The Effects of Discussion and Information on Public Support for Tax and Fee Increases for Transportation

Abstract

This research note compares the effect on willingness to raise taxes and government fees of three common approaches to public consultation: (a) a telephone survey with no information or discussion, (b) a focus group with discussion but no information relating need to the proposed tax or fee, and (c) a focus group with discussion and such information. Our purpose is twofold: (a) illustrate the contribution of pertinent information to public acceptance of tax or fee increases, and (b) suggest a more comprehensive and informative approach to consultation with the public. We do so using the examples of raising the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. The results show that the combination of information and discussion produces the greatest level of support for both revenue enhancing options. Implications for presenting proposals to raise taxes and fees are discussed.

Keywords

public participation transportation taxes and fees public hearings public consultation deliberative democracy

Introduction

Research and reports produced by government agencies, commissions, and panels; think tanks and research institutions; and academic organizations point to significant concerns regarding transportation revenue adequacy (Federal Highway Administration, National Research Council & Transportation Research Board, 2005; National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009; O’Connell & Yusuf, 2013; Puentes & Prince, 2003; Transportation Research Board, 2006; Yusuf & O’Connell, 2013; Yusuf, O’Connell, & Abutabenjeh, 2011). Public sentiment, in contrast, points to the need for greater investment in transportation. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey (http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/rockefeller-foundation-infrastructure-2), a national survey of registered voters conducted in 2011, found that 66% of voters said that improving the country’s transportation infrastructure is important, and 79% agree that there is a need to modernize the transportation infrastructure and keep it up-to-date. The growing inadequacy of current transportation revenues, coupled with public need for greater investment, has generated some pressure on government to raise more revenues for transportation.

The public, however, is generally reluctant to support raising taxes and fees. Furthermore, a recent trend toward greater direct democracy, and particularly the growth in citizen referenda and ballots,¹ has placed greater emphasis on the role that citizens play in policy decisions to address transportation revenue shortfalls. This trend has made it challenging for elected decision makers to take action on proposed tax increases, which are generally highly contentious. In response, many public policy researchers have recommended consultation with the public to generate more support for public programs and the taxes and fees that pay for them (Burby, 2003; Checkoway, 1981; Fox & Miller, 1995; Gundry & Heberlein, 1984). One method to gain the public’s consent is to consult with it through surveys and public meetings.

This research note compares the effect on willingness to raise taxes and fees of three public consultation approaches: (a) a telephone survey with no information or discussion, (b) a focus group with discussion but no information relating need to the proposed tax or fee, and (c) a focus group with discussion and such information. Our purpose is twofold: (a) to illustrate the contribution of pertinent information to public acceptance of tax or fee increases and (b) to suggest a more comprehensive approach to consultation with the public. We do so using the examples of raising the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

First we discuss the theoretical literature on the public’s role in transportation planning with an emphasis on the importance of relevant information and discussion during the public consultation process. After describing the research methods and data, we present the results, which find that the combination of relevant information and discussion produces the greatest level of support for raising gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. The implications for improved public outreach and participation in the area of transportation funding are discussed.

Consulting With the Public on Policy and Taxes

Consultation with the public—also referred to as public participation—can range from surveys of public opinion to, in its ideal format, the bringing together of a diverse group of citizens for an informed discussion on a public issue and then asking them to recommend a policy option that they find most appropriate (Crosby, Kelly, & Schaefer, 1986). The International Association for Public Participation proposes a spectrum of participation with five stages—inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. Neshkova and Guo (2012) operationalize this spectrum by viewing hotlines and surveys as the lowest degree of participation, focus groups, open forums, public hearings, and budget simulations as an intermediate level, and citizen and advisory boards as the most participative level as the latter create a decision-making partnership with the public. While we agree with their approach to the spectrum of public participation, we believe information can be a critical element even in a survey or public hearing in which the public has no decision-making authority.

Some situations are more likely than others to require consultation with the public. Thomas (1995) argues that “the desirability of public involvement depends primarily on the relative need for quality versus the need for acceptability in an eventual decision” (p. 36). In situations where the need for quality is overarching—for example, cases requiring consistency with professional standards, fulfillment of legislative mandates, and conditions of budgetary constraints—citizen participation may be less desirable. But consultation with the public may be essential in situations where the need for public support is dominant, such as a call for a tax increase. Clearly, decisions related to transportation finance and revenues generate controversy. The 2002 failure of Proposition B in Missouri—involving increases in the sales tax and gasoline tax—clearly illustrates this point.

