Transactions on Transport Sciences 2022, 13(3):56-67

Does the Public Accept Congestion Pricing System in India in Developing Countries Context

Akula Shyamsundera, B Raghuram Kadalib
a. Former Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institution of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana. India-Pin 506004.
b. National Institution of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana, India, *Corresponding Author: brkadali@nitw.ac.in

Traffic congestion is the major problem due to rapid urbanization and exponential growth of private vehicles, a decrease in the use of active transport, which results in problems of transport sustainability and public health issues. Generally, commuters often find it challenging to travel along the congested routes in urban areas due to increased travel time or air pollution. The traffic congestion of those congested routes may be minimized using strategies like congestion pricing, but public acceptability is one of the main hurdles in establishing a congestion pricing scheme. The present study attempted to understand the public acceptability of the congestion pricing system in India. To fulfil the objective of the study, a questionnaire survey was conducted to ascertain the public's perception of the congestion pricing system. In order to achieve this objective, a multinomial logistic regression (MNL) model was developed by considering public opinion on support to implement congestion pricing as a dependent variable, and other variables were considered as independent variables. From the model results, it is understood that the travel frequency (viz., 1-2 and 3-4 times) and number of times struck in congestion of commuters are most likely to remain neutral. The revenue generated by congestion pricing is allocated to road infrastructure, car tax reductions, public transportation, and parking areas, which are more likely to remain in neutral and under review after implementation. The study results are more useful to policy makers in urban areas while they relook at congestion pricing strategies in developing countries.

Keywords: Congestion pricing; Public acceptability; Travel behaviour; Perception; Transport policies; Revenue allocations.

