IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v40y2006i7p602-620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equity effects of congestion pricing: Quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm

Author

Listed:
  • Eliasson, Jonas
  • Mattsson, Lars-Göran

Abstract

It is widely recognised that congestion pricing could be an effective measure to solve environmental and congestion problems in urban areas--a reform that normally also would generate a net welfare surplus. Despite this the implementation of congestion pricing has been very slow. One reason for a low public and political acceptance could be that equity impacts have not been given enough concern. In studies of distributional impacts of congestion pricing it has often been claimed that the reform is regressive rather than progressive even if there are studies claiming the opposite. We develop a method for detailed, quantitative assessment of equity effects of road pricing and apply it to a real-world example, namely a proposed congestion-charging scheme for Stockholm. The method simultaneously takes into account differences in travel behaviour, in preferences (such as values of time) and in supply of travel possibilities (car ownership, public transport level-of-service etc.). We conclude that the two most important factors for the net impact of congestion pricing are the initial travel patterns and how revenues are used. Differences in these respects dwarf differences in other factors such as values of time. This is accentuated by the fact that the total collected charges are more than three times as large as the net benefits. With respect to different groups, we find that men, high-income groups and residents in the central parts of the city will be affected the most. If revenues are used for improving public transport, this will benefit women and low-income groups the most. If revenues are used for tax cuts, the net benefits will be about equal for men and women on the average, while it naturally will benefit high-income groups. Given that it is likely that the revenues will be used to some extent to improve the public transport system, we conclude that the proposed congestion-charging scheme for Stockholm is progressive rather than regressive.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:40:y:2006:i:7:p:602-620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(05)00161-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Glazer, Amihai & Niskanen, Esko, 2000. "Which consumers benefit from congestion tolls?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt33d88115, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Kockelman, Kara M. & Kalmanje, Sukumar, 2005. "Credit-based congestion pricing: a policy proposal and the public's response," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 671-690.
    3. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt32p9m3mm, University of California Transportation Center.
    4. Viegas, José M., 2001. "Making urban road pricing acceptable and effective: searching for quality and equity in urban mobility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 289-294, October.
    5. Small, Kenneth A., 1983. "The incidence of congestion tolls on urban highways," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 90-111, January.
    6. Saleh, Wafaa & Farrell, Séona, 2005. "Implications of congestion charging for departure time choice: Work and non-work schedule flexibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 773-791.
    7. Wong, Walter K.I. & Noland, Robert B. & Bell, Michael G.H., 2005. "The theory and practice of congestion charging," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 567-570.
    8. Georgina Santos & Laurent Rojey, 2004. "Distributional impacts of road pricing: The truth behind the myth," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 21-42, February.
    9. Olszewski, Piotr & Xie, Litian, 2005. "Modelling the effects of road pricing on traffic in Singapore," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 755-772.
    10. de Palma, André & Kilani, Moez & Lindsey, Robin, 2005. "Congestion pricing on a road network: A study using the dynamic equilibrium simulator METROPOLIS," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 588-611.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Holgun-Veras, Jos & Cetin, Mecit, 2009. "Optimal tolls for multi-class traffic: Analytical formulations and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 445-467, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Holgui­n-Veras, Jose & Cetin, Mecit & Xia, Shuwen, 2006. "A comparative analysis of US toll policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 852-871, December.
    4. Jens West & Maria Börjesson, 2020. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: cost–benefit analysis and distribution effects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 145-174, February.
    5. Kristoffersson, Ida & Engelson, Leonid, 2016. "Efficiency and equity of congestion charges," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:7, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    6. Maruyama, Takuya & Sumalee, Agachai, 2007. "Efficiency and equity comparison of cordon- and area-based road pricing schemes using a trip-chain equilibrium model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 655-671, August.
    7. Kristoffersson, Ida & Engelson, Leonid & Börjesson, Maria, 2017. "Efficiency vs equity: Conflicting objectives of congestion charges," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 99-107.
    8. Glavic, Drazenko & Milos, Mladenovic & Luttinen, Tapio & Cicevic, Svetlana & Trifunovic, Aleksandar, 2017. "Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 79-94.
    9. Leonid Engelson & Ida Kristoffersson & Mohammad Saifuzzaman & André de Palma & Kiarash Motamedi, 2013. "Comparison of two dynamic transportation models: The case of Stockholm congestion charging," Working Papers hal-00779285, HAL.
    10. Daniel Albalate & Germa Bel, 2008. "Shaping urban traffic patterns through congestion charging: What factors drive success or failure?," IREA Working Papers 200801, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jan 2008.
    11. Liu, Yang & Nie, Yu (Marco), 2011. "Morning commute problem considering route choice, user heterogeneity and alternative system optima," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 619-642.
    12. Timilsina, Govinda R. & Dulal, Hari B., 2008. "Fiscal policy instruments for reducing congestion and atmospheric emissions in the transport sector : a review," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4652, The World Bank.
    13. Beheshtian, Arash & Richard Geddes, R. & Rouhani, Omid M. & Kockelman, Kara M. & Ockenfels, Axel & Cramton, Peter & Do, Wooseok, 2020. "Bringing the efficiency of electricity market mechanisms to multimodal mobility across congested transportation systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 58-69.
    14. Guohui Zhang & Zhong Wang & Khali Persad & C. Walton, 2014. "Enhanced traffic information dissemination to facilitate toll road utilization: a nested logit model of a stated preference survey in Texas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 231-249, March.
    15. Wu, Jiyan & Tian, Ye & Sun, Jian & Michael Zhang, H. & Wang, Yunpeng, 2023. "Public or private? Optimal organization for incentive-based travel demand management," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    16. Button, Kenneth, 2004. "1. The Rationale For Road Pricing: Standard Theory And Latest Advances," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-25, January.
    17. M. Rouhani, Omid, 2014. "Road pricing: An overview," MPRA Paper 59662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. West, Jens & Börjesson, Maria, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: CBA and equity," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:17, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    19. Nie, Yu (Marco) & Yin, Yafeng, 2013. "Managing rush hour travel choices with tradable credit scheme," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-19.
    20. Kockelman, Kara M. & Lemp, Jason D., 2011. "Anticipating new-highway impacts: Opportunities for welfare analysis and credit-based congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 825-838, October.

    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:eee:transa:v:40:y:2006:i:7:p:602-620. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.