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

How Has Evaluation Been Applied In Practice?

The monitoring process for London has produced a large amount of information that can prove useful for the adoption of RUC by other local authorities. Transport for London has produced a series of annual reports starting in 2003. In particular the evaluation plan focuses on the following aspects (TfL, 2003, Chapter 2)

  • Congestion

  • Traffic patterns

  • Public transport patronage

  • Understanding travel behaviour and secondary transport effects

  • Economic and business impacts

  • Social impacts

  • Environment impacts.

In addition, they consider the following information in the monitoring process:

  • Scheme operations: this reviews the operation of the business model (Chapter 5) of the scheme and the take-up of various payment channels, discounts and exemptions.

  • Traffic management: this is related to the need to monitor the traffic flows to avoid adverse traffic impacts arising from rerouting of traffic, particularly on the boundary route, but also on possible rat runs.

  • Distinguishing and attributing effects of congestion charging: In the real world, with many simultaneous changes taking place in parallel with the implementation of congestion charging scheme, it is important to be able to separate out the pure effects of RUC from those of other transport system and more general changes.

A survey of the literature points to many differing opinions regarding the attribution of effects of congestion charging. For example, in Stockholm, Eliasson (forthcoming) based on time series analysis of traffic flows suggests that the fuel tax hike in Stockholm on its own (in the absence of congestion charging) would have reduced traffic by less than 1%. However Prudhomme and Kopp (2005) suggest that the reduction would be as much as 5% and hence the effects of congestion charging are negligible.
The information gathered from the monitoring process can be used for evaluation. An example evaluation of the scheme from London and Stockholm are attached in Appendix F. Nevertheless the whole evaluation process is not without controversy. Alternative interpretations by Prud’homme et al (2005, 2006) for both schemes are also presented.
These studies have attempted an aggregate Cost Benefit Analysis, which inevitably disguises the assumptions made as to values assigned. Part of the difference in overall assessments relates to differences in the values assigned to travel time and accidents. However, more subtly Prud’homme et al (2005, 2006) adopt a different approach to estimating the travel time changes outside the charging zone, include the costs, but not necessarily the benefits, of provision of new buses, estimate the costs of additional overcrowding on rail, but do not assess the benefits of greater reliability on the road network. These two examples demonstrate the importance of having an agreed definition of the scope of the appraisal, in terms of objectives covered, policy instruments included and user impacts allowed for. They also highlight the danger of simply aggregating a set of disparate impacts, and the need, if this is to be done, to agree on the values to be assigned to each type of impact. The CURACAO project itself has gained experience in the conduct of evaluations of road user charging systems in different cities. Not surprisingly, it has proved difficult to achieve consistency of approach or comparability of outcomes. The companion deliverable on case studies CURACAO (2009) offers some recommendations on good practice.

 

No information on this theme is currently available from the case studies