IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v46y2019i3d10.1007_s11116-017-9820-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptability of Beijing congestion charging from a business perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Li

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • John W. Shaw

    (Iowa State University)

  • Daizong Liu

    (World Resources Institute China)

  • Yun Yuan

    (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)

Abstract

Beijing is China’s national capital, a major economic center, and home to nearly 22 million people. The city currently suffers from serious traffic congestion and extreme air pollution. Beijing’s metropolitan government is currently considering implementation of a congestion charging system intended to discourage the use of private motor vehicles and encourage a shift to public transportation. Nearly 1500 Beijing-area business managers responded to a survey asking their opinions about the system. The data was analyzed using multinomial logit modeling and cluster analysis to identify the major sources of support and non-support for the proposed system, and to create profiles of “typical” businesses that support, are neutral to, or oppose the system. These results indicate that support for the system is highest among small businesses located in the city’s central business district, where there is significant traffic congestion and good access to public transportation. Support is weakest among large businesses located in outer suburbs with relatively limited public transit. Business managers’ level of understanding of congestion charging and the extent to which they think it will successfully reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality were major factors in support or non-support for the proposed system. The results indicate that providing clear and credible information about the way the proposed system will work, how the revenue from congestion charging will be used, and the transportation and environmental benefits of the system are essential to gaining support from the business community.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Li & John W. Shaw & Daizong Liu & Yun Yuan, 2019. "Acceptability of Beijing congestion charging from a business perspective," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 753-776, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:46:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9820-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-017-9820-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-017-9820-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-017-9820-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Björn Hårsman & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self-interest," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 854-874.
    3. Bonsall, Peter & Kelly, Charlotte, 2005. "Road user charging and social exclusion: The impact of congestion charges on at-risk groups," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 406-418, September.
    4. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    5. Schaller, Bruce, 2010. "New York City's congestion pricing experience and implications for road pricing acceptance in the United States," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 266-273, August.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Francke, Angela & Kaniok, Denise, 2013. "Responses to differentiated road pricing schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 25-30.
    9. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Daunfeldt, Sven-Olov & Rudholm, Niklas & Rämme, Ulf, 2009. "Congestion charges and retail revenues: Results from the Stockholm road pricing trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 306-309, March.
    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. Ryley, Tim & Gjersoe, Nathalia, 2006. "Newspaper response to the Edinburgh congestion charging proposals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 66-73, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Pricing in Road Transport," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4192.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Zihao Jiao & Lun Ran & Xin Liu & Yuli Zhang & Robin G. Qiu, 2020. "Integrating Price-Incentive and Trip-Selection Policies to Rebalance Shared Electric Vehicles," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 148-173, December.
    2. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2021. "Taxes, tolls and ZEV zones for climate: Synthesizing insights on effectiveness, efficiency, equity, acceptability and implementation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Bi, Huibo & Shang, Wen-Long & Chen, Yanyan & Wang, Kezhi & Yu, Qing & Sui, Yi, 2021. "GIS aided sustainable urban road management with a unifying queueing and neural network model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    2. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    3. Jean-Philippe Meloche, 2019. "Towards a New Era in Road Pricing? Lessons from the Experience of First Movers," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-35, CIRANO.
    4. 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.
    5. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    6. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    7. Andersson, David & Nässén, Jonas, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charge scheme: A pre–post analysis of commuting behavior and travel satisfaction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 82-89.
    8. 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.
    9. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    10. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    11. Björn Hårsman & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self-interest," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 854-874.
    12. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Yacan Wang & Yu Wang & Luyao Xie & Huiyu Zhou, 2018. "Impact of Perceived Uncertainty on Public Acceptability of Congestion Charging: An Empirical Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Souche, Stéphanie & Raux, Charles & Croissant, Yves, 2012. "On the perceived justice of urban road pricing: An empirical study in Lyon," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1124-1136.
    15. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    16. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The Stockholm congestion pricing syndrome: how congestion charges went from unthinkable to uncontroversial," Working papers in Transport Economics 2014:1, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    17. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    18. Holguín-Veras, José & Encarnación, Trilce & González-Calderón, Carlos A., 2020. "User perception of fairness of time-of-day pricing and other typical toll discounts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 560-581.
    19. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    20. 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.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:46:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9820-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.