The complexity of urban congestion requires policy-makers to adopt different congestion control measures that suit the characteristics of the city at the proper time. The paper focuses on the most controversial congestion pricing and offers methods to judge the efficacy of the policy by game theoretic approaches. It is found that congestion pricing is not merely a Pigouvian tax that internalizes drivers’ externalities, but also a powerful means to enhance public traffic proportion and balance road utilization on the premise of maximized social util-ity. Meanwhile, the embedded multiple case study shows that theoretical correctness of the policy is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for its effectiveness because the valid operation of the policy further requires cities to hold certain attributes in some aspects, such as econom-ic level, population density, proper pricing mechanism, and the ability to limit access to and from certain areas. Moreover, the authority should pay attention to matching the policy goal and its functions for successful implementation.
OECD. Tax policy reforms 2018: OECD and selected partner economies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018.
Vickrey WS. Pricing in urban and suburban transport. The American Economic Review. 1963;53(2): 452-465. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1823886 [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Ridder ZJ. The efficacy of congestion pricing. Honors The-ses. 2016;76: 1-46. https://scholar.utc.edu/honors-theses/76/ [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Song S. Should China implement congestion pric-ing? Chinese Economy. 2015;48(1): 57-67. doi: 10.1080/10971475.2015.993200.
Litman T. London congestion pricing–implications for other cities. CESifo DICE Report. 2005;3(3): 17-21. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6630967.pdf [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Jakob M, Menendez M. Parking pricing vs. congestion pricing: A macroscopic analysis of their impact on traf-fic. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science. 2020;17(4): 1-30. doi: 10.1080/23249935.2020.1797924.
Small KA, Verhoef ET, Lindsey R. The economics of urban transportation. London: Routledge; 2007.
Pigou AC. The economics of welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
Knight FH. Some fallacies in the interpretation of social cost. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1924;38(4): 582-606. doi: 10.2307/1884592.
Walters AA. The theory and measurement of private and social cost of highway congestion. Econometrica.1961;29(4): 676-699. doi: 10.2307/1911814.
Sharp C. Congestion and welfare-an examination of the case for a congestion tax. The Economic Journal. 1966;76(304): 806-817. doi: 10.2307/2229084.
Emmerink R, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P. Is congestion pric-ing a first-best strategy in transport policy? A critical re-view of arguments. Environment and Planning B: Plan-ning and Design. 1995;22(5): 581-602. doi: 10.1068/B220581.
Lucchetti R. A Primer in Game Theory. Bologna: Soci-età Editrice Esculapio; 2011.
Levinson D. Micro-foundations of congestion and pric-ing: A game theory perspective. Transportation Re-search Part A: Policy and Practice. 2005;39(7-9): 691-704. doi: 10.1016/J.TRA.2005.02.021.
Ohazulike AESG. Multi-stakeholder road pricing game: solution concepts. International Journal of Compu-tational and Mathematical Sciences. 2012;6: 1-12. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6398255/v63-3.pdf [Ac-cessed 2nd June 2021].
Xiao N, et al. Road pricing design based on game the-ory and multi-agent consensus. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica. 2014;1(1): 31-39. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2014.7004617.
Staňková K, Boudewijn A. Stackelberg and Inverse Stackelberg Road Pricing Games: State of the Art and Future Research. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2015. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publica-tions/stackelberg-and-inverse-stackelberg-road-pric-ing-games [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Heller C, Johnen J, Schmitz S. Congestion pricing: A mechanism design approach. Journal of Trans-port Economics and Policy. 2019;53(1): 74-98. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lse/jtep/2019/00000053/00000001/art00005 [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Evans AW. Road congestion pricing: when is it a good policy? Journal of Transport Economics and Poli-cy. 1992;26(3): 213-243. https://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/20052985 [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Giuliano G. An assessment of the political acceptability of congestion pricing. Transportation. 1992;19(4): 335-358. doi: 10.1007/BF01098638.
Santos G. Urban congestion charging: A com-parison between London and Singapore. Trans-port Reviews. 2005;25(5): 511-534. doi: 10.1080/01441640500064439.
Paul A, Chilamkurti N, Daniel A, Rho S. Intelligent Vehicular Networks and Communications: Fundamen-tals, Architectures and Solutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017.
Eaton B, Schelling T. Micromotives and Macrobehav-ior. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company; 1978.
Joksimovic D, Verhoef E, Bliemer MC, Bovy PH. Dif-ferent Policy Objectives of the Road-Pricing Problem: A Game-theoretic Approach. London: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2008. http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersa-confs/ersa05/papers/430.pdf [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Boschma RA, Wenting R. The spatial evolution of the British automobile industry. Papers in Evolution-ary Economic Geography. 2004;5(04): 1-23. http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg0504.pdf [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Huang W, Zhou J, Xie Y. [Government, Market and people's preference: Experiences and implications of transit development in Los Angeles]. Urban Planning International. 2012;27(06): 107-112. Chinese.
Narahari Y. Game theory and mechanism design. Singa-pore: World Scientific; 2014.
Duranton G, Turner MA. The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities. American Eco-nomic Review. 2011;101(6): 2616-2652. doi: 10.1257/AER.101.6.2616.
Easley D, Kleinberg J. Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. Signifi-cance. 2012;9: 43-44. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d754/d6b0f8ab6fd30bf72737e4288cc565bfe69c.pdf [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Eliasson J. A cost–benefit analysis of the Stockholm con-gestion charging system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2009;43(4): 468-480. doi: 10.1016/J.TRA.2008.11.014.
Cipriani E, et al. Congestion pricing policies: Design and assessment for the city of Rome, Italy. Transport Policy. 2019;80: 127-135. doi: 10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2018.10.004.
Phang S, Toh RS. Road congestion pricing in Singapore: 1975 to 2003. Transportation Journal. 2004;43(02): 16-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713563 [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Hau T. Electronic road pricing: Developments in Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Economics and Poli-cy. 1990;24(02): 203-214. https://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/20052918 [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Livingstone K. The challenge of driving through change: Introducing congestion charging in central London. Planning Theory & Practice. 2004;5(4): 490-498. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000293224.
Leape J. The London congestion charge. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2006;20(4): 157-176. doi: 10.1257/JEP.20.4.157.
Santos G, Shaffer B. Preliminary results of the Lon-don congestion charging scheme. Public Works Man-agement & Policy. 2004;9(2): 164-181. doi: 10.1177/1087724X04268569.
Jansson JO. Public transport policy for central-city travel in the light of recent experiences of congestion charging. Research in Transportation Economics. 2008;22(1): 179-187. doi: 10.1016/J.RETREC.2008.05.027.
Beevers SD, Carslaw DC. The impact of congestion charging on vehicle emissions in London. Atmospher-ic Environment. 2005;39(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1016/J.AT-MOSENV.2004.10.001.
Jansson JO. Public transport policy for central-city travel in the light of recent experiences of congestion charging. Research in Transportation Economics. 2008;22(1): 179-187. doi: 10.1016/J.RETREC.2008.05.027.
Eliasson J. Lessons from the congestion charging tri-al. Transport Policy. 2008;15: 395-404. doi: 10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2008.12.004.
Eliasson J, Hugosson M. The Stockholm congestion charging system–An overview of the effects after six months. The Association for European Transport Con-ference, 18-20 September 2006, Strasbourg, France. Melbourne: World Transit Research; 2006. p. 1-22. https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/2796/ [Accessed 2nd June 2021].
Börjesson M, Eliasson J, Hamilton C. Why expe-rience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2016;85: 1-16. doi: 10.1016/J.TRA.2015.12.002.
Schaller B. New York City's congestion pricing experi-ence and implications for road pricing acceptance in the United States. Transport Policy. 2010;17(4): 266-273. doi: 10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2010.01.013.
Guest Editor: Eleonora Papadimitriou, PhD
Editors: Marko Matulin, PhD; Dario Babić, PhD; Marko Ševrović, PhD.
The mission of our journal is to provide high quality communication of research results, which is crucial for the effectiveness of scientific research, the promotion of scientific information, new ideas, and original research in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
1848-4069
0353-5320
Proud publisher
Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science |
2024 © Promet - Traffic&Transportation journal
