interest and acceptance of
using market-based policies to encourage socially desirable transportation choices. Third, transportation professionals want
to identify new sources of transportation revenue that are politically acceptable, as well as technically desirable for other
reasons.
As lawmakers explore different options to raise additional revenues for transportation, there is a need to evaluate the
political feasibility of green transportation taxes and fees. Not only must legislators be willing to support new nance approaches, they must also be convinced that the public will support them as well. To help inform that discussion, this study
looks at two questions:
 How likely are California residents to support green transportation taxes and fees, dened as those that set lower rates for
less polluting vehicles, and higher rates for more polluting ones?

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: asha.weinstein.agrawal@sjsu.edu (A.W. Agrawal).
1361-9209/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2009.11.003

190

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

 What are the socio-demographic, attitudinal, and knowledge factors that inuence support for such taxes and fees?
Although, there has been a fairly wide range of polling on transportation nance topics in the last decade, only a few of
these surveys have tested public opinion on taxes or fees that varied based upon the vehicles environmental impacts.1 Only
three studies analyses that explained support for the environmental taxes or fees based on socioeconomic or demographic characteristics (Krupnick et al. 2001; Dill and Weinstein 2007; YouGov, 2008) and none examined how knowledge of environmental
issues inuenced option.
2. Methodology
This paper analyzes the results of a phone survey of 1500 California adults that was conducted in 2008, from January 20 to
February 1. The telephone numbers came from a computer-generated random sample, assuring that both listed and unlisted
phones were included. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The overall margin of error for the survey is 2.5%
at the 95% condence level. Results were weighted slightly to correspond to 2000 US Census data for gender and region within the state.
The core of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their level of support or opposition to ve transportation tax
and fee options to raise funds for maintaining and improving highways, mass transit, and local streets:
 Flat vehicle registration fee increase: Increase the states vehicle registration fee from its then-current rate of $31 per vehicle
per year to $62 per vehicle per year.
 Green vehicle registration fee increase: Increase the vehicle registration fee to an average of $62 per year, but vary the fee
according to how much the vehicle pollutes. Vehicles that pollute more would pay higher fees, and those that pollute less
would pay lower fees.
 Feebate: Create a new tax and tax-rebate system on all new vehicles, based on how much they pollute. People who buy a
new vehicle that does not pollute much would receive a rebate of up to $1,000. People who buy a new vehicle that pollutes
a lot, such as a very large SUV, would pay a tax up to $2,000. People who buy a vehicle that pollutes about the average
would not pay or receive anything.
 Flat mileage fee: Eliminate the 18-cents-per-gallon state gasoline tax altogether and replace it with a fee based on the
number of miles driven. Each driver would pay a fee of 1 cent per mile for every mile driven within the state. For example,
drivers would pay 1 dollar for every 100 miles driven. Vehicles would be equipped with an electronic means to keep track
of miles driven, and drivers would pay the fee when buying gasoline.
 Green mileage fee: Create a variation on the mileage fee just described, where the fee varies depending upon how much the
vehicle pollutes. On average, vehicles would pay 1 cent per mile, but vehicles that pollute the least would pay less and
vehicles that pollute the most would pay more per mile.
Other survey questions asked about socio-demographic characteristics, basic travel behavior patterns, opinions about the
importance of key policy issues in California related to the transportation system and environmental issues, and knowledge
about transportation nance and the interaction between vehicle use and the environment. This paper highlights the ndings based on some, but not all, of these factors.2
3. Results
3.1. Support for the green transportation taxes and fees
Majorities of the respondents supported all three green taxes and fees tested (Table 1). In addition, in the two cases where
respondents were asked about both a at-rate and green version of the same tax, support for the green version was 20 or
more percentage points higher. Changing the structure of the vehicle registration fee from a at-rate to a variable one based
on a vehicles environmental performance boosts support by 22 percentage pointsfrom less-than-majority support to almost two-thirds support. Similarly, only 28% of respondents favored replacing the state gas tax with a at mileage fee,
but support jumped to 50% when respondents were asked about a green version of a mileage fee. Finally, 66% of respondents
supported the feebate proposal for new vehicle purchases, and only 30% opposed it.
The survey also asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to support the green vehicle registration fee increase if the revenues were dedicated to transportation programs that would reduce smog and greenhouse gases. Sixty-four
percent of respondents said they would be more likely to support the fee, 20% said they would be less likely, and 10% said it
would make no difference to them.
1
These include, ABC News/Time Magazine Washington Post (2005), Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates (2006, 2007), Gurikova and Davis (2002), J.
Moore Methods, Inc. (1994), Kockelman et al. (2006), Krupnick et al. (2001), Washington State Department of Transportation (2004), Weinstein et al. (2006),
and YouGov (2008).
2
A comprehensive analysis of all factors, as well as a copy of the survey questionnaire, can be downloaded from the Mineta Transportation Institute at http://
www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/summary/0805.html.

