IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence

  • Hensher, David A.
  • Li, Zheng

Voting support for congestion charging has a very recent history with, until now, only two congestion charging schemes approved by a majority in referendum voting (Stockholm and Milan). This paper presents a review of referendum voting behaviour in road pricing reform, in which a number of key factors that influence voters' behaviour are identified including voter expectations, awareness of what road pricing reform means, familiarity with the road pricing debate, perceived fairness, environmental concerns, car dependence, and the value of a trial. The two most important reasons that the majority of congestion charging proposals were voted against in referenda in jurisdictions such as Manchester and Edinburgh in the UK are uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of congestion charging and the lack of information on congestion charging. Based on two successful congestion charging referenda and ideas from research studies, this paper proposes a two-step approach to address the barriers to the successful implementation of congestion charging in a package of transport reform initiatives.

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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X12001874
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transport Policy.

Volume (Year): 25 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 186-197

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:25:y:2013:i:c:p:186-197
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description

Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=30473&ref=30473_01_ooc_1&version=01

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.:

as in new window
  1. Gehlert, Tina & Kramer, Christiane & Nielsen, Otto Anker & Schlag, Bernhard, 2011. "Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 685-694, September.
  2. 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.
  3. Georgina Santos & Gordon Fraser, 2006. "Road pricing: lessons from London," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 21(46), pages 263-310, 04.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
  7. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2006. "Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 69-94.
  8. Hensher, David A. & Puckett, Sean M., 2007. "Congestion and variable user charging as an effective travel demand management instrument," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 615-626, August.
  9. 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.
  10. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
  11. Calthrop, Edward & De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2010. "Cost-benefit analysis of transport investments in distorted economies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 850-869, August.
  12. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2005. "Behavioural responses to road pricing. Empirical results from a survey among Dutch car owners," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 31, pages 101-117.
  13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
  14. Parry, Ian & Bento, Antonio, 1999. "Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Discussion Papers dp-99-45, Resources For the Future.
  15. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
  16. Hu, Shucheng & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Impacts of congestion charging on shopping trips in Edinburgh," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 443-450, September.
  17. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. R H M Emmerink & P Nijkamp & P Rietveld, 1995. "Is congestion pricing a first-best strategy in transport policy? A critical review of arguments," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 22(5), pages 581-602, September.
  22. Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 2002. "Toll financing in Norway: The success, the failures and perspectives for the future," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 253-260, July.
  23. DE BORGER, Bruno & PROOST, Stef, 2010. "A political economy model of road pricing," Working Papers 2010014, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
  24. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.
  25. Daniel Ingberman, 1985. "Running against the status quo: Institutions for direct democracy referenda and allocations over time," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 19-43, January.
  26. 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.
  27. Allen, Simon & Gaunt, Martin & Rye, Tom, 2006. "An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 95-113.
  28. Nicholas Bornstein & Philippe Thalmann, 2008. ""I Pay Enough Taxes Already!" Applying Economic Voting Models to Environmental Referendums," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1336-1355.
  29. 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.
  30. O'Fallon, Carolyn & Sullivan, Charles & Hensher, David A, 2004. "Constraints affecting mode choices by morning car commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 17-29, January.
  31. 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.
  32. Eliasson, Jonas, 2008. "Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 395-404, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:25:y:2013:i:c:p:186-197. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.