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 Research Gaps?

The importance of gaining a better understanding of equity issues, especially in relation to different city contexts and types of scheme, lies in its implications for acceptability. Where there is a culture for the implementation of an Urban Road User Charging scheme to be dependent upon the result of a referendum, there is a strong requirement to understand which sectors of the population will be affected by a proposed scheme, and in what ways. Such intelligence will facilitate ways in which potential perceived or actual inequities can be identified and mitigated. Such issues can be investigated retrospectively in cities where a referendum has led to public rejection of a scheme, (such as in Edinburgh and Manchester, in the UK), so that lessons can be learnt for the planning of similar schemes in the future. Where individuals are given the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a scheme or not, their decisions will largely be based on the balance of the anticipated positive and negative impacts upon them. However, perceived fairness to others may also influence their decisions.

Even where a referendum is not planned as part of the implementation process, if public acceptance is considered to be important, then there is the need to develop more sophisticated ways of assessing the impact of different types of URUC scheme on different sectors of the population. The level of sophistication should enable trade-offs to be made between monetary costs to different users; impacts resulting from changes to travel times, environmental improvements and enhanced quality of life; and benefits arising from the distribution of revenues raised from URUC (such as improvements to public transport, improvements to walking & cycling facilities, and tax rebates). A better understanding of how different people are affected will make it easier for scheme promoters to identify potential sources of concern among the affected population, and to include mitigating and compensatory measures, where required.

A knowledge base of the way in which different types of scheme are likely to impact upon different sectors of the population can only be developed on the basis of both predictive and empirical evidence from a variety of schemes throughout the world. Such evidence will continue to become available. Information on current research into equity-focused design tools would be of interest to CURACAO. A more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which different people might be affected by URUC schemes should lead to the production of clearer guidance on ways of designing schemes to reduce such inequities.