191

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

Table 1
Percent of respondents supporting the ve transportation tax and fee policy options.
Tax or fee

Support
Strongly (%)

Oppose

55
33

5
4

1494
1493

65
46
30

7
5
4

1496
1491
1489

Over-all

41
63

39
24

16
9

28
50
66

52
35
20

12
11
10

23
27

Mileage fee (to replace state gas tax)

Flat
12
16
Green
25
25
Feebate system
38
27

(%)

Do not know (%)

Some-what (%)

Over-all

Vehicle registration fee increase

Flat
18
Green
37

Strongly (%)

Some-what (%)

(%)

Note: some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

a
Sum of those who said they strongly or somewhat supported/opposed the proposal. Due to rounding, this percentage is not always the exact sum of
the percentages presented in the strongly and somewhat support/oppose columns.

3.2. Support by socio-demographics, travel behavior, and vehicle choices

Table 2 shows support levels broken down by basic socio-demographic categories for which there was a signicant difference across the sub-group. Other categories examined, but not statistically signicant include whether respondents were
likely voters or not, household income, employment status, and homeowner status.
There were a few modest differences among demographic sub-groups. Women were slightly more likely to support all
three green policies, although the difference was only signicant for the mileage fee proposal. Age played a similarly modest
role. The oldest group, those 55 years or older, were the least likely to support all three proposals, though the difference was
only statistically signicant between the oldest and youngest group for the green registration fee proposal. As for education,
only one signicant difference appeared; those who had formal schooling beyond high school were 14 percentage points
more likely to support the feebate proposal. These three results are in line with ndings on willingness to pay (WTP) for
green products, which has often found that women, younger people, and more educated people have a higher stated WTP
for green products.
As with socio-demographic factors, there were surprisingly few signicant differences in support levels based on key travel behavior factors, including how much people drove (Table 3). Among the differences that did show up, non-transit users
were less likely to support the green registration fee increase, though there was no signicant difference in their support
levels for the other two green fees. Also, respondents who had not walked or biked from home to get somewhere in the past
seven days were less likely to support the vehicle registration fee increase and the feebate system, though their support for
the mileage fee was not signicantly different. Finally, only 44% of respondents who said that they had not cut back their
driving in response to higher gasoline prices were likely to support the green mileage fee, 11 percentage points less than
the group who had cut back their driving a lot. Variables for which there were no signicant differences among sub-groups

Table 2
Respondents supportinga the green fee policies, by socio-demographic categories.
Demographic category

Green vehicle registration fee (%)

Green mileage fee (%)

Feebate (%)

All respondents

63

50

65

Gender
Male
Female

60
66

45
55*

64
67

Age
1824 years
2554 years
55+ years

70
66
61*

57
49
50

66
68
65

Education level
High school or less
More than high school

60
65

52
50

55
69*

Political afliation
Democrat
Republican
Other

73
54*
64*

57
42*
44*

75
58*
61*

Notes: The test of two proportions was used to check for statistically signicant differences between support levels among sub-groups. The rst sub-group
listed in each category is the base case for the test; it is compared to the proportion of respondents who supported the green policies in each of the other
sub-groups within that category. Other variables tested, for which there were no statistically signicant differences between the sub-groups, were whether
respondents owned or rented their home, whether or not they were employed, household income, and whether or not they were likely voters.
*
Values that are signicantly different from the base case at a p < 0.05 level of signicance.
a
Sum of those who said they strongly or somewhat supported the proposal.