Opposition to tax increases is seemingly entrenched. For example, Hamideh, Oh, Labi, and Mannering (2008) chronicle the multiple experiences in Ventura County, California, of introducing and failing to pass a transportation sales tax. A 1989 initiative to increase the sales tax to generate more transportation revenues had low voter approval (less than 50%), and a similar initiative in 2004 to increase sales taxes also failed to receive voter approval (less than 42%). Various public opinion poll data show a parallel lack of support for increases in transportation revenue sources such as the gas tax. Results of the Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind poll showed that 72% of registered New Jersey voters polled in early March 2014 opposed raising the gas tax to pay for road improvements. This opposition is consistently high across years—74% in 2006 and 61% in 2010 (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2014/taxattack/). Across the country, state-level gas tax increases are as contentious. For example, an April 2013 Gallup poll found that two thirds (66%) of Americans were against increasing their state gas tax by 20 cents per gallon (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161990/oppose-state-gas-tax-hike-fund-repairs.aspx).

These examples point to how strife-riven policy decisions can be in regard to transportation-related revenue enhancements. Still, there are examples of cases of public support for raising transportation-related taxes and fees. In fact, as noted by Crabbe et al. (2005), citizen referenda and ballots have become an increasingly common response to the inability or lack of willingness of state legislatures to address transportation revenue shortages. Local transportation sales taxes for highways and transit infrastructure, for example, have been passed through ballots in 20 California counties. In detailing the history of local transportation sales taxes in California, Crabbe et al. begin in the early 1980s when several ballot proposals were introduced to use local gasoline taxes to fund transportation projects. These ballot measures failed to receive the majority votes needed to pass. In the mid-1980s, California counties were given the power to adopt sales taxes for transportation projects, but this was complicated by the need for a two-third supermajority vote. Yet, Crabbe et al. (2005) report that the last decade has seen a surge in support for local transportation sales taxes, “Between 2002 and 2004 the counties of Riverside, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Marin, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, and Sonoma all mustered the two-third supermajorities to pass or ‘reauthorize’ their transportation taxes” (p. 96). These examples of willingness to raise taxes suggest that the public is open to some arguments for a tax or fee increase.

The Need to Reform Public Hearings

Public participation is not new to either public finance or transportation policy and planning. For years, state and local governments have wrestled with how to involve citizens in decisions regarding spending and tax and fee increases. Formal mechanisms exist for including citizens in the budget process, such as public meetings, simulations, citizen surveys, and focus groups (Ebdon, 2002; Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Franklin, Ho, & Ebdon, 2009; Guo & Neshkova, 2013). Yet, as noted by Ebdon and Franklin (2006), “citizen participation in budgetary decision making is typically minimalist and yields few, if any, directly observable results” (p. 438).

At the federal level, several key laws and policies contain requirements for early and continued public involvement in transportation decision making. These include the most recent federal transportation legislation—Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)—which maintains the emphasis on public involvement in the transportation planning process; Executive Order 12898, which addresses environmental justice in minority and low-income populations; and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Transportation planning has traditionally involved citizen participation via public hearings. However, there has been significant criticism leveled against public hearings as mechanisms for involving the public. Checkoway (1981), for example, characterized the typical public hearing as being only a means “to satisfy minimum legal requirements for citizen participation” (p. 571). Gundry and Heberlein (1984) suggest that public hearings are unable to capture a representative set of opinions from the client public. A common criticism of public hearings is that their size and composition often inhibit the public’s ability to express its views and engage in discussion (Harwood, 1991, p. 15). Middendorf and Busch (1997) argue that many public hearings can best be described as a monologue by the public managers rather than a dialogue between them and the public. For transportation decision making especially, public hearings with a paucity of dialogue do not, and cannot, “cull good ideas, answer questions, sift through possible alternatives, and explain the reasoning behind projects, plans, or programs” (Hathaway & Wormser, 1993, p. 36). We contend that only informed discussion can achieve these objectives and that there are two critical aspects of the consultation process: (a) the opportunity to discuss the issue and (b) the provision of pertinent information on the issue in question.

