Factors Influencıng the Public Acceptabılıty of Congestıon Prıcıng: Examples of Global Implementatıons

Year 2024, , 343 - 364, 15.10.2024

Setenay Şevik , Levent Yahya Eser

https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1506042

Abstract

Congestion pricing is a fiscal practice aimed at enhancing the efficiency of transportation infrastructure. Despite its success in reducing traffic, the greatest barrier to its implementation is public acceptability. This study aims to identify the factors affecting the public acceptability of congestion pricing. It examines the experiences of Singapore, London, and Stockholm, where pricing has been successfully implemented, alongside Hong Kong, Edinburgh, and New York, where efforts to gain public acceptance have failed, ending the pricing initiatives. The study is original in its identification of influencing factors through both literature review and analysis of country experiences. Fifteen factors impacting public acceptability have been identified, providing policy implications for attention to these factors in future congestion pricing schemes.

Keywords

Traffic congestion, congestion pricing, public acceptability

Trafik Sıkışıklığı Ücretlendirmesinin Toplumsal Kabul Edilebilirliğini Etkileyen Faktörler: Örnek Dünya Uygulamaları

Abstract

Sıkışıklık ücretlendirmesi, ulaşım altyapısının verimliliğini artırmayı amaçlayan mali bir uygulamadır. Sıkışıklık ücretlendirmesinin trafiği azaltmadaki başarısına rağmen, uygulamanın hayata geçirilmesindeki en büyük engel, toplumsal kabul edilebilirliktir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; sıkışıklık ücretlendirmesinin toplumsal kabulünü etkileyen faktörleri ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmada; ücretlendirmenin başarılıyla uygulandığı Singapur, Londra ve Stockholm deneyimleriyle; toplumsal kabulü sağlayamayarak ücretlendirmenin son bulduğu Hong Kong, Edinburgh ve New York örnekleri ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, gerek literatür gerekse ülke deneyimlerinden hareketle ücretlendirmeyi etkileyen faktörleri belirlemesi açısından özgünlük taşımaktadır. Araştırma sonucunda toplumsal kabulü etkileyen on beş faktör belirlenerek gelecekte uygulanacak olası bir ücretlendirmede bu faktörlere dikkat edilmesi gerektiği politika çıkarımı yapılmıştır.

