Congestion pricing

Congestion pricing and congestion charges are a system of overcharging users of public goods that are subject to congestion through excessive demands such as higher peak charges for use of bus services , electricity , metros , railways , telephones , and road pricing to reduce traffic congestion ; Airlines and shipping companies may be charged higher fees for slots at airports and through canals at busy times. This pricing strategy regulates demand, Making it possible to manage congestion without increasing supply . Market economicstheory, which encompasses the congestion pricing concept, postulates that users will be forced to pay for the negative externalities they create, making them conscious of the costs they impose upon each other when consuming during peak demand, and more aware of their impact On the environment .

The application on urban roads is currently limited to a few cities, including London , Stockholm , Singapore , Milan , and Gothenburg , as well as Durham , England; Znojmo , Czech Republic ; Riga (2008) , Latvia; And Valletta , Malta. Four general types of systems are in use; A cordon area around a city center, with charges for passing the cordon line; Area wide congestion pricing; A city center toll ring, with toll collection surrounding the city; And corridor or single facility congestion pricing,

Implementation of congestion in urban areas, but also sparked criticism and public discontent. Critics maintaining that congestion pricing is not equitable, places an economic burden on neighboring communities, has a negative effect on retail businesses and on economic activity in general, and represents another tax levy.

A study of economic literature on the subject, however, that some form of road pricing to reduce congestion is economically viable, though there is disagreement on what form road pricing should take. Economists disagree over how to cover common costs, what to do with any excess revenues, whether and how “losers” from tolling previously free roads should be compensated, or whether to privatize highways. [1] Also, considering fossil fuel supply and urban transport high emissions of greenhouse gases in the context of climate change have renewed interest in congestion pricing, as it is considered one of the demand-side mechanisms that may reduce oil consumption.

Description

Congestion pricing is a concept of market economics concerning the use of pricing mechanisms to charge the users of the public goods for the negative externalities generated by the peak demand in excess of available supply. Its economic rationale is that, at a price of zero, demands a shortage , and that the shortage should be corrected by charging the equilibrium price rather than shifting it down by increasing the supply. Usually this means increasing prices during certain periods of time or at places where congestion occurs;

According to the economic theory behind congestion pricing, the objective of this policy is the use of the price mechanism to make users more aware of the costs that they impose upon one another when consuming during the peak Congestion they create, thus encouraging the redistribution of the demand in space or in time, [6] [7] or shifting it to the consumption of a substitute public good ; For example, switching from private transport to public transport.

This pricing mechanism has been used in several public utilities and public services for setting higher prices during congested periods, as a means to better manage the demand for the service. Not economically or financially feasible to provide additional capacity to the service. Congestion pricing has been widely used by telephone and electric utilities , metros , railwaysand buses services, [8] and has been proposed for charging internet access . [9] It has also been extensively studied and advocated by mainstream transport economists for ports , Waterways , airports and road pricing , as well as the social and political acceptability of The congestion charge. [10] [11]

Congestion pricing is one of a number of alternative demand side (as Opposed to supply side ) strategies offert by Economists to address traffic congestion . [12] Congestion is considered a negative externality by economists. [13] An externality occurs when a transaction costs or benefits to a third party, often, although not necessarily, from the use of a public good: Public air. Congestion pricing is an efficiency pricing strategy that requires the users to pay more for that public good, thus increasing the welfare gain or net benefit for society.

Nobel-laureate William Vickrey is regarded by Some to be the father of congestion pricing, as he first Proposed it for the New York City Subway system in 1952. [16] [17] [18] In the road transportation arena thesis theories Were extended By Maurice Allais , Gabriel Roth who was instrumental in the first designs and at which World Bank recommendations were put in place in Singapore. [19] Also, it was considered by the Smeed Report , published by the British Ministry of Transport in 1964, [20] but its recommendations were rejected by successive British governments. [21]

The Economic and Social Council of the United States of America: “Congestion in the Congestion” The people who live in this area have a good sense of humor and a good sense of humor. Hence, congestion pricing is a prerequisite for a scarce resource. To its most valuable use,As evidenced by users’ willingness to pay for the resource. ” [22]

Urban roads

Practical implementations of road congestion pricing are found almost exclusively in urban areas, because traffic congestion is common in and around city centers. Highway A1 in Northern France is one of the few blocks of congestion pricing implemented outside of urban areas. This is an expressway connecting Paris to Lille , and since 1992 congestion prices have been applied during weekends with the objective of spreading demand on the trip back to Paris on Sunday afternoons and evenings. [23] As congestion pricing has been increasing worldwide, the schemes implemented have been classified into four different types: cordon area around a city center; Area wide congestion pricing; City center toll ring; And corridor or single facility congestion pricing. [24]

Cordon area and area wide

At Old Street, the street markings and a sign (inset) with the white-on-red C alert drivers to the congestion charge, London .