192

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

Table 3
Respondents supportinga the green fee policies, by travel behavior and vehicle characteristics.
Travel behavior categories

Green vehicle
registration fee (%)

Green mileage
fee (%)

Feebate (%)

All respondents

63

50

65

In the past seven days, have you taken any form of public transit, like a bus, light rail, subway, or commuter train?
Yes
75
55
50
No
62*

71
65

In the past seven days, have you walked or biked from your home to get to work, shopping, eating out, or other errands?
Yes
69
54
48
No
60*

70
63*

As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices, how much, if any, have you cut back on your driving?
Cut back a lot
62
Cut back a little
69
Not at all
59

55
51
44*

66
71
63

Type of vehicle driven the most

Passenger car
Van or minivan
Sport utility vehicle
Pickup truck/other truck

67
67
64
48*

53
55
43
39

70
68
64
57*

Approximate fuel efciency of vehicle driven the most (reported by respondent)

2875 MPG
2327 MPG
1822 MPG
617 MPG
Do not know

76
63*
63*
48*
67

55
43*
48
37*
64

75
67
66*
58*
67

Notes: The test of two proportions was used to check for statistically signicant differences between support levels among sub-groups. The rst sub-group
listed in each category is the base case for the test; it is compared to the proportion of respondents who supported the green policies in each of the other
sub-groups within that category. Variables for which there were no signicant differences among sub-groups were the model year of the vehicle driven the
most, miles driven in the past 12 months (excluding those driven as part of a job), and the respondents usual commute mode.
*
Values that are signicantly different from the base case at a p < 0.05 level of signicance.
a
Sum of those who said they strongly or somewhat supported the proposal.

were the model year of the vehicle driven the most, miles driven in the past 12 months (excluding those driven as part of a
job), and the respondents usual commute mode.
The survey also asked respondents some questions about the vehicle they drive the most. Respondents who drove pickups or other trucks were less likely than drivers of passenger cars to support both the green vehicle registration fee and the
feebate system. In addition, support for the green options generally fell with fuel efciency.
Table 4
Respondents supportinga the green tax and fee policies, by opinions on air pollution, trafc congestion, and transportation system quality.
Opinions

Green registration fee

(%)

Green mileage fee

(%)

Feebate (%)

All respondents

63

50

66

Do you think that smog and air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, not much of a problem, or not problem at all in California? (Question 1)
Big/somewhat problem
65
51
68
Not much/no problem
48*
36*
45*
What about trafc congestion? Do you think that trafc congestion is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, not much of a problem, or no problem at all in
California? (Question 2)
Big/somewhat problem
65
51
67
40
47*
Not much/no problem
43*
Now Id like to know if the quality of the transportation system is a problem for you or your family? By the transportation system, I mean highways, local
streets, and transit. Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, not much of a problem, or no problem at all? (Question 3)
Big/somewhat problem
66
49
68
Not much/no problem
60
51
63
Now Id like to know if air pollution is a health problem for you or your family. Would you say it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, not much of a
problem, or no problem at all? (Question 4)
Big/somewhat problem
69
57
70
44*
62*
Not much/no problem
58*
Notes: The test of two proportions was used to check statistically signicant differences between support levels among sub-groups. The rst sub-group
listed in each category is the base case for the test; it is compared to the proportion of respondents who supported the green policies in each of the other
sub-groups within that category.
*
Values that are signicantly different from the base case at a p < 0.05 level of signicance.
a
Sum of those who said they strongly or somewhat supported the proposal.

