IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v43y2009i3p297-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm

Author

Listed:
  • Kottenhoff, Karl
  • Brundell Freij, Karin

Abstract

In the Stockholm Trial, congestion charges and the expansion of public transport services were closely linked together in marketing efforts, as well as in political decisions. In this paper, we analyse the role that public transport may have played in increasing acceptability and feasibility of the scheme. We study four aspects of the relationship between charging and public transport provision: (i) the initial modal share, (ii) contribution to modal shift (iii) compensation to losers (iv) revenue hypothecation. Our analyses, based on a combination of primary and secondary data, support the hypothesis that public transport contributed to the successful implementation of congestion charging in Stockholm through all those four mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:43:y:2009:i:3:p:297-305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(08)00160-2
    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. Stephen Ison & Tom Rye, 2005. "Implementing Road User Charging: The Lessons Learnt from Hong Kong, Cambridge and Central London," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 451-465, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Armelius, Hanna & Hultkrantz, Lars, 2006. "The politico-economic link between public transport and road pricing: An ex-ante study of the Stockholm road-pricing trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 162-172, March.
    5. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    7. Neil A. Morgan & Lopo Leotte Rego, 2006. "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 426-439, September.
    8. Thorpe, Neil & Hills, Peter & Jaensirisak, Sittha, 2000. "Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 243-257, October.
    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. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    2. Di Ciommo, Floridea & Monzón, Andrés & Fernandez-Heredia, Alvaro, 2013. "Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 302-316.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Elmar Fürst & Maria Dieplinger, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing in Vienna: the preference patterns of car drivers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 765-784, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Romero, Fernando & Gomez, Juan & Paez, Antonio & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2020. "Toll roads vs. Public transportation: A study on the acceptance of congestion-calming measures in Madrid," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 319-342.
    9. 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.
    10. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    11. Mohamad Shatanawi & Mohammed Hajouj & Belal Edries & Ferenc Mészáros, 2022. "The Interrelationship between Road Pricing Acceptability and Self-Driving Vehicle Adoption: Insights from Four Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.
    14. André de Palma & Robin Lindsey, 2009. "Traffic Congestion Pricing Methods and Technologies," Working Papers hal-00414526, HAL.
    15. Özgül Ardıç & Jan Anne Annema & Eric Molin & Bert Wee, 2018. "The association between news and attitudes towards a Dutch road pricing proposal," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 827-848, May.
    16. Sørensen, Claus Hedegaard & Isaksson, Karolina & Macmillen, James & Åkerman, Jonas & Kressler, Florian, 2014. "Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 40-52.
    17. 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.
    18. Bonsall, Peter & Young, William, 2010. "Is there a case for replacing parking charges by road user charges?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 323-334, September.
    19. Harwatt, Helen & Tight, Miles & Bristow, Abigail L. & Gühnemann, Astrid, 2011. "Personal carbon trading and fuel price increases in the transport sector: an exploratory study of public response in the UK," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 47, pages 47-70.
    20. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan & Lipman, Timothy & Camel, Madonna, 2014. "Evaluating the public perception of a feebate policy in California through the estimation and cross-validation of an ordinal regression model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 144-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Congestion charging Stockholm trial;

    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:43:y:2009:i:3:p:297-305. 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.