Cordon area congestion pricing is a fee or tax paid by users to enter a restricted area, usually Within a city center, as share of a demand management strategy to relieve traffic congestion Within That area. [25] The economic rationale for this pricing scheme is based on the externalities or social costs of road transport, such as air pollution , noise, traffic accidents , environmental and urban deterioration, and the extra costs and delays imposed by traffic congestion upon other drivers When additional users enter a congested road. [26]

The first implementation of such a scheme was in Singapore Area Licensing Scheme in 1975, together with a comprehensive package of road pricingmeasures, stringent car ownership rules and improvements in mass transit. [27] [28] Thanks to technological advances in electronic toll collection , electronic detection, and video surveillance technology, collecting congestion fees has become easier. Singapore upgraded its system in 1998, [29]and similar pricing schemes were implemented in Rome in 2001, [30] London in 2003 with extensions in 2007; Stockholm in 2006, as a seven-month trial, and then on a permanent basis. [31] In January 2008 Milan began a one-year trial program called Ecopass , charging low-emission standard vehicles and exempting cleaner and alternative fuel vehicles . [32] [33] [34] The Ecopass program Was extended up to December 31, 2011, [35] [36] and on January 16, 2012 Was Replaced by Area C , a trial program That converted the scheme from a pollution-load To a congestion charge. [37] The Gothenburg congestion tax was implemented in January 2013 and it was modeled after the Stockholm scheme. [38] Charging low emission standard vehicles and exempting cleaner and alternative fuel vehicles . [32] [33] [34] The Ecopass program Was extended up to December 31, 2011. [35] [36] and on January 16, 2012 Was Replaced by Area C , a trial program That converted the scheme from a pollution-load To a congestion charge. [37] The Gothenburg congestion tax was implemented in January 2013 and it was modeled after the Stockholm scheme. [38] Charging low emission standard vehicles and exempting cleaner and alternative fuel vehicles . [32] [33] [34] The Ecopass program Was extended up to December 31, 2011. [35] [36] and on January 16, 2012 Was Replaced by Area C , a trial program That converted the scheme from a pollution-load To a congestion charge. [37] The Gothenburg congestion tax was implemented in January 2013 and it was modeled after the Stockholm scheme. [38] [35] [36] and on January 16, 2012 was replaced by Area C , a trial program that converted the scheme from a pollution-load to a congestion charge. [37] The Gothenburg congestion tax was implemented in January 2013 and it was modeled after the Stockholm scheme. [38] [35] [36] and on January 16, 2012 was replaced by Area C , a trial program that converted the scheme from a pollution-load to a congestion charge. [37] The Gothenburg congestion tax was implemented in January 2013 and it was modeled after the Stockholm scheme. [38]

Trängselskatt Automatic control point at Ropsten, Stockholm . The sign on the right informs the drivers about the different fees, which vary according to the time of the day.

[ 30 ] , [40] , [40] , and [ 35 ] , [ 35 ] and [ 35 ] . [40] Also, all cities report public controversy before and after implementation, making political feasibility a critical issue.

Singapore, and Stockholm. The cost of a congestion charge in a congestion charge in a congestion charge. [41] Stockholm HAS put a cap on the maximum daily tax, [42] while in Singapore the load is based was pay-as-you-use principle, and rates are set based one traffic condition at the pricing points and reviewed We have a quarterly basis. This article is based on an analysis of the current state of the road transport system in the United States . [43]

Developments

Singapore

In an attempt to Improve the pricing mechanism, and, to Introduce real-time variable pricing , [44] Singapore’s LTA together with IBM , ran a pilot from December 2006 to April 2007, with a traffic estimation and prediction tool (Treps), qui The author of the book is the author of a series of articles on the subject of congestion. In order to ensure the accuracy of this information, it is important to ensure that this information is accurate and up-to-date.

In 2010 the Land Transport Authority began exploring the potential of Global Navigation Satellite System as a technological option for a second generation ERP. LTA is a leading provider of high-tech, low-cost, high-tech, high-tech, low-cost, high-performance, Implementation of this system is not expected in the short term. [47]

London

A proposal form by Mayor of London Ken Livingstone Would Have resulted in a new pricing structure is based potential CO 2 Emission rates by October 2008. [48] The goal Was That vehicles with the very lowest CO 2 Emission rates Would Be exempted, and Those With higher emission rates would pay a higher charge of £ 25, with the rest paying the same charge they pay today. [49] However, Livingstone’s successor as Mayor of London, Boris Johnson , announced at the beginning of his administration that he would reform the congestion charge. [50] [51]

Entrance to the London Congestion Charge zone. Shunt traffic sign and the CCTV used to control vehicles entering the area’s boundary.

