The objective of this study is to examine the effect of road pricing on people's tendency to adapt their current travel behavior. To this end, the relationship between changes in activity-travel behavior on the one hand and public acceptability and its most important determinants on the other are investigated by means of a stated adaptation experiment. Using a two-stage hierarchical model, it was found that behavioral changes themselves are not dependent on the perceived acceptability of road pricing itself, and that only a small amount of the variability in the behavioral changes were explained by socio-cognitive factors. The lesson for policy makers is that road pricing charges must surpass a minimum threshold in order to to entice changes in activity-travel behavior and that the benefits of road pricing should be clearly communicated, taking into account the needs and abilities of different types of travelers. Secondly, earlier findings concerning the acceptability of push measures were validated, supporting transferability of results. In line with other studies, effectiveness, fairness and personal norm all had a significant direct impact on perceived acceptability. Finally, the relevance of using latent factors rather than aggregate indicators was underlined.

The introduction of new public transport systems can influence society in a multitude of ways ranging from modal choices and the environment to economic growth. This paper examines the determinants of light rail mode choice for medium- and long-distance trips (10 to 40 km) for a new light rail system in Flanders, Belgium. To investigate these choices, the effects of various transport system–specific factors (i.e., travel cost, in-vehicle travel time, transit punctuality, waiting time, access and egress time, transfers, and availability of seats) as well as the travelers' personal traits were analyzed by using an alternating logistic regression model, which explicitly takes into account the correlated responses for binary data. The data used for the analysis stem from a stated preference survey conducted in Flanders. The modeling results are in line with literature: most transport system–specific factors as well as socioeconomic variables, attitudinal factors, perceptions, and the frequency of using public transport contribute significantly to the preference for light rail transit. In particular, the results indicate that the use of light rail is strongly influenced by travel cost and in-vehicle travel time and to a lesser extent by waiting and access–egress time. Seat availability appeared to play a more important role than did transfers in deciding to choose light rail transit. The findings of this paper can be used by policy makers as a frame of reference to make light rail transit more successful.

This paper proposes Q-methodology as a technique for the identification of more homogeneous subgroups or 'segments' within a rather heterogeneous overall population when it comes to social acceptance of demand restricting policy measures. Identification of such segments would allow policy makers to better tailor their future actions and thereby increase the chance for a successful implementation of the measures they propose. A set of 33 persons, selected in function of age, gender and car ownership evaluated the acceptability of a total number of 42 demand restricting policy measures. Special care was taken that the final set of statements covered the four classically distinguished demand restricting strategies, i.e., improved transport options, incentives for the use of alternative transport modes, parking and land-use management, and institutional policy revision. In addition, a balance between both 'hard' and 'soft' and 'push' and 'pull' measures was strived for. The results indicate that four different segments in terms of social acceptance of demand restricting policy measures, can be distinguished, i.e., travelers in favor of traffic calming, travelers against hard push measures, travelers in favor of demand restriction, and travelers against policy innovations. Besides the differences and similarities between these segments, the practical implications for policy makers are discussed, together with a series of specific recommendations and suggestions for future research. and (iv ) institutional policy revision (policies and programs). Keywords 51In the following Section, the methodology to explore the evaluation of 52 various demand-restricting policy measures, which is a qualitative yet sta- 82In a Q-methodological study respondents (P-set) are presented with a set 83 of statements about a particular topic, called the 'Q-sample'. They are asked 84 to rank-order the statements (usually from 'agree' to 'disagree'), a process 85 often referred to as 'Q-sorting ' (Brown, 1993). By performing this Q-sorting, 86respondents give their subjective meaning to the statements, and so reveal 87 their personal viewpoints. These viewpoints are then subject to factor anal-88 ysis (McKeown and Thomas, 1988). By correlating respondents, Q-factor 89 analysis gives information about similarities and differences in viewpoints on 90 a particular subject (Barry and Proops, 1999). If significant clusters of cor-91 relation exist, they could be factorized, and described as common viewpoints 92(or preferences, typologies). 93Summarized, Q-methodology encompasses five phases (McKeown and 94

1This paper describes a quality assessment of the processes underlying municipal mobility 2 policy-making in Flanders (Belgium). 25 criteria and 176 aspects were queried during 25 3 interview sessions. Results were aggregated at the level of 7 quality domains of action and 4 suggest that Flemish municipal mobility policy-making is generally fairly frail and of an ad-5 hoc nature. Four factors are found to be determining for this finding: default of political 6 continuity, internal conflicts between stakeholders, lacking internal expertise, and deficient 7 financial resources. Inter-stakeholder collaboration, residents' participation, and policy-8 integration with higher-level programs are the strengths of current mobility policy practices in 9 Flanders. 10Local mobility policy-making assessment in Flanders 3 ISSUES IN LOCAL MOBILITY POLICY-MAKING 1 Setting the scene 2Policy-makers at different levels of authority operate in a complex and volatile environment 3 and the field of mobility policy does certainly not constitute an exception hereto. To attain the 4 ambitious targets with respect to sustainable development that have been set, numerous 5 initiatives and (policy) action plans have been formulated at different levels of public 6 authority (Vlaamse Overheid, 2011a). All of them serve the same goal: to confine the side 7 effects of human mobility on road safety, on the accessibility of economically important 8 locations, on the livability of our cities and neighborhoods, on the social inclusion of all 9 members of society, and on the environment (European Commission, 2001; Ministerie van 10 de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2001; European Commission, 2006). Whereas a lot of effort is 11 put into the generation and validation of higher-level policy plans, little attention is paid to 12 supporting the decision makers that are ultimately responsible for bringing a major share of 13 the higher-level mobility objectives into practice, i.e. the local or municipal authorities. In 14 2006, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) addressed this issue by 15stating that national governments should support local or regional authorities through 16 technical, financial or other means as necessary and appropriate in the development, 17 appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of integrated, sustainable, urban travel strategies 18 (European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2006). In response to this call, a number of 19 isolated initiatives have been taken in some EU member states (May, Page, and Hull, 2008) 20 to ameliorate the lower-level authorities, but a truly integrated initiative to address these 21 issues is not known to the authors. 22Despite being a vital cog in the policy machine of actors and stakeholders that should 23 eventually produce a more sustainable society and ditto transportation system, it turns out 24 that local policy-makers are more often than not unable to attain the high level of 25 performance that they aspire. The fairly modest means that municipalities have at their 26 disposa...

This paper explores the knowledge of the concept 'Light Rail Transit' (LRT) in the context of implementing a Light Rail system in a (sub)-urban region. To this end, three models are estimated: a first model to explore the role of knowledge on modal choice, a second one to identify the determinants of the level of knowledge and a third model to identify the determinants of a cognitive mismatch between actual (real) knowledge and perceived knowledge. The first model (a negative binomial regression model) underlines the significant relation between knowledge of the concept LRT and modal choice. Given the lack of knowledge of the concept 'Light Rail Transit' revealed by the descriptive results, it is of crucial importance to raise the level of knowledge. Knowledge acquisition can be based on transit experiences and information provision. To explore how information campaigns should be constructed and which target groups should be approached, the factors influencing travelers' knowledge and the determinants of a cognitive mismatch are identified by a Multinomial Logit Model (MNL-model) and a Binary Logit Model. The results show that various socio-economic variables as well as socio-psychological variables are significantly influencing actual knowledge and significantly influencing a cognitive mismatch. Among these variables, employment, gender, perception of ticket price of Public Transit (PT) and expectations with regard to seat availability in the LRT-vehicle are the most influential ones.