With the budget crisis plaguing so many states, pavement management will compete more vigorously for limited funds. Findings reported from a tri-state pooledfund research project provide insights and guidelines for pavement improvement derived from the perceptions of the driving public. The Phase II responses from statewide surveys in Iowa, Minnesota, andWisconsin address the topics of perceptions of the State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), pavement repair tradeoffs, and pavement evaluation. The results disclose specific public perceptions of priorities for spending limited highway funds. Implications for pavement management, policy, planning, as well as for marketing to garner additional funds are explored.
Arterburn, S. ,& Suprenant, B. (1990). Public perception of pavement rideability(Report CDOH-UCB-R-90-10). Denver: Colorado Department of Highways.
2.
Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P. (1996). National Highway User Survey National Quality Initiative Steering Committee. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
3.
Garg, A. , Horowitz, A., & Ross, F. (1988). Establishing relationships between pavement roughness and perceptions of acceptability. In Transportation Research Record 1196(pp. 276-285). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
4.
Giese, J. K. , Griffin, R. J., & Kuemmel, D. A. (2001). Public perceptions of the Midwest’s pavements: Explaining the relationship between pavement quality and driver satisfaction. In Transportation Research Record 1769(pp. 61-70). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
5.
Haas, R. ,& Hudson, W. R. (1996). Defining and serving clients for pavements. In Transportation Research Record 1524 (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
6.
Highway Research Board . (1962). AASHO road test: Summary report(Report 7). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
7.
Indiana Department of Transportation . (1993). Correlation of IRI to public perception of pavement roughness. West Lafayette: Indiana Department of Transportation, Division of Research.
8.
Khisty, C. J. , & Leleur, S. (1997). Citizen participation through communicative action: Towards a new framework and synthesis. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 31, 119-137.
9.
Kuemmel, D. A. , Robinson, R. K., Sonntag, R. C., Griffin, R. J., & Giese, J. K. (2001). Public perceptions of the Midwest’s pavements: Policies and thresholds for pavement improvement on rural two-lane highways. In Transportation Research Record 1769(pp. 11-19). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,.
10.
Marquette University Center for Highway and Traffic Engineering . (1998). Public perceptions of the Midwest’s pavements—Phase II report, Minnesota. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Highway and Traffic Engineering, Marquette University.
11.
Marquette University Center for Highway and Traffic Engineering . (1999a). Public perceptions of the Midwest’s pavements—Phase II report, Iowa. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Highway andTraffic Engineering, MarquetteUniversity.
12.
Marquette University Center for Highway and Traffic Engineering . (1999b). Public perceptions of the Midwest’s Pavements—Phase II report, Wisconsin. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Highway and Traffic Engineering, Marquette University.
13.
Robinson, R. K. , Kuemmel, D. A., Sonntag, R. C., Shober, S. F.,& Griffin, R. J. (2000). Public perceptions ofWisconsin pavements and tradeoffs in pavement improvement. In Transportation Research Record 1699(pp. 61-70). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,.
14.
Smith, G. L. , & McWaters, B. R. (1995). Partnering for performance: Iowa’s experience with design and construction enhancements for quality improvement of concrete pavements. Transportation Research Record 1478(pp. 62-66). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board.
15.
Wachs, M. (2003). A dozen reasons for raising gasoline taxes. Public Works Management & Policy, 7(3), 235-242.