Johnson announced in July 2008 that the new CO 2 charging structure will no longer be implemented. [52] Among other reasons, he said the environmental charge would result in increased congestion and pollution. [52] [53] He also discarded plans for extending the charge to the suburbs, and announced he will review the western extension implemented in 2007, based on a public consultation planned for September 2008. [54] Having held a five-week Public consultation with residents in the autumn of 2008, Johnson decided to remove the 2007 Western Extension from the congestion charging zone beginning on January 4, 2011, to increase the basic charge to GB £ 10 , And also to introduce an automated payment system called Congestion Charging Auto Pay (CC Auto Pay), which will charge vehicles based on the charging area each month, and the drivers of these vehicles will pay a reduced GB £ 9daily charge. [55]

In November 2012 Transport for London (TfL) presented a proposal to abolish the Greener Vehicle Discount That benefited, Among Others, small vehicles with diesel engines That Avoid the load Because Their engines Produce emission of less than 100g per km of CO 2 . [56] [57] Approved by Mayor Boris Johnson in April 2013, the Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED) went into effect on July 1, 2013. The ULED introduced more stringent emission standards that limit the free access to the congestion charge to all -electric cars , some plug-in hybrids , and any car or van that emits 75g / km or less of CO 2 and meets the Euro 5 emission standards for air quality. The measure was designed to curb the growing number of diesel vehicles on London’s roads. About 20,000 owners of vehicles registered for the Greener Vehicle Discount by June 2013 were granted a three-year sunset period before they had to pay full congestion charge. [58] [59] [60] The sunset period ended on 24 June 2016. [61]

Since the congestion charge introduced in 2003, over £ 1.2 billion has been invested in transport through December 2013, including £ 960 million on improvements to the bus network; £ 102 million on roads and bridges; £ 70 million on road safety; £ 51 million on local transport / borough plans; And £ 36 million on sustainable transport and the environment. [62] There has been criticism because during the first ten years since the scheme was implemented, gross revenues reached about £ 2.6 billion, but only £ 1.2 billion has been invested, meaning that 54% of gross revenues have been spent in operating the system And administrative expenses. [63]

In June 2014 the standard load was raised 15% from £ 10 per day to £ 11.50. [64] According to TfL the objective of the increase is to reverse inflation over the past three years and ensure the effective functioning of the day to day central London. [65]

A new toxicity charge, known as T-load will be introduced from October 23rd, 2017. Older and more polluting cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards will have to pay extra £ 10 charge on top of £ 11.50 congestion charge to Drive in central London, within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ). The charge typically applies to diesel and petrol vehicles registered before 2006, and the levy is expected to affect up to 10,000 vehicles. [66] [67] TheLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan announced the introduction of the scheme in February 2017 after London’s record air pollutants levels the previous month, Pollutants emitted mainly by diesel vehicles.

Milan
Main articles: Ecopass and Milan Area C

The Ecopass Pollution Ended on December 31, 2011, and was replaced by the Area C scheme, which went into effect on January 16, 2012, initially as an 18-month pilot program. The Area C scheme is a conventional congestion pricing scheme and is based on the same Ecopass geographic area. Vehicles entering the charging zone incur a charge of € 5 regardless of their pollution level. However, residents within the area have 40 free entries per year and then a charge of € 2. [37] [69] [70] Electric vehicles , public utility vehicles, police and emergency vehicles, buses and taxis are exempted from the charge.

The scheme Was Made permanent in March 2013. All net earnings from Area C are Invested to Promote sustainable mobility and policies to Reduce Air Pollution , Including the redevelopment, protection and development of public transport , “soft mobility” (pedestrians, cycling , Zone 30 ) And systems to rationalize the distribution of goods. [71]

Stockholm

Automatic detection system at Stockholm ‘s first electronic gantry at Lilla Essingen .