193

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

3.3. Support by opinions and knowledge about policy issues in California

We also surveyed respondents knowledge and opinions about some transportation and environmental policy issues in
California, so that we could explore the relationship between these matters and support for green taxes and fees. Previous
work on both transportation and environmental behavior indicates that peoples attitudes toward the environment, values
and knowledge may be more important predictors of support for green policies or green behaviors than other factors.
Respondents were asked a series of four questions asking how much of a problem they perceived air pollution, trafc congestion, and the quality of the transportation system to be. Virtually all respondents answered that pollution and trafc
congestion are a big problem or somewhat of a problem for the state as a whole, but only about half said that the transportation system or air pollution are problems for them personally or for their families. This nding suggests people have a
broad awareness of and concern with transportation and transportation-related issues, even if they do not feel personally
impacted by certain problems.
Table 4 illustrates how support for the three green taxes and fees varied in relationship to respondents opinions regarding air pollution, congestion, and transportation system quality. There was no statistically signicant difference in support
levels for the fees based on whether or not respondents were personally concerned with the transportation system. However, a higher percentage of those who saw trafc congestion as a problem for the state supported two of the three green
taxes and fees. There were modest differences in support for all three tax and fees that varied according to how much of
a problem respondents saw air pollution to be for them or their families. The biggest differences in support exist between
the sub-groups who did and did not see smog and air pollution to be a problem in California (from 13% to 23% points difference across the three taxes and fees).
The survey also explored respondents knowledge of how transportation funds are raised in California, plus their understanding of the relationship between motor vehicle use and air pollution and global warming. Respondents were asked to
respond to a series of factual statements on these topics. The rst data column in Table 5 shows the share of respondents

Table 5
Respondents supportinga the green tax and fee policies, by knowledge of transportation and environmental issues.b
Knowledge questions and response options (correct answers in
italics)

Percent of respondents
(%)

Percent of respondents supporting

Green registration fee
(%)

Green mileage fee

(%)

Feebate
(%)

All respondents

100

63

50

65

State and federal gas taxes provide all the money that is spent to build and maintain highways and roads in California.
Denitely/probably true
23
66
58
Denitely/probably false
63
63
47*
Do not know
13
60
53

63
66
66

State and federal gas taxes have not been raised in more than 10 years.
Denitely/probably true
20
Denitely/probably false
49
Do not know
31

71
61*
69

70
61*
64

60
48*
49*

Exhaust from cars, vans, pickups, and SUVs is an important source of the pollution that causes asthma and makes asthma attacks worse.
Denitely/probably true
73
70
55
71
33*
43*
Denitely/probably false
16
43*
Do not know
11
53*
43
59*
In California, motor vehicles, including cars, trucks and trains, are the single largest source of air pollutants that cause smog.
Denitely/probably true
64
68
55
41*
Denitely/probably false
30
53*
Do not know
6
60
46

69
59*
61

In California, motor vehicles, including cars, trucks, and trains, are the single largest source of so-called greenhouse gases that many scientists say
are causing global warming.
Denitely/probably true
55
73
58
74
39*
54*
Denitely/probably false
33
50*
Do not know
12
57*
45*
60*
All new cars, vans, pickups, and SUVs pollute the same amount for each mile driven.
Denitely/probably true
16
Denitely/probably false
74
Do not know
11

66
64
53*

58
49
42*

62
68
55

Notes: The test of two proportions was used to check for signicant differences between support levels among sub-groups. The rst sub-group listed in
each category is the base case for the test; it is compared to the proportion of respondents who supported the green policies in each of the other subgroups within that category. The correct answer to each statement is indicated in italics.
*
Values that are signicantly different from the base case at a p < 0.05 level of signicance.
a
Sum of those who said they strongly or somewhat supported the proposal.
b
For these questions, respondents were asked, Im going to read you a series of statements. For each statement, please tell me if you think it is
DEFNITELY true, probably true, probably false, or DEFINITELY false.

194

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

indicating that the statement was denitely or probably true, denitely or probably false, or that they did not know. A majority of respondents correctly identied whether or not the statements were true, except for the statement that state and federal gasoline taxes rates have not been raised in more than 10 years.
In most cases, the respondents who did not know the correct answer were signicantly less likely to support the green
transportation taxes and fees. For example, respondents who thought the state and federal gasoline taxes had been raised
within the last decade were around 10 percentage points less likely to support all the green fee policies. Support levels varied
strongly by three issues, including whether or not respondents thought motor vehicle exhaust is an important source of the
pollution that causes asthma and whether or not they thought motor vehicles are the single largest source of greenhouse
gases. For these questions, the difference in support levels between those who did and did not agree with these (true) statements varied from a low of 19 percentage points up to a high of 28 percentage points. There were also signicant, if slightly
smaller, differences based on whether or not respondents thought that motor vehicles are the single largest source of smogproducing pollutants.
3.4. Multivariate models of support for revenue options
Binary logit models were estimated to explore the relationships between multiple factors and support for the revenue
options among registered voters only. Unlike the bivariate analyses in the previous section, multivariate analysis allows
us to parse out the individual contribution of a single variable while taking into consideration a complete set of available
information. The same independent variables were included in each of the ve models in order to see how the effects differed among the revenue options. Variables that were insignicant for all ve models were removed from the models. A few
independent variables were not tested because of problems with missing data. For example, many respondents did not provide an estimate of their vehicles fuel efciency, and those who did not respond to this question were far more likely to be
women. Including this variable in the model might have biased the results, so it was excluded. The results of the nal models
are shown in Table 6.
A few demographic variables were signicant predictors of whether voters supported the green revenue options, though
few clear patterns showed up across the models. Age was a signicant factor only in the model predicting support for the
green mileage fee; as age increased, so did support for green mileage fees. This nding is contrary to other studies showing
greater WTP for green options and variable pricing among younger adults, as well as contrary to our own bivariate analysis
shown in Table 2. Income was a signicant factor only in the two at fee options and in contrasting directions. Higher
incomes were associated with greater support for a at registration fee increase, but lower support for a at mileage fee.

