A major concern of business with respect to transport-charging interventions is the context of revenue-investment policy, particularly how the timing of improvements may alter the time lags between fewer car journeys and more public transport journeys, and the problems for business in the intervening periods. The authors present a conceptual framework and case study of the whole-life effects on business performance. The impacts of charging occur as a sequence of gradually interacting changes, rather than as a single set of impacts, and positive amenity effects brought about through revenue hypothecation occur incrementally, taking years to achieve full effect. In the case study, a Delphi panel of business leaders predicted the time-marching effects of workplace-parking levies and road-user charging over a 24-year period in Nottingham. The findings revealed that the temporal nature of hypothecation results in minor fluctuations in performance for some business sectors in the first few years, but that these tail off as benefits gradually overwhelm disbenefits resulting in modest increases in performance for most sectors in the medium to long term. Many local authorities are reluctant to implement charging interventions due to concerns about economic vitality; it is expected that the results will inform policy and future research in this area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmaraR CLipinskiA J, 1972, “Some views on the use of expert judgement”Technological Forecasting and Social Change3279–289.
2.
Cavalli-SforzaVOrtolanoL, 1984, “Delphi forecasts of land use: Transportation interactions”Transportation Engineering110324–339.
3.
CollisHInwoodH, 1996, “Attitudes to road pricing in the Bristol area”Traffic Engineering and Control8580–584.
4.
DargayJHanlyM, 2002, “The demand for local bus services”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy36(1) 73–91.
5.
DETR, 1998Breaking the Logjam: The Government's Consultation Paper on Fighting Traffic Congestion and Pollution through Road User and Workplace Parking Charges Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (The Stationery Office, London).
6.
DETR, 2000Breaking the Logjam—The Government Response to the Consultation Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (The Stationery Office, London).
7.
DTZ Pieda, 2000Report on the Impacts of the Road User Charging Proposal in Edinburgh DTZ Pieda, 28 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh EH3 7R7, http://www.dtzpiedaconsulting.co.uk.
8.
ECOTEC Ltd, 2000Business Impact Study of Workplace Parking Levies in the West MidlandsECOTEC Research and Consulting, 12–26 Albert Street, Birmingham B4 7UD, http://www.ecotec.co.uk.
9.
FlowerdewAStevensR, 1994, “The effects of road pricing on land values and future settlement patterns”, report to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 12 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AE.
10.
GerrardBStillBJopsonA, 2001, “The impact of road pricing and workplace parking levies on the urban economy: Results from a survey of business attitudes”Environment and Planning A331985–2002.
11.
GLA, 2001Draft Transport Strategy. Annex 4: The Congestion Charging Scheme for Central LondonGreater London Authority, Transport for London, Windsor House, 42–50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL.
12.
GNTEC, 1999Annual Employer Survey Greater Nottingham Training, and Enterprise Council, W M Enterprise Ltd, Wellington House, 31–34 Waterloo Street, Birmingham B2 5TJ.
13.
GoodwinP B, 1989, “The rule of three. A possible solution to the political problem of competing objectives for road pricing”Traffic Engineering and Control29495–497.
14.
GrahamDGlaisterS, 2002, “The demand for automobile fuel: A Survey of elasticities”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy31(1) 1–26.
15.
HenneberryJLawlessPTownroeP, 1998, “Non-user benefits from investment in urban light rail: Evidence from Sheffield”, in Transport Policy and the Environment Ed. BanisterD (E & F N Spon, London) chapter 15.
16.
JonesP, 1998, “Urban road pricing: Public acceptability and barriers to implementation”, in Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment—Issues of Efficiency and Social Feasibility Eds ButtonKVerhoefE T (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 263–284.
17.
Ministry of Transport, 1964Road Pricing: The Economic and Technical Possibilities (The Smeed Report) (HMSO, London).
18.
NCC, 1998City Centre Performance IndicatorsNottingham City Council, The Guildhall, South Sherwood Street, Nottingham NG1 4BT.
19.
NCC, 2000Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottinghamshire—Full Plan 2001/02-2005/06Nottingham City Council, The Guildhall, South Sherwood Street, Nottingham NG1 4BT, and Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP.
20.
Office for National Statistics, 2000Regional Trends (The Stationery Office, London).
21.
Oscar Faber Consultancy Ltd, 2001, “Workplace parking levy—guidance document for local authorities. Final report”, DETR Contract PPAD 9/99/32, Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Eland House, Brassenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
22.
ROCOL, 2000Road Charging Options for London—A Technical Assessment. Review of Charging Options for London GroupGovernment Office for London, Riverwalk House, 157–161 Millbank, London SW1P 4RR.
23.
SACTRA, 1999Transport and the Economy Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (The Stationery Office, London).
24.
SmallK A, 1992, “Using the revenues from congestion pricing”Transportation19359–381.
25.
SmythA, 1995, “The development of long term land use guidelines and public transport strategy in Belfast—lessons for medium-sized cities”Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Transport111213–224.
26.
StillB, 1997Transport Impacts on Land Use: Towards a Practical Understanding for Urban Policy Making PhD dissertation, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds.
27.
StillBMayABristowA, 1999, “The assessment of transport impacts on land use: Practical uses in strategic planning”Transport Policy6(2) 83–98.
28.
Transport Act, 2000Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 38 (The Stationery Office, London).
29.
Transport for London, 2003Congestion Charging Six Months OnTransport for London, Windsor House, 42–50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL.
30.
UnderwoodS E, 1992, “Delphi forecast and analysis of intelligent-vehicle-highways systems through 1991”, IVHS Technical Report 92-17, University of Michigan Transport Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.
31.
WaltersA, 1961, “The theory and measurement of private and social cost of highways congestion”Econometrics29676–699.
32.
WhiteheadT, 2002, “Road user charging and business performance: Identifying the processes of economic change”Transport Policy9(4) 47–66.
33.
WhiteheadT, 2005, “The new transport charging powers: The (real) issues for business—credibility fairness and red-tape?”Journal of Local Government Studies in press.
34.
WhiteheadTSimmondsDPrestonJ, 2005, “The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity”Journal of Environmental Management in press.