On January 1, 2016, congestion taxes were increased in the inner city of Stockholm , and also the congestion tax was introduced on Essingeleden motorway . This was the first increase of the tax since it was permanently introduced in 2007. [72] [73]

The congestion tax is being introduced at the entrance and exit ramps of two interchanges on to reduce traffic jams in peak periods, and with shorter traffic jams on Essingeleden, the surrounding roads are expected to have shorter tailbacks. The transportation agencies involved expected to reduce traffic on Essingeleden by some 10% in peak hours. [72] One week after the tax began to be charged, traffic on the motorway had decreased by 22% compared to a normal day in mid-December. [73]

The tax was not only to improve accessibility and the environment, but also to help develop the infrastructure. The additional funds will contribute to the extension of the Stockholm metro . [72]As the Stockholm congestion tax varies by time of the day, the highest increase takes place at the two busiest rush hour periods, 7:30 to 8:29, and 16:00 to 17:29, from SEK 20 to SEK 30. The objective was to steer the traffic to other times of the day and public transport, and in this way reduce congestion in the Inner City area. SEK 105 per day and vehicle. [72]

wn” centers

See also: Durham City congestion charge

Around Europe, relatively small cities, such as Durham , England; [74] Znojmo , Czech Republic; [75] Riga , Latvia; [76] [77] and Valletta , Malta, [78] [79] have implemented congestion pricing to reduce traffic crowding, parking problems and pollution, especially during the peak tourism season.

Durham , United States of America. Prior to this 3,000 daily vehicles had shared the streets with 17,000 pedestrians. [80]

Valletta has reduced daily vehicles entering the city from 10,000 to 7,900; Making 400 readily available parking places in the center. There is a free shuttle service to and from the hotel. There is a free shuttle service to and from the hotel. [79] [81]

Rejected proposals

A map of Greater Manchesterhighlighting area of ​​the rejected congestion charging scheme
See also: congestion charging in Greater Manchester , Edinburgh congestion charge , Electronic Road Pricing (Hong Kong) , and New York congestion pricing

Hong Kong conducted a pilot test on an electronic congestion pricing system between 1983 and 1985 with positive results. [82] However, public opposition against this policy.

In 2002 Edinburgh , United Kingdom, initiated an implementation process; A referendum was conducted in 2005, [83] with a majority of 74.4% rejecting the proposal. [84] [85]

Councils from across the West Midlands in the United Kingdom, including Birmingham and Coventry , rejected the idea of ​​imposing congestion pricing schemes on the area in 2008, despite promises from central government of . [86]

In 2007, New York City was able to offer a three-year pilot program for implementation in Manhattan , [17] [87] [88] [89] and a new proposal was denied in 2008, [90] with potential federal grants of US $ 354 million being reallocated to other American cities. [91] [92]

Greater Manchester , United Kingdom, Was Considering a scheme with two cords, one hand covering the urban core of the Greater Manchester Urban Area Reviews and another covering the Manchester city center . [93] [94] [95] The measure was supported by the government, [96] but three local authorities rejected it ( Bury , Trafford and Stockport ); The support of two-thirds of Manchester’s 10 local councils was needed for it to be implemented. [97] A comprehensive transport investment package for Manchester, which includes the congestion pricing element, [98]On December 12, 2008 the scheme was overwhelmingly rejected by 10 councils by a public referendum. [99]

Current proposals

United States

In August 2007, the United States Department of Transportation selected five metropolitan areas to initiate congestion pricing demonstration projects under the Urban Partnerships Congestion Initiative, for US $ 1 trillion of federal funding. [100] The five projects under this initiative are; Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco , [101] State Route 520 serving downtown Seattle and communities to its east, [102] Interstate 95 between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale , [103] Interstate 35W serving downtown Minneapolis ,

San Francisco Transportation Authority. [106] [107] The charge could be combined with other traffic reduction implementations, allowing money to be raised for public transit improvements and bike and pedestrian enhancements. [108] The initial pricing scenarios were presented in public meetings conducted in December 2008, [109] and the final study results were announced in November 2010, proposing modified alternatives based on the public’s feedbacks, Month to one-year trial in 2015. [110] [111]

China
Severe air pollution in Beijing . Motor vehicle emissions account for 31% of the city’s smog sources. [112]

In September 2011, local officials announced plans to introduce congestion pricing in Beijing . No details were provided regarding the magnitude of the congestion charges or the charge area. [113] The measure was initially proposed in 2010 and was recommended by the World Bank . [114] [115] A similar scheme was proposed for the city Guangzhou , Guangdong province, in early 2010. The city opened a public discussion on whether to introduce congestion charges. 84.4% of respondents opposed the charges. [115]

