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

Which Objectives Are Currently Considered

What do we know from the European Road Pricing Experiences?

Figure 2 2 summarises the principal objectives specified for the urban road user charging schemes existing today, which can be considered as fundamental objectives. Congestion relief is almost always mentioned as an objective.  Environmental protection was a key objective in Stockholm.  Revenue generation to support other strategy elements was important in London and Stockholm and was the principal objective of Norwegian schemes.

 

 

Fundamental  Objectives

Congestion Relief

Environment

Revenue Growth

 

 

Figure 22 Fundamental objectives when implementing Road Pricing

 

What do we know from PROGRSS and CUPID?

PRoGR€SS (PROGRESS, 2004) and CUPID (2005) were research projects sponsored by the European Commision that  investigated the main objectives of road pricing in great detail. Several fundamental objectives were clearly identified as in Figure 2 2. In addition PRoGR€SS and CUPID provided a body of knowledge on these objectives, in terms both of description and measurement.

However, whilst the fundamental objectives of efficiency, environment, equity and revenue growth are well known, new considerations are emerging.  As shown in Figure 2 3, these include support for economic growth (particularly through relief of congestion and environmental impacts), enhancement of health (through reductions in pollution and encouragement of non-motorised modes), enhanced liveability and urban quality, improved safety, increased equity and greater social inclusion, and protection of the needs of future generations.

 

 

 

 

Emerging Objectives

Economic growth

Health

Liveability

Safety

Equity/Social Inclusion

Future Generations

 

 

Figure 23 Emerging objectives when implementing Road Pricing

Which objectives are considered by the CURACAO City User Group?

One of the main focuses of CURACAO is to consider how to promote road user charging schemes to decision-makers. In order to do so, CURACAO launched a new user needs assessment questionnaire (UNAQ). The user needs assessment was conducted in partnership with decision makers from 21 cities in Europe. The questionnaire placed great attention on the objectives of road pricing. Respondents were asked to indicate the five principal objectives their cities would aim to meet by implementing a road pricing scheme.

Figure 2-4 indicates the number of times that each objective was ranked first, second, third, fourth or fifth. Figure 2-5 rates the objectives by assigning a score to each position in the respondents’ ranks (1st = 5). Efficiency, environment and liveability emerged as the most important objectives, with economic growth fourth. Unfortunately revenue generation was not included.

 

 

 

Table 2-1 summarises the results for these 21 cities and for those included in PROGRESS (PROGRESS, 2004) and in cities with existing schemes.

 Implications

 

  • Weights given to objectives vary from one UNAQ respondent to another. Road pricing will often serve jointly different objectives. This emphasises the need for a clear prioritisation of the objectives to facilitate decision making by highlighting trade-offs between individual objectives.
  • Efficiency, liveability and environmental objectives are the primary objectives. This confirms the need for policy-makers to meet public expectations but also the need to work for observable and communicable effects.

  • Economic growth always seems to be expected and considered, even if it is not the primary aim.

  • The achievement of equity through road pricing seems to have been given a much lower consideration by policy makers. Yet, equity had been identified as a fundamental objective in CUPID and PROGRESS. This demonstrates that efforts still need to be concentrated on understanding the implications of road pricing for equity.

  • Safety and health objectives are clearly identified as secondary concerns.

  • No additional objectives have been mentioned, confirming that the full range of objectives has been identified by CURACAO, CUPID and PROGRESS.