[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v11y2004i2p117-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing road congestion: a reality check

Author

Listed:
  • Stopher, Peter R.
Abstract
For some little while now, transport policy seems to be focused on massive relative increases in public transport ridership and reduction of car use, resulting in a hoped-for reduction in road congestion. Starting with concerns with vehicle emissions as far back as the mid-1980s, and moving now into more of a focus on greenhouse gases and congestion, current transport policies are aimed at reducing two perceived externalities of increasing car use--vehicular emissions and congestion. This paper seeks to check the reality of these policy directions and question whether these are desirable, let alone achievable end states. The paper starts by looking at congestion and questions whether or not it is intrinsically bad. The negative and positive aspects of congestion are explored. The concepts of accessibility and mobility are discussed, particularly in relation to congestion and capacity increases, with the idea of trying to understand better what capacity increases or increasing congestion do to these two measures. The expectation must be that congestion levels are likely to continue to increase into the future, both as a result of increasing population and also increasing real wealth and changes in preferences. This section of the paper concludes that it is within the power of the market place to offset some of the negatives of congestion. In the next section of the paper, the potentials to increase public transport ridership are examined. An illustration is provided of the likely impacts of achieving a doubling in public transport ridership in a hypothetical city. It is found that the effects of such an achievement would be relatively small on the overall congestion of the road system, and that these effects would also be likely to be fairly short-lived. At the same time, the investments that would be necessary in the public transport system are enormous, and there is relatively little likelihood that one could achieve such an increase in ridership within current development patterns. The paper also addresses the potential of congestion pricing or road user charges to impact congestion. It is concluded that charging motorists a politically acceptable amount will probably still not make significant impact on overall system congestion, while the potential for serious impacts on the economy become large if the charges are made sufficiently high or the area covered is made sufficiently large. In the final section of the paper, a number of policy directions are put forward as suggestions for how to deal with the issue of congestion, capacity, and the declining share of market of public transport. These policy directions are not generally the ones that are being pursued today. The issue of congestion pricing is revisited, and a case is made for a kilometrage charge on road users to replace most current licensing schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Stopher, Peter R., 2004. "Reducing road congestion: a reality check," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 117-131, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:11:y:2004:i:2:p:117-131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(03)00062-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Redmond, Lothlorien S. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2001. "The Positive Utility of the Commute: Modeling Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute Amount," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4mc291p2, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Hyman, Geoffrey & Mayhew, Les, 2002. "Optimizing the benefits of urban road user charging," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 189-207, July.
    3. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    4. Levine, Jonathan & Garb, Yaakov, 2002. "Congestion pricing's conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or mobility?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 179-188, July.
    5. Lothlorien Redmond & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2001. "The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 179-205, May.
    6. Schafer, Andreas, 1998. "The global demand for motorized mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 455-477, August.
    7. Burris, Mark W. & Pendyala, Ram M., 2002. "Discrete choice models of traveler participation in differential time of day pricing programs," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 241-251, July.
    8. Phil Goodwin & Joyce Dargay & Mark Hanly, 2003. "Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 275-292, September.
    9. Stradling, S. G. & Meadows, M. L. & Beatty, S., 2000. "Helping drivers out of their cars Integrating transport policy and social psychology for sustainable change," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 207-215, July.
    10. Bonsall, Peter, 2000. "Legislating for modal shift: background to the UK's new transport act," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 179-184, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mondschein, Andrew & Taylor, Brian D & Brumbaugh, Stephen, 2010. "Congestion And Accessibility: What’S The Relationship?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8135b0jh, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Cohen-Blankshtain, Galit, 2021. "On another track: Differing views of experts and politicians on rail investments in peripheral localities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Chen, Cynthia, 2004. "TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(9-10), pages 643-675.
    4. Mondschein, Andrew & Taylor, Brian D. & Brumbaugh, Stephen, 2011. "Congestion and Accessibility: What's the Relationship," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6bh2n9wx, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Van Ommeren, Jos & Rietveld, Piet, 2005. "The commuting time paradox," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 437-454, November.
    6. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.
    7. Mondschein, Andrew & Taylor, Brian D., 2017. "Is traffic congestion overrated? Examining the highly variable effects of congestion on travel and accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 65-76.
    8. Le, Huyen T.K. & Buehler, Ralph & Fan, Yingling & Hankey, Steve, 2020. "Expanding the positive utility of travel through weeklong tracking: Within-person and multi-environment variability of ideal travel time," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    10. Peter Bäckström & Erika Sandow & Olle Westerlund, 2016. "Commuting and timing of retirement," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 56(1), pages 125-152, January.
    11. Mouratidis, Kostas & Ettema, Dick & Næss, Petter, 2019. "Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 306-320.
    12. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sardesai, Rupali, 2006. "The impact of stop-making and travel time reliability on commute mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 709-730, November.
    13. Barter, Paul A., 2005. "A vehicle quota integrated with road usage pricing: A mechanism to complete the phase-out of high fixed vehicle taxes in Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 525-536, November.
    14. Erika Sandow & Olle Westerlund & Urban Lindgren, 2014. "Is Your Commute Killing You? On the Mortality Risks of Long-Distance Commuting," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(6), pages 1496-1516, June.
    15. Cynthia Chen & Hongmian Gong & Robert Paaswell, 2008. "Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 285-299, May.
    16. Schwanen, Tim & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2003. "The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance Between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8728p24s, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. Georg Gottholmseder & Klaus Nowotny & Gerald J. Pruckner & Engelbert Theurl, 2009. "Stress perception and commuting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 559-576, May.
    18. Eric Morris & Erick Guerra, 2015. "Mood and mode: does how we travel affect how we feel?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 25-43, January.
    19. van Vuuren, Aico, 2022. "Is There a Diminishing Value of Urban Amenities as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic?," IZA Discussion Papers 15025, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Tseng, Yin-Yen & Verhoef, Erik T., 2008. "Value of time by time of day: A stated-preference study," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(7-8), pages 607-618, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:11:y:2004:i:2:p:117-131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.