Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence

Contents:

Author Info

  • Hensher, David A.
  • Li, Zheng
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Voting support for congestion charging has a very recent history with, until now, only two congestion charging schemes approved by a majority in referendum voting (Stockholm and Milan). This paper presents a review of referendum voting behaviour in road pricing reform, in which a number of key factors that influence voters' behaviour are identified including voter expectations, awareness of what road pricing reform means, familiarity with the road pricing debate, perceived fairness, environmental concerns, car dependence, and the value of a trial. The two most important reasons that the majority of congestion charging proposals were voted against in referenda in jurisdictions such as Manchester and Edinburgh in the UK are uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of congestion charging and the lack of information on congestion charging. Based on two successful congestion charging referenda and ideas from research studies, this paper proposes a two-step approach to address the barriers to the successful implementation of congestion charging in a package of transport reform initiatives.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X12001874
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transport Policy.

    Volume (Year): 25 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 186-197

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:25:y:2013:i:c:p:186-197

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=30473&ref=30473_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Referendum; Voting behaviour; Acceptability; Congestion charging; Road pricing reform; Ex ante and Ex post experiences;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    2. Odeck, James & Kjerkreit, Anne, 2010. "Evidence on users' attitudes towards road user charges--A cross-sectional survey of six Norwegian toll schemes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 349-358, November.
    3. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    4. Georgina Santos & Gordon Fraser, 2006. "Road pricing: lessons from London," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 21(46), pages 263-310, 04.
    5. Bruno DE BORGER & Stef PROOST, 2010. "A political economy model of road pricing," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces10.20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
    6. Parry, Ian W H & Bento, Antonio, 2001. " Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 103(4), pages 645-71, December.
    7. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
    8. Harrington, Winston & Krupnick, Alan J. & Alberini, Anna, 2001. "Overcoming public aversion to congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 87-105, February.
    9. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.
    10. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    11. Edward Calthrop & Bruno De Borger & Stef Proost, 2008. "Cost-benefit analysis of transport investments in distorted economies," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces0818, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
    12. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2006. "Equity effects of congestion pricing: Quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 602-620, August.
    13. Barry Ubbels & Erik T. Verhoef, 2005. "Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands," ERSA conference papers ersa05p120, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Hu, Shucheng & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Impacts of congestion charging on shopping trips in Edinburgh," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 443-450, September.
    15. Nicholas Bornstein & Philippe Thalmann, 2008. ""I Pay Enough Taxes Already!" Applying Economic Voting Models to Environmental Referendums," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1336-1355.
    16. Eliasson, Jonas, 2008. "Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 395-404, November.
    17. Harsman, Bjorn & Quigley, John M., 2010. "Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self Interest," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt77b5243v, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
    18. Hensher, David A. & Puckett, Sean M., 2007. "Congestion and variable user charging as an effective travel demand management instrument," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 615-626, August.
    19. Daniel Ingberman, 1985. "Running against the status quo: Institutions for direct democracy referenda and allocations over time," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 19-43, January.
    20. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2005. "Behavioural responses to road pricing. Empirical results from a survey among Dutch car owners," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 31, pages 101-117.
    21. Eliasson, Jonas, 2009. "A cost-benefit analysis of the Stockholm congestion charging system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 468-480, May.
    22. Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 2002. "Toll financing in Norway: The success, the failures and perspectives for the future," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 253-260, July.
    23. Allen, Simon & Gaunt, Martin & Rye, Tom, 2006. "An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 95-113.
    24. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    25. Winslott-Hiselius, Lena & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Vagland, Asa & Byström, Camilla, 2009. "The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 269-282, March.
    26. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    27. O'Fallon, Carolyn & Sullivan, Charles & Hensher, David A, 2004. "Constraints affecting mode choices by morning car commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 17-29, January.
    28. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    29. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.
    30. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Congestion charging and car use: A review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 47-61.
    31. R H M Emmerink & P Nijkamp & P Rietveld, 1995. "Is congestion pricing a first-best strategy in transport policy? A critical review of arguments," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 22(5), pages 581-602, September.
    32. Gehlert, Tina & Kramer, Christiane & Nielsen, Otto Anker & Schlag, Bernhard, 2011. "Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 685-694, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2014. "Complementing distance based charges with discounted registration fees in the reform of road user charges: the impact for motorists and government revenue," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 697-715, July.
    2. Hensher, David A. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2014. "What type of road pricing scheme might appeal to politicians? Viewpoints on the challenge in gaining the citizen and public servant vote by staging reform," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 227-237.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:25:y:2013:i:c:p:186-197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.