Beyond new roads and bridges

Lenahan L. O’Connell · Juita‐Elena Yusuf · Khairul A. Anuar

2 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Public Budgeting Accounting & Financial Management

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Transportation Planning and Optimization transportation and logistics systems Urban Transport and Accessibility

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare public preferences for investment and spending on non-automobile infrastructures (mass transit and bicycling) to preferences for new roads and the repair of current highways. The study explores the factors that explain preferences for non-automobile infrastructure using a three-factor model including self-interest (personal transportation benefits), concern for community-wide benefits (political beliefs), and concern for the economic impact. The study uses a case study of the urban context of the Hampton Roads region of Southeastern Virginia (USA). Design/methodology/approach The analysis uses data from a 2013 telephone survey of urban residents in the Hampton Roads area. Survey respondents were asked to identify their two investment priorities from four options: repairing existing roads, bridges, and tunnels; constructing new or expanding roads, bridges, and tunnels; expanding mass transit; and expanding bicycle routes and improving bike safety. Findings Repairing existing highway infrastructure is the most popular spending priority (66 percent of residents). There is as much support (46 percent) for investing in non-automobile infrastructure as for investing in new roads, bridges, and tunnels. Significant predictors of support for non-automobile infrastructure, using the three-factor model, are: length of commute time, self-identification as liberal, use of light rail, and a belief that light rail contributes to economic development. Originality/value The study examines public preferences for both non-traditional and traditional transportation infrastructure investments. It highlights the factors that contribute to public support for different transportation spending options.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Health and community design: the impact of the built environment on physical activity 2015Are Millennials Really the “Go-Nowhere” Generation?2011The Smart Growth Manual 2009Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self Interest 2009The Impact of Local Supporters on Smart Growth Policy Adoption 2010Evidence on users’ attitudes towards road user charges—A cross-sectional survey of six Norwegian toll schemes 2006Public perceptions of toll roads: A survey of the Texas perspective 2007How to pay for transportation? A survey of public preferences in California

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.