In December 2015, the Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport announced plans to introduce congestion charges in 2016. According to the 2013-2017 2013-2017 motor vehicle emission control plan, the congestion charge will be a real-time variable pricing scheme based on actual traffic flows and emissions And for the different districts. The Dongcheng and Xicheng are among the districts that are most likely to firstly implement congestion charge. Vehicle emissions account for 31% of the city’s smog sources, according to Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. The local government has implemented several policies to address air quality and congestion, Such as a driving restriction scheme based on the last digits on their license plates. [112] [116] Also a vehicle quota system Was Introduced in 2011 as new Awarding licenses through a lottery, with a ceiling of 6 million units set by the city authority for 2017. [117]In May 2016, the Beijing city legislature …………….. The quota system. [117] As of June 2016 , the city’s environmental and transport departments are working together on a congestion pricing proposal. [118] [112] [116] Also a vehicle quota system Was Introduced in 2011 as new Awarding licenses through a lottery, with a ceiling of 6 million units set by the city authority for 2017. [117] In May 2016, the Beijing city legislature …………….. The quota system. [117] As of June 2016 , the city’s environmental and transport departments are working together on a congestion pricing proposal. [118] [112] [116] Also a vehicle quota system Was Introduced in 2011 as new Awarding licenses through a lottery, with a ceiling of 6 million units set by the city authority for 2017. [117] In May 2016, the Beijing city legislature …………….. The quota system. [117] As of June 2016 , the city’s environmental and transport departments are working together on a congestion pricing proposal. [118] The Beijing city legislature, the quota system. [117] As of June 2016 , the city’s environmental and transport departments are working together on a congestion pricing proposal. [118] The Beijing city legislature, the quota system. [117] As of June 2016 , the city’s environmental and transport departments are working together on a congestion pricing proposal. [118]

Brazil
Traffic congestion on Marginal Pinheiros , near downtown São Paulo . According to Time magazine, São Paulo has the world’s worst traffic jams. [119] Drivers are informed through variable message signs the prevailing queue length .

In January 2012, the federal government of Brazil enacted the Urban Mobility Law to authorize municipalities to implement congestion pricing to reduce traffic flows. The law also seeks to encourage the use of air pollution. Selon the law, revenues from congestion charge shoulds be Exclusively Destined to urban infrastructure for public transportation and non-motorized modes of locomotion (Such as walking and cycling ), and to finance public subsidies to transit fares. The law went into effect in April 2013. [120] [121] [122]

In April 2012, one of the committees of the São Paulo city ​​council approved a bill to introduce congestion pricing in the same area as the existing road space rationing ( Portuguese : Rodízio veicular ) by the last digit of the license plate, which has been in Force 1996. The proposed charge is R $ 4 (~ US $ 2 ) per day and it is expected to reduce traffic by 30% and raise about R $ 2.5 billion (~ US $ 1.25 billion) per year, Of the São Paulo Metro system and bus corridors. The bill is still valid for a final vote at the city council. Since 1995, 11 bills have been presented in the city council to introduce congestion pricing. [123] [124] Opinion surveys have shown that the initiative is highly impopular. A survey by Veja magazine found that 80% of drivers are against congestion pricing, and another survey by Exame magazine found that only 1% of São Paulo’s residents support the initiative, while 30% Traffic congestion. 126] São Paulo’s strategic urban development plan “SP 2040”, approved in November 2012, proposes the implementation of congestion pricing by 2025, when the density of metro and bus corridors is expected to reach 1.25 km / km 2 . The Plan also requires ample consultation and even a referendum before beginning implementation. [127]

Urban corridors and toll rings

” Costanera Norte ” Freeway, crossing downtown with 100% free flow, Santiago, Chile

Congestion pricing has also been implemented in urban freeways. Between 2004 and 2005, Santiago de Chile implemented the first 100% non-stop urban toll for a freeway passing through a downtown area, [128] charging by the distance traveled. [129] Congestion pricing has been used since 2007 during rough times in order to maintain reasonable speeds within the city core. [130] [131]

Norway pioneered the implementation of electronic tolling urban in the hand corridors of Norway’s three major cities: Bergen (1986), Oslo (1990) and Trondheim (1991). [132] In Bergen cars can only enter the central area using a toll road, so the effect is similar to a congestion charge. Though it was initially intended only to raise revenues to finance road infrastructure, the urban toll ring at Oslo created an unintended congestion pricing effect, as traffic decreased by around 5%. The Trondheim Toll Scheme also has congestion pricing effects, as charges vary by time of day. The Norwegian authorities authorize to implement congestion charges in cities, And legislation was approved by Parliament in 2001. [133] In October 2011 the Norwegian government announced the introduction of rules allowing congestion charging in cities. The measure is intended to cut greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and relief traffic congestion. [134] As of November 2015 , Norwegian Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] [133] In October 2011 the Norwegian government announced the introduction of rules allowing congestion charging in cities. The measure is intended to cut greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and relief traffic congestion. [134] As of November 2015 , Norwegian Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] [133] In October 2011 the Norwegian government announced the introduction of rules allowing congestion charging in cities. The measure is intended to cut greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and relief traffic congestion. [134] As of November 2015 , Norwegian Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] The measure is intended to cut greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and relief traffic congestion. [134] As of November 2015 , Norwegian Haugesund, Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] The measure is intended to cut greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and relief traffic congestion. [134] As of November 2015 , Norwegian Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135] Haugesund , Kristiansand , Namsos , Stavanger , and Tonsberg . [135]

