University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)

  • Fall 2014 Data Tables

  • « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2014 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state are accessible below. For accompanying county road commission/department data tables, please see this page.

    Table of Contents

      Road Condition and Maintenance

      1. Condition of state trunk lines and county primary roads within jurisdiction
      2. Condition of local paved roads within jurisdiction
      3. Condition of local unpaved roads within jurisdiction
      4. Condition of bridges, in general, within jurisdiction
      5. Condition of roads, in general, within jurisdiction
      1. Road Condition Impacts on Community

      1. Impact of road conditions on jurisdiction’s economic development
      2. Impact of road conditions on jurisdiction government’s fiscal health
      3. Impact of road conditions on tourism in jurisdiction
      4. Impact of road conditions on agricultural sector in jurisdiction
      5. Impact of road conditions on ability to respond to an emergency
      6. Impact of road conditions on citizen satisfaction with jurisdiction’s government
      1. Priority of Roads

      1. Ranking of roads as a service priority by jurisdiction’s Board/Council
      2. Ranking of roads as a service priority by jurisdiction’s citizens
      3. Ranking of roads as a service priority by jurisdiction’s business community
      4. Ranking of roads as a service priority by respondent personally

    1. Change to the condition of roads and bridges in the last five years
    2. Long-term asset management or short-term repairs as current approach to road maintenance and improvement
    3. Jurisdiction ground up paved roads
    4. Road Funding

        State Road Funding

      1. Without a state funding increase, how problematic will it be to maintain roads
      2. Without a state funding increase, how problematic will it be to improve roads
      1. Amount of funding needed to maintain roads
      2. Amount of funding needed to improve roads
      1. Support or opposition to increasing the gas or diesel taxes
      2. Support or opposition to increasing vehicle registration fees
      3. Support or opposition to increasing fees for overweight trucks
      4. Support or opposition to increasing the sales tax
      5. Support or opposition to adding toll roads or lanes
      6. Support or opposition to introducing mileage fees
      7. Support or opposition to increasing drivers’ license fees
      8. Support or opposition to increasing traffic violation fines, surcharges, and permit fees
      9. Support or opposition to leasing road right-of-way or state property
      1. Local Road Funding

    5. Jurisdiction expends own-source revenues for roads
      1. Jurisdiction uses its general fund for road maintenance/improvement
      2. Jurisdiction uses special assessments for road maintenance/improvement
      3. Jurisdiction uses millages for road maintenance/improvement
      1. Jurisdiction has tried raising funding for roads through millage
      2. Jurisdiction tried raising funding for roads through special assessment
      1. Support or opposition to raising additional local road revenue by jurisdiction’s Board/Council
      2. Support or opposition to raising additional local road revenue by jurisdiction’s citizens
      3. Support or opposition to raising additional local road revenue by jurisdiction’s business community
      4. Support or opposition to raising additional local road revenue by respondent personally
      1. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through special assessment
      2. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through local/county millage
      3. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through local/regional vehicle registration fee
      4. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through local/regional fuel tax
      5. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through local/regional sales tax
      6. Citizen support for raising additional local road revenue through local/regional income tax
    6. Private Roads

    7. Jurisdiction contains any private roads
      1. Support or opposition to private roads by jurisdiction’s Board/Council
      2. Support or opposition to private roads by respondent personally
      1. Jurisdiction has policies regulating private road design
      2. Jurisdiction has policies regulating private road surface maintenance
      3. Jurisdiction has policies regulating private road summer maintenance
      4. Jurisdiction has policies regulating private road winter maintenance
    8. Jurisdiction has had problems or controversies regarding private roads
    9. Jurisdiction’s policies regarding roads for new developments
    10. County Road Commissions

    11. Should road responsibilities in your county be managed by a road commission or the county government itself?
      1. Agree or disagree that the road commission/department makes fair decisions
      2. Agree or disagree that road work done by the road commission/department is of high quality
      3. Agree or disagree that the decision-making process of the road commission/department is transparent
      4. Agree or disagree that county’s matching requirements for road funding are generally fair
      5. Agree or disagree that your local government has a good relationship with the road commission/department
      6. Agree or disagree that the road commission/department responds to the local government in a timely manner
      7. Agree or disagree that the respondent is satisfied with the performance of the road commission/department
    12. Complete Streets

      1. Jurisdiction added or expanded biking or walking trails
      2. Jurisdiction added or expanded dedicated bike lanes on streets
      3. Jurisdiction added or expanded ATV or snowmobile trails
      4. Jurisdiction added or widened sidewalks
      5. Jurisdiction reduced the number of vehicle lanes
    13. Respondent’s familiarity with Complete Streets
    14. Jurisdiction’s approach to Complete Streets policies
      1. Impact of Complete Streets on quality of life
      2. Impact of Complete Streets on cost-effectiveness of road spending
      3. Impact of Complete Streets on economic development
      4. Impact of Complete Streets on traffic congestion
      5. Impact of Complete Streets on pedestrian or cyclist safety
      6. Impact of Complete Streets on relationship with the Michigan Department of Transportation
    15. Support or opposition to Complete Streets by the respondent personally
    16. Transit

      1. Amtrak as a transit option in the community
      2. Municipal, county-wide, or regional fixed-route bus service as a transit option in the community
      3. Private bus service as a transit option in the community
      4. On-demand para-transit service as a transit option in the community
      5. Taxi service as a transit option in the community
      6. Van pool service as a transit option in the community
      1. Citizen Satisfaction with Transit

      1. Satisfaction of elderly or disabled with transit options
      2. Satisfaction of young people with transit options
      3. Satisfaction of employers, employees, and job seekers with transit options
      4. Satisfaction of visitors and tourists with transit options
      5. Satisfaction of the jurisdiction’s Board/Council with transit options
      6. Satisfaction of respondent personally with transit options
      1. Routes, frequency, coverage, etc. contributing to dissatisfaction with transit
      2. Cost contributing to dissatisfaction with transit
      3. Reliability contributing to dissatisfaction with transit
      4. Connectivity to other communities contributing to dissatisfaction with transit
      1. Development of Transit

      1. Public demand encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      2. Operation and maintenance costs encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      3. Availability of state or federal funding encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      4. Availability of local funding encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      5. Influence of community leaders/organizers encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      6. Concern over traffic congestion encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
      7. Jurisdiction’s relationship with neighboring jurisdictions encouraging or discouraging the development of transit
    17. Importance of transit to overall needs of jurisdiction
    18. Government Ethics

      1. How ethical are Michigan’s state legislators?
      2. How ethical are state executive branch leaders?
      3. How ethical are elected and appointed officials in your jurisdiction?
      4. How ethical are local government officials across the state?
      1. Agree or disagree that Michigan’s state legislators should disclose financial interests
      2. Agree or disagree that state executive branch leaders should disclose financial interests
      3. Agree or disagree that local government elected officials should disclose financial interests
      4. Agree or disagree that local government department and agency leaders should disclose financial interests
      1. Agree or disagree that Michigan’s state legislators should be subject to revolving door restrictions
      2. Agree or disagree that Michigan’s state executive branch department and agency leaders should be subject to revolving door restrictions
      1. Agree or disagree that state government officials should be prohibited from receiving honoraria
      2. Agree or disagree that a yearly cap should be enforced on gifts, food, and travel/lodging reimbursements received by state officials
      3. Agree or disagree that expenditures should be reported by both donors and the receiving official
      4. Agree or disagree that policies prohibiting honoraria, limiting gifts, and requiring gift disclosure should apply to local government officials
      1. Jurisdiction prohibits, limits, or requires disclosure of honoraria for local officials
      2. Jurisdiction prohibits, limits, or requires disclosure of gifts, food, travel, and lodging paid for by outside sources
      1. Jurisdiction Ethics Policies, Practices, and Concerns

    19. Jurisdiction has a code of ethics
    20. Frequency of potential conflicts of interest in jurisdiction
      1. Jurisdiction had FOIA request related to potential ethical concerns
      2. Jurisdiction had an accusation of Open Meetings Act violation
      3. Jurisdiction had an accusation of impropriety against one of its officials
    21. Respondent felt pressure to do something that might be unethical
      1. Other officials in jurisdiction pressured respondent to do something unethical
      2. Officials from other governments pressured respondent to do something unethical
      3. Members of the business community pressured respondent to do something unethical
      4. Members of the public pressured respondent to do something unethical
      5. Family and friends pressured respondent to do something unethical
    22. Satisfaction with jurisdiction’s ethics policies and practices

    « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    MPPS Home




    MPPS Resources


    Find Questions & Topics


    Data Tables


    Download Datasets


    Reports


    Questionnaires


    Individual Survey Pages




    More on the MPPS


           closup@umich.edu  | 
    735 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091  | 
    ph: 734-647-4091  | 
    © 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan      
    University of Michigan Gateway Ford School Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy