IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transp/v34y2011i7p669-689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the effects of urban congestion pricing: geographical accessibility versus social surplus

Author

Listed:
  • Taede Tillema
  • Erik Verhoef
  • Bert van Wee
  • Dirk van Amelsfort

Abstract

In urbanised areas around the world, road pricing policies are considered more and more frequently, the aim often being to alleviate (some of the) external traffic-related costs. To assess the effects of a proposed road pricing measure, several evaluation measures can be used, coming from different disciplines, including economics, transportation science and transport geography. In this paper, we compare two types of evaluation measure that can be used to assess the effectiveness of road pricing measures: geographical accessibility measures and economic social surplus measures. We explore the possibilities of both types of measure in terms of evaluating road pricing effects from a theoretical perspective, as well as comparing their outcome measures for a research area in the Netherlands. By means of correlation analysis and spatial comparison of outcomes, we find that geographical accessibility measures, being simpler and easier to interpret than economic measures, offer a poor proxy of the outcomes of the economic evaluation measures and vice versa. Therefore, the decision whether to use economic surplus measures or geographical accessibility indicators to a large extent depends on the research goal. If the goal is to gain a thorough insight into the monetary gains/losses resulting from a policy measure, economic measures, such as the rule-of-half or the logsum measure, are preferable. However, if there are concrete questions about the changes in accessibility of certain types of activity locations, geographical indicators, such as the contour and potential measures, are more appropriate. The outcomes of such geographical measures, and especially those of the contour measures, are, however, sensitive to the spatial distribution of activity locations in the area under study and to the selection of the impedance parameter that has to be selected in advance to compute the effects. Therefore, if geographical indicators are to be used, it would be wise to use different sensitivity parameters. It is only then that a thorough insight can be gained into the (sensitivity of) geographical accessibility effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Taede Tillema & Erik Verhoef & Bert van Wee & Dirk van Amelsfort, 2011. "Evaluating the effects of urban congestion pricing: geographical accessibility versus social surplus," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(7), pages 669-689, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:34:y:2011:i:7:p:669-689
    DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2011.602848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03081060.2011.602848
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03081060.2011.602848?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    2. 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. van Wee, Bert, 2016. "Accessible accessibility research challenges," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.
    2. Souche, Stéphanie & Mercier, Aurélie & Ovtracht, Nicolas, 2015. "Income and access inequalities of a cordon pricing," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 20-30.
    3. Bert van Wee & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "CBA: ex ante evaluation of mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 12, pages 269-290, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Babri, Sahar & McArthur, David Philip & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2014. "Modelling social welfare effects of relocation and road pricing," Discussion Papers 2014/42, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    5. Stéphanie Souche & Aurelie Mercier & Nicolas Ovtracht, 2016. "The impacts of urban pricing on social and spatial inequalities: The case study of Lyon (France)," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(2), pages 373-399, February.
    6. Sun, S. & Szeto, W.Y., 2021. "Multi-class stochastic user equilibrium assignment model with ridesharing: Formulation and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 203-227.
    7. Ahuja, Richa & Tiwari, Geetam, 2021. "Evolving term “accessibility” in spatial systems: Contextual evaluation of indicators," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 4-11.
    8. Zelong Xia & Hao Li & Yuehong Chen, 2018. "Assessing Neighborhood Walkability Based on Usage Characteristics of Amenities under Chinese Metropolises Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, October.

    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. Tillema, Taede & van Wee, Bert & Ettema, Dick, 2010. "The influence of (toll-related) travel costs in residential location decisions of households: A stated choice approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 785-796, December.
    2. Chorus, Caspar G. & Annema, Jan Anne & Mouter, Niek & van Wee, Bert, 2011. "Modeling politicians' preferences for road pricing policies: A regret-based and utilitarian perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 856-861, November.
    3. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    4. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    5. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    6. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    7. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    8. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    10. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    11. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    12. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    13. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    14. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    15. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    20. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:transp:v:34:y:2011:i:7:p:669-689. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GTPT20 .

    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.