Single facilities

Other recent application of congestion pricing policies in the urban transportation context is to adopt an innovative tolling for a particular limited purpose. [136] The first of this kind of specific schemes allowed users of low or single-occupancy vehicles to use a high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) if they pay a toll. This scheme is known as high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT) lanes , and it has been introduced mainly in the United States and Canada . The first practical implementations were California ‘s private toll 91 Express Lanes , in Orange County in 1995, followed in 1996 by Interstate 15 in San Diego . There has been controversy over this concept, and HOT schemes have been called ” Lexus ” as a critics see this new pricing scheme as a perk to the rich. [137] 139] According to the Texas A & M Transportation Institute , there were 722 corridor-miles of HOV lanes, 294 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes and 163 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes under construction. [140] By 2012 there were in the United States 722 corridor-miles of HOV lanes, 294 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes and 163 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes under construction. [140] By 2012 there were in the United States 722 corridor-miles of HOV lanes, 294 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes and 163 corridor-miles of HOT / Express lanes under construction. [140]

Congestion pricing in the form of variable tolls by time-of-the-day have also been implemented in bridges and tunnels providing access to the central business districts of several major cities. In most cases there was a toll already in existence.

In March 2001, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Implemented a discount on regular toll fees During off-peak hours For Those vehicles Electronically paying with an EZ PassIssued in New York State. These discount toll Was Implemented at Several tunnels and bridges connecting New York City and New Jersey , Including the George Washington Bridge , Lincoln Tunnel , and the Holland Tunnel , and at Some Other bridges Administrated by PANYNJ . [141] [142] Since March 2008, A low-cost, low-emission vehicle with a fuel economy of 45 miles per gallon is eligible to receive a Port Authority Green Pass, which allows a 50% discount during off-peak hours as compared to the regular full toll. [143]

In January 2009, variable tolls were implemented at Sydney Harbor Bridge , two weeks after upgrading to 100% free-flow electronic toll collection . The highest fees are charged during the morning and afternoon peak periods; A toll 25% lower Apply for the shoulder periods; And a toll lower than the previously existing is charged at nights, weekends, and public holidays. This is Australia ‘s first road congestion pricing scheme, and has a very minor effect on traffic levels, reducing them by 0.19% [144] [145] [146] [147]

In July 2010 congestion tolls were implemented at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge . The Bay Bridge congestion pricing scheme charges US $ 6 toll from 5 am to 10 am and 3 pm to 7 pm, Monday through Friday. During weekends cars pay US $ 5 . The toll remains at the previous toll of US $ 4 at all other times on weekdays. [148] According to the Bay Area Toll Authorityfewer users are driving during the peak hours and more vehicles are crossing the Bay Bridge before and after the 5-10 am period in which the congestion toll goes into effect. The agency also reported that commute delays in the first six months have dropped by an average of 15 percent compared with 2009. When the congestion tolls were proposed, the agency expected the scheme to produce a 20 to 30 percent drop in commute traffic. [149]

Concerns and criticisms

Both in the academic literature and in practice, the implementation of congestion pricing has raised a number of concerns and controversies.

Measurement of effects

In a road network, congestion can be considered a specific measure of the time delay in a journey or time lost through traffic jams . Delays can be caused by some combination of traffic density, road capacity, and the delaying effects of other road users and traffic management schemes such as traffic lights, junctions, and street works. This can be measured as the extra journey time needed to traverse a congested road when compared to the same road with no such interference. However, it is not possible to use this method to determine whether or not the intergenerational relationship between the intergenerational and the intergenerational distribution of the congestion can be measured. [150]

To measure the true effects of any traffic management scheme it is generally necessary to establish a baseline, or “do nothing” case, which estimates the effects on the network without any changes other than normal trends and expected local changes. Notably the London Congestion Charging Scheme , which has led to claims that it is not possible to determine the extent of the actual influence of the scheme. [151] A review of the impact of the transport system in London (TfL) has been carried out. Of reducing highway capacity. In 2006, The last year before the zone was expanded, TfL, which was in the last few years. [152]

In 2013, ten years since its implementation, TfL reported that the congestion charging scheme resulted in a 10% reduction in traffic volumes from baseline conditions and an overall reduction of 11% in 2000 km in London between 2000 and 2012. Despite these gains, Traffic speeds have also been getting progressively slower over the past decade, particularly in central London. TfL is the most widely used and most widely used vehicle in the field of road transport. And development activities since 2006. TfL concludes that while levels of congestion in central London are close to pre-charging levels, the effectiveness of the congestion load in reducing traffic volumes means that conditions would be worse without the Congestion Charging scheme. [153]

