www.curacaoproject.eu                      CURACAO - coordination of urban road-user charging organisational issues                   Funded by the EU

Road Pricing Context

OBJECTIVES

SCHEME DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY

BUSINESS SYSTEMS

Prediction

PREDICTION

TRAFFIC EFFECTS

ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMY

EQUITY

Appraisal

APPRAISAL

Decision Making

ACCEPTABILITY

TRANSFERABILITY

Implementation and Evaluation

EVALUATION

IMPLEMENTATION

Case Studies

Bergen

Bologna

Bristol

Cambridge

Durham

Dutch National Case

Edinburgh

London

Manchester

Milan

Nord-Jaeren

Oslo

Rome

Stockholm

The Hague

Trondheim



Urban Road User Charging Online Knowledge Base

What Are The Implications For Other Themes?

There are the following implications for other themes:

Objectives: Fundamentally, the appraisal process provides indications as to the achievement of the overarching objectives of the road user charging scheme. It is essential, therefore, that these objectives are clear at the outset.
Scheme Design: The appraisal outcome is dependent on the scheme design and analysis of the impacts of the scheme can provide insight into ways to iteratively refine the scheme so as to augment the positive and mitigate the negative impacts of the scheme. In addition, appraisal provides information for complementary measures that may be required in support of a package of measures for which road pricing is an instrument. For example, if the appraisal indicates a possible increase in public transport patronage and significant mode switching, adequate capacity could be provided on the public transport capacity (e.g. by running additional buses as in the case of London).
Technology and Business Systems: Part of the appraisal process should be the verification that the technology and business systems are compatible with the operations of the road user charging system. The London experience suggested that if costs could be reduced, then the benefits would be significantly increased.
Prediction: The prediction process is the principal source of information for the appraisal process. The two processes therefore need to be designed together. Where certain impacts cannot be reliably predicted, the appraisal process needs to reflect this.
Traffic effects: The impacts of road user charging on traffic flows and speeds will be the principal source of impacts on the chosen objectives, such as congestion relief, environment and the economy. Changes in traffic flows should not be appraised and valued in their own right, since they are means to achieve the objectives rather than objectives in their own right.
Economy: Analysing the economic implications of the scheme should form part of the appraisal process. In addition, the appraisal process can also provide clues as to the business groups that might be affected by the pricing scheme design.
Environment: Environmental impacts are an essential element in the appraisal process. However, some environmental impacts are difficult to quantify, and for others the second order implications on humans and ecology are difficult to determine.
Equity: One key element of appraisal is to assess the equity aspect of the scheme. A positive Net Present Value or Economic Benefit does not automatically imply that a scheme will be equitable. The information from appraisal can be used to gauge the vertical and horizontal impact groups of the schemes. Ways to reduce real and perceived inequity can then subsequently be sought again probably through an iterative refinement process.
Acceptability: It is important to point out here that a scheme that ticks all the right boxes in the appraisal may still not be deemed acceptable by the public. However if careful analysis has been undertaken to identify the scheme impacts of various socio-economic groups, then steps can be taken to increase acceptability.
Transferability: Scheme appraisal methods differ even amongst EU countries. It is thus difficult to ensure that true comparisons are being made. From this standpoint, an MCA appraisal which does not attempt to weight or aggregate impacts may better facilitate the transfer of results between cities.
Implementation: An appraisal process which identifies the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal can assist in making it more acceptable, and hence more readily implemented. This will particularly be the case where appraisal has been used to enhance the initial design, and has been considered by stakeholders during the design and approval process.
Evaluation: Appraisal and evaluation are mirror image processes: the one before implementation and the other afterwards. Where possible the same approach should be taken in deciding what to predict or measure, how to value those impacts, and how to aggregate them. However, evaluation is of benefit to other cities as well, so a disaggregate evaluation which allows cities to apply their own weights and priorities will be of value.
No information on this theme is currently available from the case studies