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

Scheme Design

Instead of a congestion charge, the Spitsmijden project aimed at measuring the effect of positive stimuli on commuters’ behaviour. In total, 340 drivers accepted the challenge to try to avoid driving during peak hours (7.30 a.m. – 9.30 a.m.). 98% of them lived in Zoetermeer and 56% of them worked in The Hague.

After subscribing and filling out several forms about personal characteristics and preferences, the participants were able to choose from two variants: a monetary reward varying from €3 to €7, or the right to become the Yeti smart phone owner after the experiment.

 

 

EVI beacons were positioned along the main exit roads of Zoetermeer (see map) together with camera systems for number plate registration. If a participant had passed under one of these check points between 7:30 AM and 9:30 AM on working days, the period with the highest traffic densities, no reward would have assigned.

The main rules of the trial were the following:

 

  • The participants had to commute at least three times a week from Zoetermeer towards The Hague.
  • They should have had an Internet access for checking e-mails.
  • They were asked to complete questionnaires and travel logs periodically.
  • Their participation had to be voluntary (although they were required to sign a contract listing the rights and duties of both parties).
  • They would have received a reward only for the times they avoided the morning rush-hour by travelling outside the rush hour period, using another mode of transport or working at home. The frequency of rush hour avoidance would be determined in relation to each participant’s usual commuting behaviour during the reference period.
  • The participants of the so-called Yeti variant had to switch on the Yeti smart phone during each car trip.
  • The participants should have used the car in which an On Board Unit (OBU) had been installed.

In order to measure the participants’ normal behaviour, short reference periods before and after the test were inconspicuously added to the experiment.

Participants with a Yeti smart phone disposed of a website that had been customized for the trial. In this way, they were able to see the actual travel times in minutes between Zoetermeer and Prins Clausplein in The Hague. The idea was that they would have to use this information for their travel decisions.

The maximum number of rewards per week derived from the comparison with the rush-our travel frequency during the reference situation.

In the monetary variant, the participant was rewarded with a daily amount of €3 or €7 for not being registered between 07.30 and 09.30h. Also a varying scheme was conducted:

  • not registered between 07.30 and 09.30h > 7 Euros

  • registered between 07.30 and 08.00h > 3 Euros

  • registered between 09.00 and 09.30h > 3 Euros

In the Yeti variant, the participant was rewarded with the right to keep the smart phone Yeti, which was put at his/her disposal during the experiment. In this case the participant needed to avoid rush-hours for a certain given number of times. Also a so-called Yeti-variant was conducted; in this case the participant received only traffic-information on his smart phone.