Two-way discussion

The most effective consultation goes beyond simply obtaining public input (King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998). It requires public administrators to involve citizens in what Fischer (1993) calls a “dialectical exchange” and engage citizens in discussion (Fox & Miller, 1995; Harwood, 1991). Authentic public participation requires public administrators to work with citizens, “assisting citizens in examining their interests, working together with them to arrive at decisions, and engaging them in open and authentic deliberation” (King et al., 1998, p. 320).

Public participation is most effective when it is achieved through two-way deliberative communication such as through dialogue (Kathlene & Martin, 1991; King et al., 1998). The purpose of deliberation through dialogue and discourse, according to Reich (1990), is to create a setting or venue in which the public can learn from one another in the process of defining the problem, determining possible solutions, and assigning responsibilities and actions. Yankelovich (1991) argues that discussion and deliberation is crucial for moving away from public opinion that is emotionally laden, unstable, and ill-informed, toward reason- and information-based public judgment. “When citizens are included in the problem-solving and decision-making processes, they share in the ownership of the solutions to their community’s problems and are thus said to ‘buy in’ to these solutions” (Walsh, 1997, p. 12). These citizens are far less likely to oppose a solution they discussed. Therefore, successful public participation—based on dialogue and discussion—can result in substantive benefits, including enhanced public decision making and a more satisfied and supportive public (Thomas, 1995).

Information

One of the most obvious requirements for effective consultation or citizen participation is that citizens be provided with necessary information (Beckett & King, 2002; Connor, 1988). The information presented should not only be exact and relevant but also organized and presented in a meaningful manner (Hanna, 2000; O’Connell & Yusuf, 2011). In the absence of information and education, the contributions from public participation may be limited, as citizens may come to the decision-making table with relatively little insight into the topics or issues to be addressed. “They may need background education before they can participate intelligently” (Thomas, 1995, p. 141). In essence, effective consultation is the outcome of communication methods that both inform and educate the public and promote dialogue and discourse (Ebdon, 2002; Ebdon & Franklin, 2006).

Regarding the kinds of information to provide when considering an increase in taxes, research suggests that the public responds most favorably to a combination of information that establishes a manifest need, demonstrates that government waste is not the source of the shortfall, and suggests that the new tax rate is in line with tax rates in similar jurisdictions (O’Connell & Yusuf, 2011; Rubin, 2006). A tax increase in line with rates in other jurisdictions can serve as an anchor value and reassure citizens that government waste is not the issue. In addition, much research finds that the public is more supportive when the tax increase is dedicated to the need in question (Hannay & Wachs, 2007), which suggests that information showing a close match between the need and the tax increase reassures the public that the revenue will effectively address the need and not be wasted.

The presence of information that ties a proposed tax increase to a need can drastically reduce opposition to a tax increase. For instance, Agrawal, Nixon, and Murthy (2013) conducted surveys with representative samples of Americans and found that a large majority of Americans, some 80%, oppose a 10 cent increase in the fuel tax. Yet, when informed that the tax increase will be used to maintain streets, roads, and highways, support rose to 58%, and when told it will be spent on projects to reduce accidents and improve safety, it rose to 54%.

The key point is that the public will need appropriate information to render a meaningful decision. Beckett and King (2002) observed that poorly informed citizens are less likely to consider the long-term public benefit of a tax.

Methodology: Three Approaches to Public Consultation

In this research note, we explore the impact on support for increases in the gas tax and vehicle registration fee of three approaches to public consultation. The three approaches are as follows:

A telephone survey with neither relevant information nor a discussion component,

A focus group with discussion but no relevant information component, and

A focus group with discussion and relevant information components.

The purpose of the study was to explore these questions: (a) How do these different combinations of public participation components influence public acceptance of two transportation funding options? and (b) What types of information increase public acceptance?

We expect that participants in the focus group with both public discussion and relevant information will be more supportive of increases in transportation taxes and fees than those in the group that engages in discussion without the provision of relevant information. We also expect participants in the latter focus group to show greater acceptance for the policy alternatives compared with survey respondents who are given no pertinent information and are simply asked whether they support tax and fee increases.

Participants in all three consultation approaches were asked the following questions:

Do you support or oppose increasing the motor fuels tax as an additional source of funding for Kentucky’s highway system?

Do you support or oppose increasing vehicle registration fees as an additional source of funding for Kentucky’s highway system?

Participants responded to this question using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly opposed) to 5 (strongly supportive).