Table 6
Binary logit models of registered voters support for at and green taxes and fees.
Variable

Exp b (signicance level)

Feebate

Registration fee
increase

Mileage fee

Flat

Green

Flat

Green

Demographic variables
Age
Income ($000)
White
Female

0.996
1.005**
1.476*
1.189

1.009
0.999
0.992
1.436**

1.006
0.996*
0.659*
1.517*

1.014**
0.999
0.571**
1.613**

1.004
0.999
1.647**
1.358

Attitudes
Smog/air pollution is a problem in California
Government does not have adequate funding to maintain and improve the transportation system
Must protect environment even if higher gas/electricity prices
Lifestyle changes necessary to solve environmental problems (1 = no, 2 = minor, 3 = major)
Supports higher taxes and more government services versus lower taxes and fewer services

1.348*
1.716**
2.918**
0.993
2.041**

1.125
1.089
3.134**
1.526**
2.335**

0.976
1.193
1.612*
1.219
1.648**

1.086
1.318
2.220**
1.393*
1.922**

1.364**
1.274
2.552**
1.128
1.805**

Knowledge
Knowledge on air pollution related to vehicles (index ranges from

1.110**

1.198**

1.085

1.098*

1.118**

Transportation behavior
Mileage was a very important factor in choosing current vehicle
Used transit in the past 7 days
Constant

0.855
2.033**
0.034**

1.933**
1.746
0.070**

0.728
1.141
0.151**

1.002
1.538
0.070**

1.272
2.384**
0.101**

Model statistics
Nagelkerke R2
n

0.26
799

0.31
799

0.11
776

0.21
776

0.21
811

4 to +4)

Note: Independent variables were dummy variables (coded yes/agree = 1, no/disagree = 0) except for age, income, lifestyle changes, and knowledge of air
pollution.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

