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 The Research Gaps?

It seems that there is now at least some reliable scientific consensus about the structure of acceptability. Likewise there is agreement about the groups of actors that play a key role in the transport policy process (Schade and Schlag, 2000). As mentioned before the main groups within the implementation process of urban road user charging are the politicians and decision makers, the affected citizens, the lobby and interest groups and the media. However, there is less consensus on the relationships between these key actors, the factors affecting their acceptability and how these relationships and acceptability may change over time, for instance by coalition forming. The dynamics of acceptability are certainly an issue that needs further attention. The experiences in cities show a certain degree of changeability of acceptability. In the future it needs to be determined what the causes of these changes are and how they can be utilised in favour of the implementation process.

Public participation can be one way of increasing public acceptability and the credibility of the implementation process. Stockholm, Edinburgh and Manchester are the first cities that have used referenda as a form of public participation with mixed success (see CURACAO, 2008). The Namsan #1 and #3 tunnel toll case in Seoul illustrated the impact of a public participation and awareness campaign. It was reported that public hearings, information campaigns and efforts to win media support are helpful to mobilise public support in favour of congestion pricing (APEIS, 2003). When the system of road user charging is transparent and its advantages are apparent to all road users, public support is likely to be higher. However, there is a lack of knowledge of the circumstances which could make a public referendum a promising way to introduce urban road user charging.

Further it is rather unclear how the benefits of road user charging schemes influence acceptability. The assumption is that once the scheme has been introduced the effectiveness of such a scheme becomes apparent to the citizens and changes their mind in a positive direction. However, the exact nature of the relation between scheme benefits and acceptability is not known. The scheme benefits that will influence acceptability are the time savings and environmental improvements. However, it is uncertain that travel time reduction and environmental improvement are perceived by the public to be worthwhile enough to compensate for the charge {Giuliano, 1992 #556; Harrington, 2001 #560}. Jaensirisak et al (2005) found that among the potential impacts of charging, an ability to achieve substantial environmental improvements was the single most important contributor to increased acceptability, followed by contributions to reducing delayed time for cars.