The telephone survey involved random digit dialing of a sample of 800 Kentucky adults aged 18 years or older, conducted in December 2004. The two focus groups were comprised of members of the Leadership Kentucky Class of 2005.² The focus group sessions were held in June 2005.³ More information about the methodology is provided in Hartman, Hackbart, Yusuf, and Wallace (2005).

Participants in the first focus group—the focus group involving discussion only—were asked to discuss issues related to transportation investment needs, financing, and capital projects selection. At the end of focus group discussions, participants were asked to indicate their level of support for the two financing alternatives.

Participants in the second focus group also discussed and deliberated on transportation issues. However, focus group facilitators also provided relevant information about the state of Kentucky’s transportation finance. The information provided included sources of transportation funding, year-by-year changes in funding, the growth rate of transportation funding relative to inflation, a comparison of the motor fuels tax rates for Kentucky and surrounding states, and a comparison of vehicle registration fees for Kentucky and surrounding states. Following discussion and review of the informational material, focus group participants were asked to indicate their level of support for the two alternatives for raising additional transportation revenues.

Results: The Effects of Discussion and Information

Table 1 summarizes the degree to which the different groups of participants indicated support for the proposed increases in the fuel tax and registration fees. The responses show that the combination of relevant information and discussion produced the greatest level of support for both revenue enhancements. Discussion alone was associated with more support than that indicated by the respondents to a simple survey that lacked discussion and information.

Table 1.

Responses of Survey and Focus Group Participants.

Recommendation for increasing transportation revenues	Strongly support (%)	Somewhat support (%)	Neutral (%)	Somewhat oppose (%)	Strongly oppose (%)	M (SD) on 5-point scale
Increase motor fuel tax (differences across participation levels, p value = .0001)
Telephone survey	5	13	4	25	53	1.9 (1.2)
Focus group with discussion but no information	30	19	11	11	30	3.1 (1.7)
Focus group with discussion and information	70	30	0	0	0	4.7 (0.5)
Increase vehicle registration fee (differences across participation levels, p value = .0002)
Telephone survey	5	21	9	24	41	2.3 (1.3)
Focus group with deliberation but no information	24	14	16	8	28	2.8 (1.7)
Focus group with deliberation and information	56	11	33	0	0	4.2 (1.0)

Note. Comparisons of the support levels for the three groups were performed using the Mann–Whitney Test (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test). The p value shown in this table is the overall p value for the Mann–Whitney test-statistic for the difference across the three groups.

In Table 1, the average support level is the lowest for survey respondents (who were given no information and no opportunity for dialogue) and highest for focus group participants who were provided information and involved in dialogue and discussion. For the option of increasing the gas tax, the mean support level for the group that had no discussion and received no information (the telephone survey group) is 1.9 (on a 5-point scale with 1 being strongly opposed and 5 being strongly supportive), compared with 3.1 for the group that included discussion but received no information and 4.7 for discussion and information. Analysis using the Mann–Whitney Test (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test) finds that the differences in support levels for both the gas tax and the vehicle registration fee are statistically significant across the different combinations of information and discussion.

We posited earlier that information is key to effective public participation. To emphasize this point, we also focus our analysis on the differences in the two Leadership Kentucky groups. Both groups participated in discussion and dialogue about transportation finance. However, only one group received information about the state’s finances, such as revenue sources, revenue inadequacies, comparison of tax rates, and fees to surrounding states. As shown in Table 1, having information raised the mean support scores for increasing the gas tax by 1.6 and for increasing the vehicle registration fee by 1.4. The scores for the group with information are statistically significantly greater than the scores for the group without information at p < .001 and p < .05 for the gas tax and registration fee, respectively.

Conclusion and Implications

This research note compared three approaches to consulting with the public by assessing their relative effect on support for two types of transportation revenue enhancing options. The findings have implications for generating public support for controversial policy issues, especially those related to taxes. We found that while the opportunity for deliberative dialogue is associated with greater support for revenue increases, the addition of relevant information further enhances support. This suggests that public participation with a strong information component may reduce the level of opposition that commonly precedes consultation with the public on proposed increases in taxes.

The results also offer some direction for the content of the information to be provided to the public when the need for revenue is the issue at hand. Namely, that it should be related to the substance of the need in question, while reassuring the public that the shortage of funds is not the product of government waste or incompetence. One way to do this is to show that the increase is not out of line with similar taxes in other jurisdictions. The results are consistent with the observation that a strong match between the need and the tax, such as dedicating or earmarking the new funds to the need, increases support. The findings are similar to those in surveys of public opinion, which obtain evidence of greater support for a tax increase by providing relevant information by, for example, clearly tying the tax to a specific purpose the public is thought to favor (Agrawal et al., 2013).

