Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg

Many cities have seen public support for congestion charges increase substantially after charges have been introduced. Several alternative explanations of this phenomenon have been suggested, but so far little evidence has been available to assess the relative importance of these explanations. We study attitudes to congestion pricing in Gothenburg before and after congestion charges were introduced in January 2013. Attitudes to the charges did indeed become more positive after the introduction, just as in previous cities. Using a two-wave postal survey, we separate contributions to the attitude change from a number of sources: benefits and costs being different than anticipated, use of hypothecated revenues, reframing processes, and changes in related attitudes such as attitudes to environment, equity, taxation and pricing measures in general. We conclude that the dominant reason for the attitude change is status quo bias, rather than any substantial changes in beliefs or related attitudes, although some of these factors also contribute. Contrary to a common belief, nothing of the attitude change is due to benefits being larger than anticipated.     

Labour market effects in assessing the costs and benefits of road pricing

Traffic congestion and the policies used to combat it have been studied extensively. One area which has received less attention is the secondary impacts of such policies. This paper uses a micro-simulation framework to study the effect on labour markets of road pricing. The key benefit of our chosen methodology is that it allows a simultaneous consideration of both commuting and migration decisions. We show that while welfare gains can be achieved through optimal charging, this may come at the price of decreased integration. This may manifest through either greater centralisation tendencies in population, or through unemployment disparities between regions.     

Achieving political acceptability for new transport infrastructure in congested urban regions

This paper analyzes the efficiency and political acceptability of road pricing and infrastructure policies targeted at relieving urban congestion. It combines a stylized transport model of an urban road network with a model of the political process that incorporates interactions between voters, citizen interest groups and politicians to explore the possibilities to reach political acceptability for efficient transport policies. In a numerical illustration, the paper compares a set of pricing and investment policies in terms of efficiency and acceptability. The illustration shows how conflicting interests can lead to non-efficient policies being chosen.     

Spatial impacts of road pricing: Accessibility, regional spillovers and territorial cohesion

Road pricing policies are gaining prominence in EU countries. These policies have positive impacts leading to mobility patterns which are socially and environmentally more desirable, but they also have negative impacts. One negative impact is to be found in regional accessibility, due to the increase in generalized transport costs. This study presents a methodology based on accessibility indicators and GIS to assess the accessibility impacts of a road pricing policy. The methodology was tested for the Spain’s road network considering two road pricing scenarios. It enables not only the more penalized regions to be identified but also negative road pricing spillover effects between regions. These effects are measured in terms of accessibility changes occurring in one region produced by charges implemented in another region. Finally, the study of accessibility disparities (by calculating inequality indexes for each of the scenarios considered), provides policymakers with useful information regarding the impact of road pricing policies from the point of view of territorial cohesion.     

The role of attitude structures,direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing

Congestion pricing was introduced in Stockholm in 2006, first as a trial followed by a referendum, and permanently from 2007. Public attitudes to the charges became more negative during the period from the decision to the start of the system. Once the trial started, public attitudes became dramatically more positive over the following years, going from 2/3 against the charges to more than 2/3 in favor of the charges. Self-reported changes in behavior and attitudes considerably underestimate actual changes: about 3/4 of the decrease in car trips and more than half of the change in attitudes seem to have gone unnoticed by respondents, ex post. Self-interest and belief in the charges’ effectiveness strongly affect attitudes at any given point in time, but can only explain a minor part of the change in attitudes. I suggest that the debate and the shift in attitudes can be understood as a public and political reframing of the congestion charges over time.