Also discussed here: The Pay As You Go experience across the world (RAC Foundation)
The report reviewed today comes from the UK with the world’s first successful congestion pricing program in 2002, but after voters rejected road pricing in two cities more recently. It analyses what the public are looking for- essentially fair and revenue-neutral fees along with low overhead costs- with a look at the kinds of road pricing applications found world-wide. One factor that has changed radically is the impact of technology in the form of GPS and automated systems that has brought the fees down from close to 50% of revenues in London to as low as 3% in the system in the Netherlands – which is well within the 5% rate level seen to be acceptable to the public. Another factor is the cost conscious public’s continued reluctance to pay more for driving in heavy traffic than on empty roads- a clear call for public education and demonstration of benefits.
Key Quotes:
“For many politicians it is the last transport taboo. Road pricing, road user charging, Pay As You Go driving - call it what you will - is all but off the coalition's radar.”
“the potential for benefits from a well-designed, large-scale road pricing scheme is unrivalled by any other intervention”
“‘Traffic congestion [in the USA] in many of the nation’s metropolitan areas is endemic, with the cost of congestion – including lost time, wasted fuel, and vehicle wear and tear – topping $78 billion per year for the nation’s 437 urban areas’.
“A key point in tackling congestion is that it is non-linear – a small reduction in the number of vehicles on the road will produce a large reduction in congestion”
“Commuter trips are only a part of car traffic (maybe 40%), the remainder being ‘professional’ traffic (typically 15%) and discretionary trips. The latter have more ways to adapt”
“Road pricing contributes positively to the environment as well as reducing road traffic congestion, thereby benefiting the economy. However, governments worldwide have been slow to implement it on a large scale, mainly through fears that it is not acceptable to the electorate”
- Factors to attract public support for road pricing:
- ” that it is equitable – which in general it is, at least compared to alternatives. ‘We should not subsidise all drivers (and charge all consumers) to help the small number of poor travelers who use congested freeways in the peak hours and peak directions. Rather we should help those who are less fortunate, and see to it that the rest of us pay our own way on the roads’
- that it is revenue-neutral, or that revenues are reinvested in transport;
- that it does not have a high cost overhead – a 5% overhead would seem to be achievable.
- that people who are likely to be affected have experience that road pricing works. Public education and, above all, public demonstration are necessary.
“In summary, road pricing can influence demand, can match an individual’s road use and environmental pollution with the payments made, and can raise revenue”
Related articles
- Road congestion falls as motorists leave cars at home amid soaring fuel prices (telegraph.co.uk)
- Some Truths about Congestion and the Case for Congestion Pricing (pollutionfreecities.blogspot.com)
- Are Roads a Public Good? (pollutionfreecities.blogspot.com)
- Motorists angry at state of roads (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
- Go with road tolls, Environment Commissioner tells GTA (thestar.com)
- Study: Building Roads to Cure Congestion Is an Exercise in Futility (dc.streetsblog.org)
- Toll roads will cut traffic, Environment Commissioner says (thestar.com)
- TODAY: Besides ERP, any other solution? (singapolis.wordpress.com)
- Impact of London Congestion Charge Scheme on Air Pollution (pollutionfreecities.blogspot.com)
- Oil price rises will hit road repairs (ft.com)
- Drivers back road charging - poll (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
- On elasticity optimism (stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment