IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v70y2014icp117-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach

Author

Listed:
  • Zheng, Zuduo
  • Liu, Zhiyuan
  • Liu, Chuanli
  • Shiwakoti, Nirajan

Abstract

Public acceptance is consistently listed as having an enormous impact on the implementation and success of a congestion charge scheme. This paper investigates public acceptance of such a scheme in Australia. Surveys were conducted in Brisbane and Melbourne, the two fastest growing Australian cities. Using an ordered logit modeling approach, the survey data including stated preferences were analyzed to pinpoint the important factors influencing people’s attitudes to a congestion charge and, in turn, to their transport mode choices. To accommodate the nature of, and to account for the resulting heterogeneity of the panel data, random effects were considered in the models. As expected, this study found that the amount of the congestion charge and the financial benefits of implementing it have a significant influence on respondents’ support for the charge and on the likelihood of their taking a bus to city areas. However, respondents’ current primary transport mode for travelling to the city areas has a more pronounced impact. Meanwhile, respondents’ perceptions of the congestion charge’s role in protecting the environment by reducing vehicle emissions, and of the extent to which the charge would mean that they travelled less frequently to the city for shopping or entertainment, also have a significant impact on their level of support for its implementation. We also found and explained notable differences across two cities. Finally, findings from this study have been fully discussed in relation to the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:70:y:2014:i:c:p:117-134
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856414002584
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.016?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. Kim, Junghwa & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk & Fujii, Satoshi & Noland, Robert B., 2013. "Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 50-62.
    4. Joseph E. Aldy & Alan J. Krupnick & Richard G. Newell & Ian W. H. Parry & William A. Pizer, 2010. "Designing Climate Mitigation Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 903-934, December.
    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. Jonathan Leape, 2006. "The London Congestion Charge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 157-176, Fall.
    7. Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
    8. Bristow, Abigail L. & Wardman, Mark & Zanni, Alberto M. & Chintakayala, Phani K., 2010. "Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1824-1837, July.
    9. Xenias, Dimitrios & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-85.
    10. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    11. Satoshi Fujii & Tommy Gärling & Cecilia Jakobsson & Rong-Chang Jou, 2004. "A cross-country study of fairness and infringement on freedom as determinants of car owners' acceptance of road pricing," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 285-295, August.
    12. Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Pricing in Road Transport," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4192.
    13. Schwanen, Tim & Banister, David & Anable, Jillian, 2011. "Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 993-1006.
    14. Small, Kenneth A. & Gomez-Ilbanez, Jose A., 1998. "Road Pricing for Congestion Management: The Transition from Theory to Policy," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8kk909p1, University of California Transportation Center.
    15. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2013. "Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 356-379.
    16. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    17. 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.
    18. David A. Hensher, 2004. "Identifying the Influence of Stated Choice Design Dimensionality on Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 425-446, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Tertoolen, Gerard & van Kreveld, Dik & Verstraten, Ben, 1998. "Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 171-181, April.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Dresner, Simon & Dunne, Louise & Clinch, Peter & Beuermann, Christiane, 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 895-904, May.
    24. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
    25. 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.
    26. Georgina Santos, 2008. "The London Congestion Charging Scheme, 2003–2006," Chapters, in: Harry W. Richardson & Chang-Hee Christine Bae (ed.), Road Congestion Pricing in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    27. Tommy Gärling & Cecilia Jakobsson & Peter Loukopoulos & Satoshi Fujii, 2008. "Acceptability of Road Pricing," Chapters, in: Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), Pricing in Road Transport, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Alice Brock & Simon Kemp & Ian D. Williams, 2022. "Personal Carbon Budgets: A Pestle Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Liliana Rivera & Norma Ortiz & Gabriel Moreno & Iliana Páez-Gabriunas, 2023. "The Effect of Company Ownership on the Environmental Practices in the Supply Chain: An Empirical Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Wang, Xize & Rodríguez, Daniel A. & Mahendra, Anjali, 2021. "Support for market-based and command-and-control congestion relief policies in Latin American cities: Effects of mobility, environmental health, and city-level factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-108.
    4. Ding, Hongliang & Sze, N.N. & Li, Haojie & Guo, Yanyong, 2021. "Affected area and residual period of London Congestion Charging scheme on road safety," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 120-128.
    5. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    6. Ceccato, Riccardo & Rossi, Riccardo & Gastaldi, Massimiliano, 2024. "Low emission zone and mobility behavior: Ex-ante evaluation of vehicle pollutant emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Sugiarto, Sugiarto & Miwa, Tomio & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2017. "Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 36-53.
    9. 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.
    10. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Sergi López-Asensio & Silvia Germán & Àlex Boso, 2021. "Individual-Level Determinants of the Public Acceptance of Policy Measures to Improve Urban Air Quality: The Case of the Barcelona Low Emission Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    11. Zheng, Zuduo & Washington, Simon & Hyland, Paul & Sloan, Keith & Liu, Yulin, 2016. "Preference heterogeneity in mode choice based on a nationwide survey with a focus on urban rail," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 178-194.
    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. 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.
    14. Yanmin Qi & Zuduo Zheng & Dongyao Jia, 2020. "Exploring the Spatial-Temporal Relationship between Rainfall and Traffic Flow: A Case Study of Brisbane, Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-24, July.
    15. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Gomez, Juan & Papanikolaou, Anestis & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2016. "Measuring regional differences in users' perceptions towards interurban toll roads," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 22-33.
    17. Puteri Paramita & Zuduo Zheng & Md Mazharul Haque & Simon Washington & Paul Hyland, 2018. "User satisfaction with train fares: A comparative analysis in five Australian cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, June.
    18. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2017. "How Smog Awareness Influences Public Acceptance of Congestion Charge Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    19. Marazi, Naveed Farooz & Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Sahu, Prasanta K. & Potoglou, Dimitris, 2022. "Congestion pricing acceptability among commuters: An Indian perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(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. Kim, Junghwa & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk & Fujii, Satoshi & Noland, Robert B., 2013. "Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 50-62.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. André de Palma & Robin Lindsey, 2009. "Traffic Congestion Pricing Methods and Technologies," Working Papers hal-00414526, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    12. 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.
    13. Sugiarto, Sugiarto & Miwa, Tomio & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2017. "Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 36-53.
    14. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    15. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2017. "How Smog Awareness Influences Public Acceptance of Congestion Charge Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    16. 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.
    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. 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.
    19. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2014. "Complementing distance based charges with discounted registration fees in the reform of road user charges: the impact for motorists and government revenue," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 697-715, July.
    20. 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.

    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:70:y:2014:i:c:p:117-134. 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.