We suggest that the best approach to public participation is a combination of types of informed consultation in a two-stage process. In the first stage, a citizen group is provided information and asked to deliberate on possible policy solutions. In the second stage of the process, the wider public is consulted through a survey that provides relevant information about the issue and then asks about support for the revenue option endorsed by the citizen group that deliberated during the first stage. If the survey then finds considerable support, politicians will be less likely to oppose the tax increase or the public can turn to a referendum. One implication is clear: Any survey or public discussion about new taxes should mention the benefit or need that the tax will address. Evidently, when a tax proposal is presented as paying for a desirable service, there is an increased likelihood of success. Conversely, if presented as a general tax without an associated benefit, its appeal to the public is diminished, as many may view it as money for nothing in return.

In the current environment, our approach to public consultation could also prove useful in the many situations involving introduction of tolls or increases in toll rates. The growth in public–private partnerships for transportation infrastructure has increased the reliance on tolling mechanisms. However, public receptiveness to tolls has been fairly low, and in many cases, decisions to charge tolls or raise toll rates have raised public ire and generated controversy. More extensive and involved public consultation, such as those discussed in this research note, could potentially increase public acceptance of and support for tolling decisions. In fact, public opinion data seem to point to citizens being more receptive to tolls if they have more information about tolls. For example, a March 2013 poll by Quinnipiac University found that 58% of Connecticut voters were opposed to putting tolls on highways in the state (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=1864). But those same voters would support tolls (by 57%) if toll proceeds were to be used to repair the state’s roads and bridges. This suggests that public participation efforts that include information and discussion relating need to the specific use of funds could result in greater support for tolls.

The methodology, analysis, and results of our analysis are neither new nor revolutionary. Some may conclude that the findings are rather commonsensical and there is nothing new to be learned. However, federal transportation legislation dictates the need for public outreach and engagement, and our results provide concrete evidence that information is an important element in the process of public participation. In the current context of fiscal crisis, coupled with trends in declining public trust in government, more effective approaches to public participation are needed.

The growth and popularity of citizen referendums and ballots further underscore the need for public participation that effectively educates citizens on the issues being decided. As the public calls for more opportunities for input and engagement, practitioners and policymakers need to better incorporate information into their participatory approaches. Beyond quantity—the number of public participation events conducted—the quality of participatory efforts is also important. Our results show that the provision of information contributes to this quality and has a positive effect on public support for increases in taxes and fees. We conclude this research note with a call for more efforts—both in terms of quantity and quality—to engage the public in addressing issues that are complex, conflict-ridden, and/or highly contentious.

While the quantity component can be increased fairly easily, addressing the need for improved quality is less clear. But some exemplars and models exist that can be used as a starting point. For example, O’Connell and Yusuf (2011) presented and tested a model where information was at the very heart of public participation efforts to garner support for a proposal to raise property taxes to fund transit services. This information model includes a need narrative that offers good reasons for the tax increase and provides an anchor value that establishes a credible comparison for evaluating the appropriateness of the tax increase. They argue that “the combination of a need narrative and anchor value will produce greater public support for a tax increase” (O’Connell & Yusuf, 2011, p. 183). They report that the property tax referendum passed and the increased tax revenue was used to fund transit.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was funded by the Community Transportation Academy, Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC-05-23/TA-12-04)

Notes

Author Biographies

Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf is an associate professor at Old Dominion University. Her areas of research include transportation policy, public budgeting, and public finance. Her work has been published in Public Works Management and Policy, Public Budgeting and Finance, American Review of Public Administration, Transportation Research Part A, and other journals.

Lenahan O’Connell is a research associate at the Kentucky Transportation Center, where he conducts research on transportation and environmental policy. He holds a PhD in public administration from the University of Kentucky and an MA degree in sociology from Columbia University. His articles have appeared in Transportation and Statistics, The Transportation Research Record, Administration and Society, Public Administration Review, Urban Studies, Public Works Management and Policy, Journal of the American Planning Association, Social Science Quarterly, and other journals.