Received: June 30, 2022; Revised: October 5, 2022; Accepted: October 12, 2022; Prepublished online: October 26, 2022; Published: January 9, 2023  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Shyamsunder, A., & Raghuram Kadali, B. (2022). Does the Public Accept Congestion Pricing System in India in Developing Countries Context. Transactions on Transport Sciences, 13(3), 56-67
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Agarwal, S., & Koo, K. M. (2016). Impact of electronic road pricing (ERP) changes on transport modal choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, 1-11. Go to original source...
    2. Anas, A., & Lindsey, R. (2011). Reducing urban road transportation externalities: Road pricing in theory and in practice. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(1), 66-88. Go to original source...
    3. Barahona, N., Gallego, F. A., & Montero, J. P. (2020). Vintage-Specific Driving Restrictions. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(4), 1646-1682. Go to original source...
    4. Bartley, B. (1995). Mobility impacts, reactions and opinions: traffic demand management options in Europe: the MIRO Project. Traffic engineering & control, 36(11), 596-602.
    5. Bento, A., Roth, K., & Waxman, A. (2017). Avoiding Traffic Congestion Externalities? The Value of Urgency, Working Paper.
    6. Borjesson, M., Hamilton, C. J., Nasman, P., & Papaix, C. (2015). Factors driving public support for road congestion reduction policies: Congestion charging, free public transport and more roads in Stockholm, Helsinki and Lyon. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 452-462. Go to original source...
    7. Chen, K., Wang, Z., & Wu, B. (2014). Study on the acceptability of congestion pricing in Shanghai". In CICTP 2014: Safe, Smart, and Sustainable Multimodal Transportation Systems, 3561-3572. Go to original source...
    8. Croci, E. (2016) Urban road pricing: a comparative study on the experiences of London, Stockholm and Milan. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 253-262. Go to original source...
    9. Dill, J., & Weinstein, A. (2007). How to Pay for Transportation? A Survey of Public Preferences in California. Transport Policy, 14(4), 346-356. Go to original source...
    10. Gaunt, M., Rye, T., & Allen, S. (2007). Public acceptability of road user charging: the case of Edinburgh
    11. and the 2005 referendum. Transport Reviews, 27(1), 85-102. Go to original source...
    12. Gu, Y., Deakin, E., & Long, Y. (2017). The effects of driving restrictions on travel behavior evidence from Beijing. Journal of Urban Economics, 102, 106-122. Go to original source...
    13. Gu, Z., Liu, Z., Cheng, Q., & Saberi, M. (2018). Congestion pricing practices and public acceptance: A review of evidence. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(1), 94-101. Go to original source...
    14. Golob, T.F. (2001). Joint Models of Attitudes and Behavior in Evaluation of the San Diego I-15 Congestion Pricing Project. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(6), 495-514. Go to original source...
    15. Hao, X., Sun, X., & Lu, J. (2013). The study of differences in public acceptability towards urban road pricing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 433-441. Go to original source...
    16. Hensher, D. A., & Li, Z. (2013). Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence. Transport Policy, 25, 186-197. Go to original source...
    17. Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., & May, A. D. (2005). Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 39(2), 127-154.
    18. Jou, R. C., Hensher, D. A., Wu, P. H., & Fujii, S. (2010). Road pricing acceptance: analysis of survey results for Kyoto and Taichung. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(3),172-187. Go to original source...
    19. Kim, J., Schmöcker, J. D., Fujii, S., & Noland, R. B. (2013). Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 50-62. Go to original source...
    20. Kockelman, K. M., Podgorski, K., Bina, M., & Gadda, S. (2009). Public perceptions of pricing existing roads and other transportation policies: the Texas perspective. In Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 48(3), 19-38. Go to original source...
    21. Levinson, D. (2010). Equity Effects of Road Pricing: A Review. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 33-57. Go to original source...
    22. Li, R., & Guo, M. (2016). Effects of odd-even traffic restriction on travel speed and traffic volume: Evidence from Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 3(1), 71-81. Go to original source...
    23. Li, M., & Zhao, J. (2017). Gaining Acceptance by Informing the People? Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Acceptance of Transportation Policies. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1-12. Go to original source...
    24. Li, X., Shaw, J. W., Liu, D., & Yuan, Y. (2019). Acceptability of Beijing congestion charging from a business perspective. Transportation, 46(3), 753-776. Go to original source...
    25. Li, X., Yuan, Y., Wang, H., & Hu, J. (2020). Understanding Public Acceptability of Congestion Charging in Beijing. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 146(8), 04020080. Go to original source...
    26. Liu, C., & Zheng, Z. (2013). Public acceptance towards congestion charge: a case study of Brisbane. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 2811-2822. Go to original source...
    27. Liu, Z., Shiwakoti, N., & Bie, Y. (2018). Measuring the public acceptance of urban congestion-pricing: a survey in Melbourne (Australia). Transport, 33(4), 902-912. Go to original source...
    28. Liu, Q., Lucas, K., & Marsden, G. (2020). Public acceptability of congestion charging in Beijing, China: How transferrable are Western ideas of public acceptability?. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(2), 97-110. Go to original source...
    29. Moncada, C., & Bocarejo, J. (2015). Application of a methodology to assess policies to control private vehicle traffic in cities. Proceedings of CODATU XVI, Climate Change, Air Qual. Energy Challenges, 48-61.
    30. Odeck, J., & Bråthen, S. (2002). Toll Financing in Norway: The Success, the Failures and Perspectives for the Future. Transport Policy, 9(3), 253-260. Go to original source...
    31. Rentziou, A., Milioti, C., Gkritza, K., & Karlaftis, M. G. (2011). Urban road pricing: Modeling public acceptance. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(1), 56-64. Go to original source...
    32. Rienstra, S. A., Rietveld, P., & Verhoef, E.T. (1999). The Social Support for Policy Measures in PassengerTransport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3), 181-200. Go to original source...
    33. Rufolo, A. M., & Kimpel, T. J. (2008). Responses to Oregon's experiment in road pricing. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2079, 1-7. Go to original source...
    34. Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Forward, S. (2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2), 99-109. Go to original source...
    35. Simeonova, E., Currie, J., Nilsson, P., & Walker, R. (2019). Congestion pricing, air pollution and children's health. National Bureau of Economic Research, DOI 10.3386/w24410. Go to original source...
    36. Sunitiyoso, Y., Nuraeni, S., Inayati, T., Hadiansyah, F., Nurdayat, I. F., & Pambudi, N. F. (2020). Road Pricing in Indonesia: How Will Public Respond?. Transportation Research Procedia, 47, 123-130. Go to original source...
    37. Tillema, T., Wee, V. B., & Ettema, D. (2005). Road pricing and (re) location decisions households. 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: Land Use and Water Management in a Sustainable Network Society, 23-27 August 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    38. Ubbels, B., & Verhoef, E. T. (2006). Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands. European Transport \\ Trasporti Europei, 32, 69-94.
    39. Vrtic, M., Schuessler, N., Erath, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2010). The impacts of road pricing on route and mode choice behavior. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(1), 109-126. Go to original source...
    40. Wang, X., Rodríguez, D. A., & Mahendra, A. (2021). Support for market-based and command-and-control congestion relief policies in Latin American cities: Effects of mobility, environmental health, and city-level factors. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 146, 91-108. Go to original source...
    41. Zheng, Z., Liu, Z., Liu, C., & 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. Go to original source...
    42. Zmud, J., & Arce, C. (2008). Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. NCHRP, Washington, D.C. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content