195

Similarly, being white increased the likelihood of supporting a at registration fee increase, but decreased the odds of supporting a at mileage fee. White voters were also less likely than non-whites to support the green mileage fee option, but
more likely to support the feebate program. Women were more likely to support both the green registration and mileage
fees, along with the at mileage fee. Gender was not a signicant predictor of support for the at registration fee or feebate
program.
Two attitudinal variables and one knowledge variable all consistently increased the likelihood of supporting all ve tax
and fee options: agreeing that we must protect the environment, even if it means paying higher prices for gasoline and electricity; supporting higher taxes and more government services versus lower taxes and fewer services; and an index variable
testing respondents knowledge of how vehicle use relates to air pollution and global warming.3 Although the three attitudinal and knowledge variables all correlate with greater likelihood of supporting the ve revenue options, the differences in
the coefcients indicate that the factors are slightly more important for predicting support for the two green options relative
to the at options. Voters who felt more strongly that people would need to make lifestyle changes to solve environmental
changes were more likely to support the green registration and mileage fee options, but the variable was insignicant in predicting support for the at fee options or the feebate program.
Two other attitudinal factors were signicant in some but not all of the models. Voters who felt that smog and air pollution was a problem for California were more likely to support the at registration fee increase and the feebate program.
Those who felt there was not enough government funding for transportation were more likely to support the at registration
fee. Finally, respondents who thought that lifestyle changes would be necessary to solve environmental problems were more
supportive of the green registration fee and mileage fee.
Only two variables related to respondents travel choices were signicant. Voters who said that fuel efciency was a very
important factor in choosing their current vehicle were more likely to support the green registration fee. The variable was
insignicant in all other models. Using transit increased the likelihood of supporting the at registration fee and the feebate
program. Variables excluded from the model because they proved insignicant were vehicle type and size, and the number
of miles driven annually.
4. Conclusion
Our results indicate that majorities of the respondents supported all three green taxes and fees tested, with respondents
greatly preferring green transportation taxes and fees to at-rate versions. Further, this support for the green taxes and fees
held at 50% or more across most population sub-groups. Among the more than 100 sub-groups tested, the green vehicle registration fee and feebate had support levels of at least 50% in almost all cases, and even the less-popular green mileage fee
had at least majority support from 51% of the sub-groups. Respondents who drove less fuel-efcient vehicles and those who
drove trucks were among the sub-groups least supportive of the green taxes and fees. Support was also much less likely
among those who did not believe that vehicles are an important source of pollution.
Multivariate analysis revealed that pro-environment and pro-government attitudes are strong predictors of support for
increasing transportation revenues, more so than demographics or travel behavior. Environmental knowledge was also a signicant predictor, though to a lesser extent than attitudes. These ndings reinforce other studies that have found environmental knowledge and attitudes to be good predictors of willingness to pay for green products or services or of proenvironment behavior. Policymakers who wish to increase public support for green taxes and fees may want to consider
ways to educate the public about the impact of motor vehicle use on the environment. Finally, the relationships between
opinions and independent variables were not consistent across the ve revenue or policy options, suggesting that people
responded to the ve taxes and fees based on their specic characteristics, rather than simply supporting or opposing taxes
in general.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jos State University for funding and the institutes staff for
their support. In addition, thanks are due to research assistant Vicki Sherman and two anonymous peer reviewers. The Survey and Policy Research Institute at SJSU managed the survey, led by Philip J. Trounstine. EMH Opinion Sampling, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. The views expressed are the authors alone, as is the responsibility for any errors or
omissions.
References
ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post, 2005. A Look Under the Hood of a Nation on Wheels: ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post Poll. <http://
abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/973a2Trafc.pdf> (accessed 22.08.06).
Dill, J., Weinstein, A., 2007. How to pay for transportation? A survey of public preferences in California. Transport Policy 14, 346356.
3
This index was created using the four questions on air pollution and global warming shown in Table 4. Respondents were assigned one point for each
correct answer (denitely or probably) and one negative point for each incorrect answer or a dont know response. The index is a sum of the scores over all
the questions.

196

A.W. Agrawal et al. / Transportation Research Part D 15 (2010) 189196

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, 2006. California Statewide Survey 220-1985 WT Final, Santa Monica.
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, 2007. Los Angeles County Transportation Ballot Measure Survey 2007, Santa Monica.
Gurikova, T., Davis, S.C., 2002. Transportation Energy Survey Data Book 1.1. ORNL/SUB/02-4000008627/01. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May. <http://
www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_SUB_02-4000008627_01.pdf> (accessed 20.07.08).
J. Moore Methods, Inc., 1994. Southern California Congestion Pricing Study (Various Survey Versions), Sacramento.
Kockelman, K.M., Podgorski, K., Bina, M., 2006. Public perceptions of pricing existing roads and other transportation policies: the Texas perspective. In:
Paper Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Krupnick, A., Harrington, W., Alberini, A., 2001. Public support for pollution fee policies for motor vehicles with revenue recycling: survey results. Regional
Science and Urban Economics 31, 505522.
Washington State Department of Transportation, 2004. 2004 Focus Group Results. <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/PublicOpinion/> (accessed
22.08.06).
Weinstein, A., Dill, J, Goldman, T., Hall, J., Holtzman, F., Recker, J., Goodwin, E., 2006. Transportation Financing Opportunities for the State of California.
Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, October. <http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/
publications/documents/06-01/TransportFinanceOpps5_020107.pdf> (accessed 05.07.08).
YouGov, 2008. YouGov/Evening Standard Survey Results, Fieldwork: 2025th March 2008. <http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03/mayorsurvey.pdf>
(accessed 20.06.08).