The possible transportation and property value impacts of a new congestion management policy called credit-based congestion pricing (CBCP) are explored. With destination, mode, and departure-time choice models sensitive to changes in travel times and costs, household travel demands were simulated to appreciate the transportation effects of a CBCP policy for Austin, Texas. Changes in home values as a result of CBCP also were simulated. To identify households and neighborhoods that would benefit most and least from such policies, the trip-based welfare impacts of such a policy were compared for three scenarios: full network pricing, major highway pricing only, and no pricing. Results corroborate previous results and hypotheses about the potential of a CBCP policy to alleviate congestion and generate benefits across the region and traveler types.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ScheibalS.New Planning Group Kicks-Off Effort with Survey on What Area Residents Want. Austin American Statesman, Aug. 26, 2002.
2.
KnickerbockerB.Forget Crime—But Please Fix the Traffic. Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 16, 2000.
SchrankD., and LomaxT.. The Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex., 2002.
5.
VickreyW.Pricing in Urban and Suburban Transport. American Economic Review, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1963, pp. 452–465.
6.
VickreyW.Congestion Theory and Transport Investment. American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, 1969, pp. 251–260.
7.
ArnottR., de PalmaA., and LindseyR.. A Structural Model of Peak-Period Congestion: A Traffic Bottleneck with Elastic Demand. American Economic Review, Vol. 83, 1993, pp. 161–79.
8.
ButtonK. J., and VerhoefE. T., eds. Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment: Issues of Efficiency and Social Feasibility. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 1998.
9.
SmallK. A., and YanJ.. The Value of "Value Pricing" of Roads: Second-Best Pricing and Product Differentiation. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 49, 2001, pp. 310–336.
10.
HymanG., and, MayhewL.. Optimizing the Benefits of Road User Charging. Transport Policy, Vol. 9, 2002, pp. 189–207.
11.
LitmanT.London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2003. http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf
12.
SullivanE., with BakelyK., DalyJ., GilpinJ., MastakoK., SmallK., and YanJ.. Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR 91 Value-Priced Express Lanes: Final Report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, 2000. ceenve.ceng.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91/
13.
ZupanJ. M., and PerrottaA. F.. An Exploration of Motor Vehicle Congestion Pricing in New York. Regional Plan Association, New York, 2003. www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA_Congestion_Pricing_NY.pdf
ArnottR., and SmallK.. The Economics of Traffic Congestion. American Scientist, Vol. 82, 1994, pp. 447–455.
16.
DialR. B.Minimal Revenue Congestion Pricing Part I: A Fast Algorithm for the Single-Origin Case. Transportation Research B, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1999, pp. 189–202.
17.
ViegasJ. M.Making Urban Road Pricing Acceptable and Effective: Searching for Quality and Equity in Urban Mobility. Transport Policy, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2001, pp. 289–294.
18.
RothengatterW.How Good Is First Best? Marginal Cost and Other Pricing Principles for User Charging in Transport. Transport Policy, Vol. 10, 2003, pp. 121–130.
19.
DeCorla-SouzaP.FAIR Lanes: A New Approach to Managing Traffic Congestion. ITS Quarterly, Vol. VIII, No. 2, 2000.
20.
DaganzoC. F.A Pareto Optimum Congestion Reduction Scheme. Transportation Research B, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1995, pp. 139–154.
21.
NakamuraK., and KockelmanK.. Congestion Pricing and Roadspace Rationing: An Application to the San Francisco Bay Bridge Corridor. Transportation Research A, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2002, pp. 403–417.
22.
KockelmanK., and KalmanjeS.. Credit-Based Congestion Pricing: A Policy Proposal and the Public's Response. Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research (Lucerne, Switzerland, Aug. 10-14, 2003); Transportation Research A, 2005 (forthcoming).
23.
Austin Travel Study. City of Austin, Tex., 1998.
24.
CAMPO. 1997 Base Year Travel Demand Model Calibration Summary for Updating the 2025 Long Range Plan. Transportation Planning and Programming Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2000.
25.
CAMPO Mode Choice Model Application Draft. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Austin, Tex., 2001.
GAUSS Mathematical and Statistical System. Aptech Systems Inc., Maple Valley, Wash., 1996.
28.
MartinW. A., and McGuckinN. A.. NCHRP Report 365: Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
29.
Traffic Assignment Manual. Bureau of Public Roads, 1964, Washington, D.C.
30.
KrishnamurthyS. M.S. thesis. University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
31.
KrishnamurthyS., and KockelmanK. M.. Propagation of Uncertainty in Transportation Land Use Models: An Investigation of DRAM-EMPAL and UTTP Predictions in Austin, Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 219–229.
32.
ParryI. W. H., and BentoA.. Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 103, No. 4, 2001, pp. 645–671.
33.
KockelmanK. M.Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in San Francisco Bay Area. In Transportation Research Record 1606, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 40–50.
34.
SrourI. M., KockelmanK. M., and DunnT. P.. Accessibility Indices: Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 25–34.
35.
WaddellP., and NourzadF.. Incorporating Nonmotorized Mode and Neighborhood Accessibility in an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Model System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 119–127.