Academic debate and concerns

Even the transport economists who advocate congestion pricing have anticipated several practical limitations, concerns and controversial issues regarding the actual implementation of this policy. As summarized by Cervero: [154]

” True social-cost pricing of metropolitan travel has proven to be theoretical ideal that the real obstacle to the economy is the economic and social environment. Considerably higher loads for peak-period travel.In the United States, Some politicians are willing to champion the cause of congestion pricing for fear of reprisal from their constituents.It is for all these reasons that a peak-period pricing remains a pipe dream in the minds of many . “

Both Button [155] and Small et al., [11] have identified the following issues:

  • The real-world demands for urban transport are more complex than theoretical functions used in transport economics analysis. Congestion priced as a first-best solution, based on the assumption that the marginal cost priced. In the real world this is not true, thus, actual implementation of congestion pricing is just a proxy or second-best solution. Based on the economic principles behind congestion pricing, the optimal congestion charge should make up for the difference between the average cost and the marginal cost imposed on other drivers. Air pollution). The practical challenge of setting the optimal link-based tolls is that it can not be known as precisely. Therefore, transportation economists have a trial and error experience.
  • Inequality issue: A handful is the possibility of a desirable distribution repercussions because of the diversity of road users. The use of the tolled road depends on the user’s level of income. Where can you afford to pay the congestion charge, then this policy is likely to privilege the middle-class and rich. The users who shift to some less-preferred alternative are also worse off. The less wealthy are the most likely to switch to public transit. Road space rationing is more than just congestion pricing. However, high-income users are also relatively impacted. [156]
  • There are difficulties in deciding how to allocate the revenues raised. This is a controversial issue among scholars. (As is the case in London), or to invest in new road infrastructure (as in Oslo). Some academics make the case that they should have a direct transfer payments to train road users. Congestion pricing is not intended to increase public revenues or to become just another tax, however this is precisely one of the main concerns of road users and taxpayers.

One alternative, avocation at Avoiding inequality and revenue from allocation is to Implement a rationing of peak period travel through mobility rights or revenue-neutral credit-based congestion pricing. [157] This system would be similar to the existing emissions trading of carbon credit . Metropolitan area or city residents, or the taxpayers, would be issued mobility rights or congestion credits, and would have the option of using them for themselves, or trading them to anyone else’s automobile beyond their personal quota. This trading system would allow direct benefits to be increased by those users shifting to public transportation or by reducing their peak-hour travel rather than the government.

Public controversy

Experience from the few cities where congestion pricing has been implemented. Public discontent with congestion pricing, or rejection of congestion pricing proposals, is due mainly to the inequality issues, the economic burden on neighboring communities, the effect on retail businesses and the economic activity in general, and the fears tax.

Congestion pricing remains highly controversial with the public both before and after implementation. This HAS been resolved in hand through referendums , Such As partner after the seven-month trial period in Stockholm ; [160] However, this is not the case, but it is not the same as the one in the other. . In Stockholm there was a majority in the referendum within the city border, but not outside. [161 ]

Some Concerns-have beens aussi Expressed Regarding the effects of cord area congestion pricing is economic activity and land use, [163] as the benefits are usually Evaluated from the urban transportation perspective only. However, congestion pricing schemes have been used in the small cities. [75] [164]

The effects of a charge on business have been disputed; carry-have shops and businesses being white Heavily Impacted by the cost of the load, both, in terms of lost sales and delivery Increased costs in London , [165] while others show That Were Then businesses Supporting the load six months after-implementation. [166] Reports show business activity dans le load area HAD beens Higher in Both productivity and Profitability and que le load Had a “Broadly neutral impact” on the London wide economy, [167] while others claim an average drop in business of 25% Following the 2007 extension. [168]

Other Criticism of the Congestion Area, with critics claiming congestion pricing would create “parking lots” and add more traffic and pollution to those neighborhoods, [169] and the imposition of a regressive tax on some commuters. [170] [171] Stockholm’s trial of congestion pricing, however, shown in the congestion area. [172] Other opponents argue that the pricing could become a tax on middle- and lower-class residents, [173] The installation of cameras for tracking purposes may also raise civil liberties.

