IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v8y2001i4p289-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making urban road pricing acceptable and effective: searching for quality and equity in urban mobility

Author

Listed:
  • Viegas, José M.

Abstract

Urban Road Pricing has been proposed many times as a powerful instrument to fight congestion in urban traffic, but has systematically faced a hostile political envirionment, due to lack of confidence on its promised (traffic) results and fear of its political consequences. Lack of action in this front is contributing to stable or even growing congestion problems in most large cities. This paper tries to address the problem with a fresh look at the objectives of road pricing and at the reasons for that political hostility. For managing and developing the urban mobility system, efficiency and equity are normally taken as the basic economic objectives. Sustainability objectives may be integrated in the efficiency objective if we are able to represent adequately the costs of the resources consumed in the process. Political hostility is normally based on having to pay for what was freely available, and on the risk of exclusion for those with little revenue available for the extra cost of driving into the city. Pursuit of efficency leads to suggestion of marginal social cost pricing but this is hard to explain to the public and application of this principle is fraught with pitfalls since some components of that cost get smaller as traffic grows (noise related costs for example). Pricing is still a good option but the objective has to be something easier to understand and to serve as a target for mobility managers. That "new" objective is quality of the mobility system, with a meaning similar to that of "level of service" in traffic engineering, and prices should be managed to across space, time and transport modes in such a way that provision of service is made with good quality in all components. Pursuit of equity leads to some form of rationing, which has often been associated with high transaction costs and abuse by the administrators. But the use of electronic road pricing should allow easy ways to address the rationing process without such high costs. The basic proposition is that all local taxpayers receive as a direct restitution of their tax contribution a certain amount of "mobility rights", which can be used both for private car driving in the tolled areas and for riding public transport. These principles are easily applicable with a variety of technical solutions for road pricing, from the simplest cordon pricing to the more sophisticated "pay-as-you-go" schemes. The paper addresses this question of implementation and argues for increasingly sophisticated schemes, as people get accustomed to the principles and finer targeting of demand segments may be needed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:8:y:2001:i:4:p:289-294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(01)00024-5
    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. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    2. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt32p9m3mm, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Small, Kenneth A., 2001. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7170x9b0, University of California Transportation Center.
    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. Julie Bulteau & Thierry Feuillet & Sophie Dantan & Souhir Abbes, 2023. "Encouraging carpooling for commuting in the Paris area (France): which incentives and for whom?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 43-62, February.
    2. Barter, Paul A., 2005. "A vehicle quota integrated with road usage pricing: A mechanism to complete the phase-out of high fixed vehicle taxes in Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 525-536, November.
    3. Charles Raux & Stéphanie Souche, 2000. "Acceptability factors to transport policy changes," Post-Print halshs-00177186, HAL.
    4. Lei Zhang & David Levinson & Shanjiang Zhu, 2007. "Agent-Based Model of Price Competition and Product Differentiation on Congested Networks," Working Papers 200809, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    5. C. Robin Lindsey & Erik T. Verhoef, 1999. "Congestion Modelling," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 99-091/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. 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.
    7. David Hensher, 2013. "Exploring the relationship between perceived acceptability and referendum voting support for alternative road pricing schemes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 935-959, September.
    8. Erik Verhoef & Mark Lijesen, 1998. "The Economic Effects of Road Pricing in the Randstad Area," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-078/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Georgina Santos & Erik Verhoef, 2011. "Road Congestion Pricing," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.
    11. C. Robin Lindsey & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "Traffic Congestion and Congestion Pricing," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-101/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Jian Wang & Libing Chi & Xiaowei Hu & Hongfei Zhou, 2014. "Urban Traffic Congestion Pricing Model with the Consideration of Carbon Emissions Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Is congestion pricing fair? Consumer and citizen perspectives on equity effects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-15.
    14. Charles Raux, 1996. "Réduire ou repenser la mobilité urbaine quotidienne ?," Post-Print halshs-01735734, HAL.
    15. He, Brian Yueshuai & Zhou, Jinkai & Ma, Ziyi & Wang, Ding & Sha, Di & Lee, Mina & Chow, Joseph Y.J. & Ozbay, Kaan, 2021. "A validated multi-agent simulation test bed to evaluate congestion pricing policies on population segments by time-of-day in New York City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 145-161.
    16. John W Helsel & Venktesh Pandey & Stephen D. Boyles, 2020. "Time-Equitable Dynamic Tolling Scheme For Single Bottlenecks," Papers 2007.07091, arXiv.org.
    17. 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.
    18. De Vos, Jonas, 2016. "Road pricing in a polycentric urban region: Analysing a pilot project in Belgium," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 134-142.
    19. Yang Liu & Yu (Marco) Nie, 2017. "A Credit-Based Congestion Management Scheme in General Two-Mode Networks with Multiclass Users," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 681-711, September.
    20. 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.

    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:trapol:v:8:y:2001:i:4:p:289-294. 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/30473/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.