An economic, environmental and transport evaluation of the Ecopass scheme in Milan: three years later
The paper provides an evaluation of the Ecopass scheme for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The term Ecopass conveys the stated political objective of the scheme: a PASS to improve the quality of the urban environment (ECO). The scheme has actually improved the air quality in Milan, although the recommended PM10 threshold is still exceeded for a larger number of days than that recommended by EU directives. This paper estimates the costs and benefits of the scheme three years after its implementation using the same methodology applied in Rotaris et al. (2010) for the year 2008. It results that the benefits still exceed the costs by an increasing amount, but at an annual decreasing rate of improvement. The Ecopass scheme has proved beneficial, but it seems to have exhausted its potential: little further gains in environmental quality could be obtained via a fiscal incentive to improve the abatement technology of the vehicles. The new administration, elected in June 2011, is faced with the task of deciding whether to dismiss, maintain or change the Ecopass scheme. The prevailing idea coming from the Ecopass Commission and from the advocacy groups is to extend both the area of application and the number of classes subject to the charge. A move from a pollution charge to a congestion charge, or at least a combination of a pollution and a congestion charge is envisaged.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: ++39 0657335294
Fax: ++39 0657335282
Web page: http://www.sietitalia.org/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo & Massiani, Jérôme, 2010. "The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 359-375, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sit:wpaper:11_03. 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: (Edoardo Marcucci)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.