Keywords

Trafik sıkışıklığı, sıkışıklık ücretlendirmesi, toplumsal kabul edilebilirlik

References

• Albalate, D. ve Bel, G. (2008). Shaping Urban Traffic Patterns Through Congestion Charging : What Factors Drive Success or Failure?. IREA–Working Papers, IR08/01, Universitat de Barcelona.
• Baghestani, A., Tayarani M., Allahviranloo M., Nadafianshahamabadi R., Kucheva Y., Mamdoohi A.R. ve Gao H.O. (2022). New York City Cordon Pricing and its’ İmpacts on Disparity, Transit Accessibility. Air Quality and Health, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(1), 485-499.
• Bhatt, K., Higgins T. ve Berg J.T. (2008). Lessons Learned from International Experience in Congestion Pricing Final Report. Maryland: In U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
• Börjesson, M. ve Kristoffersson, I. (2018). The Swedish Congestion Charges: Ten Years on. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 107, 35-51.
• Cipriani, E., Mannini L., Montemarani B., Nigro M. ve Petrelli M. (2019). Congestion Pricing Policies: Design and Assessment for the City of Rome, Italy. Transport Policy, 80, 127-135.
• De Palma, A. ve Lindsey, R. (2011). Traffic Congestion Pricing Methodologies and Technologies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(6), 1377-1399.
• Eliasson, J., Hultkrantz L., Nerhagen L. ve Rosqvist L.S. (2009). The Stockholm Congestion - Charging Trial 2006: Overview of Effects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(3), 240-250.
• Eliasson, J., Börjesson M., Amelsfort D., Brundell-Freij K. ve Engelson L. (2013). Accuracy of Congestion Pricing Forecasts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 52, 34-46.
• Gärling, T. ve Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel Demand Management Targeting Reduced Private Car Use: Effectiveness, Public Acceptability and Political Feasibility. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 139-153.
• Gaunt, M., Rye, T., ve Allen, S. (2007). Public Acceptability of Road User Charging: The Case of Edinburgh and the 2005 Referendum. Transport Reviews, 27(1), 85-102.
• Grisolía, J..M., López F. ve Ortúzar J.D. (2015). Increasing the Acceptability of a Congestion Charging Scheme. Transport Policy, 39, 37-47.
• Gu, Z., Liu Z., Cheng Q. ve Saberi M. (2018). Congestion Pricing Practices and Public Acceptance: A Review of Evidence. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(1), 94-101.
• Hamilton, C.J. (2011). Revisiting the Cost of the Stockholm Congestion Charging System. Transport Policy, 18(6), 836-847.
• Hao, X., Sun, X., ve Lu, J. (2013). The Study of Differences in Public Acceptability Towards Urban Road Pricing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 433-441.
• Hau, T.D. (1990). Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong 1983-1989. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 24(2), 203-214.
• Hau, T.D. (2021). Road Pricing 4: Case Study - The Implementation of Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong. In International Encyclopedia of Transportation, 15(3), 103-105.
• Ison, S. ve Rye, T. (2005). Implementing Road User Charging: The Lessons Learnt From Hong Kong, Cambridge and Central London. Transport Reviews, 25(4), 451-465.
• Jaensirisak, S. (2002). Road User Charging : Acceptability and Effectiveness. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Leeds Institute of Transport Studies, Leeds.
• Khan, A.M. (2001). Reducing Traffic Density: The Experience of Hong Kong and Singapore. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(1), 69-87.
• Kim, J., Schmöcker, J.D., Fujii, S. ve Noland, R.B. (2013). Attitudes Towards Road Pricing and Environmental Taxation Among US and UK Students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50-62.
• Lehe, L. (2019). Downtown Congestion Pricing in Practice. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 100, 200-223.
• Lindsney, C. Robin ve Verhoef, E. (2001). Traffic Congestion and Congestion Pricing. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 00-101/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam and Rotterdam.
• Marazi, N.F., Majumdar, B.B., Sahu, P.K. ve Potoglou, D. (2022). Congestion Pricing Acceptability Among Commuters: An Indian Perspective. Research in Transportation Economics, 95, 101180.
• Menon, G. ve Guttikunda, S.K. (2010). Electronic Road Pricing: Experience and Lessons From Singapore. SIM - Air Working Paper Series, 33-2010, 15, http://cfit.independent.gov.uk/pubs/2002/pfru/index.htm, (Erişim: 12.08.2019).
• Metz, D. (2018). Tackling Urban Traffic Congestion: The Experience of London, Stockholm and Singapore. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 494-498.
• Owen, R., Sweeting A. ve Clegg S. (2008). Public Acceptability of Road Pricing. In Department for Transport, University of the West of England.
• Ryley, T. ve Gjersoe, N. (2006). Newspaper Response to the Edinburgh Congestion Charging Proposals. Transport Policy, 13(1), 66-73.
• Santos, G., Li, W.W. ve Koh, W.T. (2004). 9. Transport Policies in Singapore. Research in Transportation Economics, 9, 209-235.
• Saruç, N.T. (2008). Trafik Sıkışıklığı Ücretlendirmesi Ekonomik Teori ve Uygulama, Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Schaller, B. (2010). New York City’s Congestion Pricing Experience and İmplications for Road Pricing Acceptance in the United States. Transport Policy, 17(4), 266-273.
• Schuitema, G., Steg, L. ve Forward, S. (2010). Explaining Differences in Acceptability Before and Acceptance After the İmplementation of a Congestion Charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2), 99-109.
• Seik, F.T. (1997). An Effective Demand Management İnstrument in Urban Transport: The Area Licensing Scheme in Singapore. Cities, 14(3), 155-164.
• Small, K.A. ve Gomez-Ibanez, J.A. (1998). Road Pricing for Congestion Management: The Transition From Theory to Policy. The University of California Transportation Center, University of California Berkeley, 391, 213-246.
• Steg, L. ve Tertoolen, G. (1999). Affective Motives for Car Use. Transport Planning, Policy and Practice. Proceedings of Seminar B, AET European Transport Conference, 27-29 September 1999, Cambridge, UK, 13-28.
• Stokes, G. ve Taylor, B. (1995). The Public Acceptability of Sustainable Transport Policies: Findings From the British Social Attitudes Survey. Paper Presented at: Ptrc Summer Annual Meeting, Warwick, 11th-15th September, Proceedings of Seminar C, 69-79.
• Sumalee, A. (2007). Multi-Concentric Optimal Charging Cordon Design. Transportmetrica, 3(1), 41-71.
• T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2023). T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Girişimci ve İnsani Dış Politika Ülke Künyesi, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/singapur-kunyesi.tr.mfa, (Erişim: 18.04.2022).
• Tasman, A. (2012). Confidential Pricing Congestion in Sydney. Discussion Paper New South Wales, SMART Infrastructure Facility, University of Wollongong, https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/media/dseb4fug/smart_infrastructure_acil_tasman__nsw_road_congestion_pricing_final_25_april_2012.pdf, (Erişim: 10.05.2022).
• Thorpe, N., Hills P. ve Jaensirisak S. (2000). Public Attitudes to TDM Measures: A Comparative Study. Transport Policy, 7(4), 243-257.
• Usta, A. (2013). Kamu Politikaları Analizine Kuramsal Bir Bakış. Yasama Dergisi, 24, 78-102.
• Vigar, G., Shaw A. ve Swann R. (2011). Selling Sustainable Mobility: The Reporting of the Manchester Transport Innovation Fund Bid in UK Media. Transport Policy, 18(2), 468-479.
• Noordegraaf, D.V., Annema, J.A., ve van Wee, B. (2014). Policy İmplementation Lessons From Six Road Pricing Cases. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59(A), 172-191.
• Walker, J. (2011). The Acceptability of Road Pricing. London: Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd.
• Walker, J. (2018). Road Pricing: Technologies, Economics and Acceptability, Road Pricing: Technologies Economics and Acceptability. London: Institution of Engineering and Technology.
• Winslott-Hiselius, L., Brundell-Freij, K., Vagland, Å. ve Byström, C. (2009). The Development of Public Attitudes Towards the Stockholm Congestion Trial. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(3), 269-282.
• Yan, H. ve Lam, W.H.K. (1996). Optimal Road Tolls Under Conditions of Queueing and Congestion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5), 319-332.
• Yap, J. (2005). Implementing Road and Congestion Pricing-Lessons From Singapore. In Workshop on Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies, Final Report.
• Zheng, Z., Liu, Z., Liu, C., ve Shiwakoti, N. (2014). Understanding Public Response to a Congestion Charge: A Random-Effects Ordered Logit Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 70, 117-134.