References

Agrawal

A. S.

Nixon

Murthy

(2013). What do Americans think about federal tax options to support public transit, highways, and local streets and roads? Results from year 3 of a national survey. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January.

Beckett

King

C. S.

(2002). The challenge to improve citizen participation in public budgeting: A discussion. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management, 14, 463-485.

Burby

R. J.

(2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 33-49.

Checkoway

(1981). The politics of public hearings. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 566-582.

Connor

D. M.

(1988). A new ladder of citizen participation. National Civic Review, 77, 249-257.

Crabbe

A. E.

Hiatt

Poliwka

S. D.

Wachs

(2005). Local transportation sales taxes: California’s experiment in transportation finance. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25, 91-121.

Crosby

Kelly

J. M.

Schaefer

(1986). Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 46, 170-178.

Ebdon

(2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management, 14, 273-294.

Ebdon

Franklin

A. L.

(2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66, 437-447.

10.

Federal Highway Administration, National Research Council & Transportation Research Board. (2005). Transportation finance: Meeting the funding challenge today, shaping policies for tomorrow. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

11.

Fischer

(1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Science, 26, 165-187.

12.

Fox

C. J.

Miller

H. T.

(1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Franklin

A. L.

A. T.

Ebdon

(2009). Participatory budgeting in midwestern states: Democratic connection or citizen disconnection? Public Budgeting & Finance, 29(3), 52-73.

14.

Gundry

K. G.

Heberlein

T. A.

(1984). Do public meetings represent the public? Journal of the American Planning Association, 50, 175-182.

15.

Guo

H. D.

Neshkova

M. I.

(2013). Citizen input in the budget process: When does it matter most? American Review of Public Administration, 43, 331-346.

16.

Hamideh

J. E.

Labi

Mannering

(2008). Public acceptance of local government transportation sales taxes: A statistical assessment. State and Local Government Review, 40, 150-159.

17.

Hanna

K. S.

(2000). The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information: A case study. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 398-410.

18.

Hannay

Wachs

(2007). Factors influencing support for local transportation sales tax measures. Transportation, 34, 17-35.

19.

Hartman

Hackbart

Yusuf

J.-E.

Wallace

C. Y.

(2005). Meeting Kentucky’s transportation needs and priorities: Citizens’ perceptions and recommendations. Lexington: Kentucky Transportation Center.

20.

Harwood

R. D.

(1991). Citizens and politics: A view from main street America. Dayton, OH: The Kettering Foundation.

21.

Hathaway

Wormser

(1993). Working with new partners: Transportation decisions with the public. Transportation Research Record, 1400, 36-40.

22.

Kathlene

Martin

(1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, 46-63.

23.

King

C. S.

Feltey

K. M.

Susel

B. O.

(1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317-326.

24.

Matsusaka

J. G.

(2010). A case study on direct democracy: Have voter initiatives paralyzed the California budget? The book of the states 2010. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.

25.

Middendorf

Busch

(1997). Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Value, 14, 45-57.

26.

National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. (2009). Paying our own way: A new framework for transportation finance. Washington, DC: Author.

27.

Neshkova

M. I.

Guo

H. D.

(2012). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 267-288.

28.

O’Connell

Yusuf

J.-E.

(2011). An information model to present proposals to increase taxes: Two examples in the context of American values. International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 180-189.

29.

O’Connell

Yusuf

J.-E.

(2013). Improving revenue adequacy by indexing the gas tax to indicators of need: A simulation analysis. Public Works Management & Policy, 18, 229-243.

30.

Puentes

Prince

(2003). Fueling transportation finance: A primer on the gas tax. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

31.

Reich

R. B.

(1990). Public management in a democratic society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

32.

Rubin

(2006). The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending, borrowing and balancing. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

33.

Thomas

J. C.

(1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Transportation Research Board. (2006). The fuel tax and alternatives for transportation funding: Special report 285. Washington, DC: Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance, Transportation Research Board.

35.

Walsh

M. L.

(1997). Building citizen involvement: Strategies for local government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association and the National League of Cities.

36.

Yankelovich

(1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

37.

Yusuf

J.-E.

O’Connell

(2013). The crisis in state highway finances: Its roots, current effects, and some possible remedies. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 25, 502-521.

38.

Yusuf

J.-E.

O’Connell

Abutabenjeh

(2011). Paying for locally-owned roads: A crisis in local government highway finance. Public Works Management & Policy, 16, 250-269.