Effects

A study of congestion pricing in Stockholm between 2006-2010 found that in the absence of congestion pricing that Stockholm’s 45% more asthma attacks would have suffered 45% more polluted between 2006 and 2010. [176]

Waterways

Panama Canal booking system and auction

The Panama Canal has a limited capacity determined by operational times and cycles of the existing locks and further constrained by the current trend towards larger (close to Panamax -sized) vessels transiting the channel which takes more transit time within the locks and navigational channels, The need for permanent periodical maintenance works due to the aging channel, which forces periodical shutdowns of this waterway . On the other hand, demand has been growing due to the rapid growth of international trade . Also, many users require a guarantee of certain level of service. Despite the gains that have been made in efficiency, The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) estimates that it will reach its maximum sustainable capacity between 2009 and 2012. [177] The long-term solution for the congestion problems was the expansion of the channel through a new third set of locks. The new locks allow transit of larger, post-Panamax ships, which have a greater capacity than the current locks are capable of handling. [178] The new locks allow transit of larger, post-Panamax ships, which have a greater capacity than the current locks are capable of handling. [178] The new locks allow transit of larger, post-Panamaxships, which have a greater capacity than the current locks are capable of handling. [178]

Considering the high operational costs of the vessels ( Containerships -have daily operational costs of Approximately US $ 40,000 ), the long tails That Occur During the high season (sometimes up to a week’s delay), and the high value of Reviews some of the cargo transported through the , The ACP implemented a congestion pricing scheme to allow a better management of the scarce capacity available and to increase the level of service offered to the shipping companies. The scheme given users two choices: (1) transit by order of arrival on a first-come first-served basis, as the channel historically has operated; (2) booked service for a fee-a congestion charge.

The booked service allowed two options of fees. The Transit Booking System, available online, can be booked via our secure online booking form. ACP sells 24 of these daily slots up to 365 days in advance. The second choice was high priority transit. Since 2006, ACP has had a 25th slot, sold through the Transit Slot Auction to the highest bidder. [179] The main customers of the Transit Booking System are cruise ships , Containerships , vehicle carriers , and non-containerized cargo vessels. [180]

The highest toll for high priority passes through the Transit Slot Auction was US $ 220,300 charged on a tanker in August 2006, [181] bypassing a 90-ship tail awaiting for the Gatun locks, thus avoiding a seven- Day delay. The normal fee would have been just US $ 13,430 . [182] The average regular toll is around US $ 54,000 .

Airports

Many airports are facing extreme congestion, runway capacity being the scarcest resource. Congestion pricing schemes have been proposed to mitigate this problem, including slot auctions, such as with the Panama Canal, but implementation has been piecemeal. [183] [184] [185] The first scheme was started in 1968 when higher landing fees for peak-hour use by aircraft with 25 seats or less at Newark , Kennedy , and LaGuardia airports in New York City. As a result of the higher charges, general aviation activity during peak periods decreased by 30%. These fees were applied until deregulation of the industry, But higher fees for general aviation were kept to discourage this type of operations at New York’s busiest airports. In 1988 a higher landing fee for smaller aircraft at Boston’s Logan Airport was adopted; With this measure of the general aviation abandoned Logan for secondary airports. [186] In both cases the pricing scheme was challenged in short. In the case of Boston, the judge ruled in favor of general aviation users due to lack of alternative airports. In the case of New York, the judge dismissed the case because “the fee was a justified means of relieving congestion”. [187] With this measure of the general aviation abandoned Logan for secondary airports. [186] In both cases the pricing scheme was challenged in short. In the case of Boston, the judge ruled in favor of general aviation users due to lack of alternative airports. In the case of New York, the judge dismissed the case because “the fee was a justified means of relieving congestion”. [187] With this measure of the general aviation abandoned Logan for secondary airports. [186] In both cases the pricing scheme was challenged in short. In the case of Boston, the judge ruled in favor of general aviation users due to lack of alternative airports. In the case of New York, the judge dismissed the case because “the fee was a justified means of relieving congestion”. [187]

Congestion pricing has also been implemented for scheduled airline services . The British Airports Authority (BAA) has been a pioneer in implementing congestion pricing for all types of commercial aviation . In 1972 applied the first peak pricing policy, with overloads varying depending on the season and time of the day, and by 1976. London-Heathrow had seven pricing structures between 1976 and 1984. In this case it was the international carriers who went to international arbitration in 1988 and won their case. [187]

In 1991, the Athens Airport charged a 25% higher landing fee for those aircraft arriving between 11:00 and 17:00 during the high tourism season during summer. Hong Kong charges an additional flat fee to the basic weight charge. [188] In 1991-92 peak pricing at London’s main airports Heathrow , Gatwick and Stansted was implemented; Airlines were charged different landing fees for peak and off-peak operations depending on the weight of aircraft. [189] For example, in the case of a Boeing 757 , the peak landing fee was about 2.5 times higher than the off-peak fee in all three airports. For a Boeing 747 the differential was even higher, As the old 747 carries a higher noise charge. [190] Though related to runway congestion, the main objective of these peak loads.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *