Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages
In the transport policy domain, as in other highly-contested spheres of public policy, it is commonplace for certain policy measures to emerge as promising only to then remain unimplemented. Road pricing is one example of a theoretically well-developed transport policy measure that has proven notoriously difficult to decide and implement. There are however lessons to learn from practice on how to manage barriers to policy formation and implementation also within this field. Drawing on the congestion charging schemes implemented in London in 2003 and Stockholm in 2006, and the Swiss Heavy Vehicle Fee scheme implemented in 2001, this paper identifies a selection of strategies which appear to have supported the policymakers’ capacity to implement effective road pricing schemes. Together, these three examples offer a sound empirical basis from which to infer a set of strategies for the formulation and implementation of politically-contentious road pricing packages—addressing issues of measure combination, flexibility, legitimacy, communication, timing and organisational dynamics. While acknowledging the primacy of broader external and contextual issues, the conclusion is that taking inspiration from the strategies identified in this paper may increase the likelihood of successful policy package processes.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 60 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
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.:
- Moshe Givoni & James Macmillen & David Banister & Eran Feitelson, 2013. "From Policy Measures to Policy Packages," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, January.
- Vigar, Geoff & Shaw, Andrew & Swann, Richard, 2011. "Selling sustainable mobility: The reporting of the Manchester Transport Innovation Fund bid in UK media," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 468-479, March.
- Tore Langmyhr, 1999. "Understanding innovation: The case of road pricing," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 255-271, January.
- Krupnick, Alan & Harrington, Winston & Alberini, Anna, 1998.
"Overcoming Public Aversion to Congestion Pricing,"
dp-98-27, Resources For the Future.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Jonathan Leape, 2006. "The London Congestion Charge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 157-176, Fall.
- Tom Rye & Martin Gaunt & Stephen Ison, 2008. "Edinburgh's Congestion Charging Plans: An Analysis of Reasons for Non-Implementation," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 641-661, March.
- Oecd, 2005. "The Window of Opportunity: How the Obstacles to the Introduction of the Swiss Heavy Goods Vehicle Fee have been Overcome," OECD Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 5(5), pages 1-39.
- 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.
- May, A. D. & Roberts, M, 1995. "The design of integrated transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 97-105, April.
- Ieromonachou, Petros & Warren, James, 2008. "Policy Packages as potential routes to urban road pricing in the UK," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 40, pages 106-123.
- Isaksson, Karolina & Richardson, Tim, 2009. "Building legitimacy for risky policies: The cost of avoiding conflict in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 251-257, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:60:y:2014:i:c:p:40-52. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.