 |
|||
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
State of the Art:
 |
|
The acceptability of travel demand
management measures (road pricing etc.)
|
|
|
The direct and indirect effects of the further growing motorised individual traffic are very diverse. However, the large benefits of car traffic are opposed by considerable negative consequences: Congestion - for instance - not only causes (time-) costs but also environmental damage, land consumption, landscape cutting, air pollution, noise, accident victims and the consumption of non-renewable sources of energy (Commission of the European Communities, 1995). For limiting these consequences, apart from technique-based modifications increasingly behaviour-influencing measures are discussed (OECD, 1997). One possibility for influencing (not only) the mobility behaviour are pricing systems (such as road user fees) or variations of the road users’ cost-benefit-calculation; named ‘encouragement’ or ‘economy’. Within other areas, e.g. telecommunications or energy savings behaviour (Wortmann, 1994), price incentives proved to be very effective control means. For road pricing the effects of prices on traffic demand are in the centre of attention. With a spatial-temporal variation of transport costs the efficiency of traffic in high-density areas shall be increased (Milne, Niskanen and Verhoef, 1999). Technological research has already resolved many of the practical requirements for the introduction of sufficiently flexible pricing schemes. However, apart from technological and legal problems the lack of public and political acceptability turned out as one of the main obstacles for the implementation of road pricing measures. Acceptability of systems is assumed to be of major influence on the effectiveness of the implementation of a system (Van der Laan, 1998). Numerous studies give evidence for the rejection of pricing measures by a majority of the car drivers (e.g. Bartley, 1995; Jones, 1991a,b; Keränen, Schade, Schlag & Vougioukas, 1999; Luk & Chung, 1997).
Acceptability of different TDM strategies (Schade, 2003, 111) For instance, the results of the TransPrice -study show that - with only little variation between the cities - improvement of public transport takes the first place, followed by propositions of access restriction for the inner cities, and - with a big gap - a reduction of parking space. Least accepted are generally fees concerning both the stationary traffic (parking fees) and the usage of roads (distance based pricing), even if it is only at times with high volume of traffic (congestion pricing/peak-load pricing). But here there are occasionally clear differences between the cities. The people interviewed favour - as expected - such interventions which broaden the people’s freedom of action. Still, it surprises that even clear restrictions are more accepted than pricing measures. This may be put down to rules and bans already having been introduced to the traffic sector; perhaps they are also felt as being fairer. Thus, lacking acceptability was the main reason for the most planned road pricing projects not leaving the field-trial stage (exceptions in Europe: Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim). The question about the reasons for this almost unanimous refusal arises in particular for the motorists concerned. Frequently mentioned arguments against road pricing with regard to acceptability are fears of a violation of privacy (e.g. Keuchel, 1992), insufficient transparency of revenue use, and discrimination against socially weaker groups (Teubel, 1997). In the public generally an information-deficit concerning price-based travel demand management (TDM) -measures seems to exist. Public transport improvements and access restrictions are the most known measures. But only 8.5% of more than 1400 interviewed car drivers of the TransPrice study stated to know a lot about road pricing. Last but not least it is to be assumed that the willingness might be small to pay for something which was previously regarded as more or less free (Jones, 1995). We investigated this issues mainly in European reseach projetcs:
Schade, J., Baum, M. (2007). Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing. Transportation Research: Part A, 41 (1), 41-48. Schade, J., Schlag, B. (eds.) (2003). Acceptability of transport pricing strategies. Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier. Schade, J. & Schlag, B. (2003): Acceptability
of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6 (1), 45-61. Schlag, B. & Teubel, U. (1997): Public Acceptability of Transport Pricing; IATSS Research, 21, 134-142. |
|
 |
