IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v135y2020icp63-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdizadeh, Milad
  • Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin

Abstract

Although previous studies have explored predictors of Congestion Charging (CC) acceptability and acceptance, there is no study investigating the rule-breaking behaviour towards a CC scheme. The current study thus examined the effects of a wide range of attitudinal factors as well as demographic, socioeconomic, built environment and travel-related characteristics on rule-breaking/following behaviour towards an ongoing CC scheme. Our major contribution to the state of the art is threefold: (a) we reveal the extent to which citizens break the rule of an active scheme and illegally drive through the CC area, (b) we simultaneously test the relative roles of several latent attitudinal and observed variables in the type of rule-breaking/following conduct in an integrated framework through developing a hybrid choice model, and (c) we empirically investigate how and to what extent the level of legitimacy of an active CC scheme appears in a city in the Middle East context, where politicians have neglected the direct participation of public via referendum voting in the policy process behind the introduction of the CC. A sample of car users was recruited during February and March 2019 in Tehran. A cross-sectional design using a self-report questionnaire survey was conducted. Out of 622 citizens participated in this study, 595 valid observations were used for analysis. Our findings showed significant difference between predictors for those frequently (mono-rule breakers) broke and those who rarely or occasionally (multi rule-breakers) broke the rule of CC. The finding also revealed that latent attitudinal factors could have greater impacts on rule-breaking behaviour than observed variables. Lack of trust in government concerning final use of CC revenues and a lower perceived effectiveness of the CC had the strongest influence on the probability of violating the CC rule. We suggested both short and long-term policies to deal with the issues of legitimacy and survival of the CC scheme. With regard to short-term policy, using media and social networks, the issue of complexity and lack of information about the charging system need to be well-addressed. Considering long-term policy, entrusting management system from governmental authorities to a private system as well as launching environmental campaigns could increase the public trust and effectiveness of the CC scheme, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:135:y:2020:i:c:p:63-79
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856419313175
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2006. "Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 69-94.
    2. Kim, Junghwa & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk & Fujii, Satoshi & Noland, Robert B., 2013. "Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 50-62.
    3. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hamilton, Carl, 2016. "Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-16.
    4. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    5. Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & Moons, Elke & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert, 2011. "The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 779-788, October.
    6. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    7. Odeck, James & Kjerkreit, Anne, 2010. "Evidence on users' attitudes towards road user charges--A cross-sectional survey of six Norwegian toll schemes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 349-358, November.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    10. Karlström, Anders & Franklin, Joel P., 2009. "Behavioral adjustments and equity effects of congestion pricing: Analysis of morning commutes during the Stockholm Trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 283-296, March.
    11. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    12. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Chorus, Caspar G. & Kroesen, Maarten, 2014. "On the (im-)possibility of deriving transport policy implications from hybrid choice models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 217-222.
    14. Wang, Lanlan & Xu, Jintao & Qin, Ping, 2014. "Will a driving restriction policy reduce car trips?—The case study of Beijing, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 279-290.
    15. Di Ciommo, Floridea & Monzón, Andrés & Fernandez-Heredia, Alvaro, 2013. "Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 302-316.
    16. Currie, Graham & Delbosc, Alexa, 2017. "An empirical model for the psychology of deliberate and unintentional fare evasion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 21-29.
    17. Troncoso, Rodrigo & de Grange, Louis, 2017. "Fare evasion in public transport: A time series approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 311-318.
    18. Özlem Şimşekoğlu & Trond Nordfjærn & Torbjørn Rundmo, 2017. "Predictors of car use habit strength in an urban Norwegian public," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 575-588, May.
    19. Wang, Lanlan & Xu, Jintao & Zheng, Xinye & Qin, Ping, "undated". "Will a Driving Restriction Policy Reduce Car Trips? A Case Study of Beijing, China," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-11-efd, Resources for the Future.
    20. de Palma, André & Lindsey, Robin & Proost, Stef, 2007. "Chapter 12 Synthesis of case study results and future prospects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 269-297, January.
    21. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Congestion charging and car use: A review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 47-61.
    22. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    23. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    24. Hysing, Erik, 2015. "Citizen participation or representative government – Building legitimacy for the Gothenburg congestion tax," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-8.
    25. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    26. Geertje Schuitema & Barry Ubbels & Linda Steg & Erik Verhoef, 2008. "Car Users’ Acceptability of a Kilometre Charge," Chapters, in: Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), Pricing in Road Transport, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    27. Barabino, Benedetto & Salis, Sara & Useli, Bruno, 2013. "A modified model to curb fare evasion and enforce compliance: Empirical evidence and implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 29-39.
    28. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
    29. Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Pricing in Road Transport," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4192.
    30. Barabino, Benedetto & Salis, Sara & Useli, Bruno, 2015. "What are the determinants in making people free riders in proof-of-payment transit systems? Evidence from Italy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 184-196.
    31. Olszewski, Piotr & Xie, Litian, 2005. "Modelling the effects of road pricing on traffic in Singapore," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 755-772.
    32. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 81-95.
    33. Börjesson, Maria & Hamilton, Carl J. & Näsman, Per & Papaix, Claire, 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, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 452-462.
    34. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Zavareh, Mohsen Fallah & Nordfjaern, Trond, 2019. "Mono- and multimodal green transport use on university trips during winter and summer: Hybrid choice models on the norm-activation theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 317-332.
    35. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    36. Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 1997. "On public attitudes toward implementation of toll roads--the case of Oslo toll ring," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 73-83, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang Yu & Zhang Dongbo & Zhang Yu, 2022. "GPS data Mining at Signalized Intersections for Congestion Charging," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 1713-1734, April.
    2. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    3. Tian, Lijun & Cui, Shuang & Huang, Haijun & Xu, Yan & Wang, Yacan, 2024. "How the norm activation model explains the individuals’ response to Tradable Credit Schemes and reducing car use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 208-223.
    4. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Solbu, Gisle & Klöckner, Christian A. & Moe Skjølsvold, Tomas, 2024. "Navigating acceptance and controversy of transport policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    5. Navid Nadimi & Aliakbar Zamzam & Todd Litman, 2023. "University Bus Services: Responding to Students’ Travel Demands?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Soltani, Ali & Allan, Andrew & Khalaj, Fahimeh & Pojani, Dorina & Mehdizadeh, Milad, 2021. "Ridesharing in Adelaide: Segmentation of users," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Fafoutellis, Panagiotis & Mantouka, Eleni G. & Vlahogianni, Eleni I., 2022. "Acceptance of a Pay-How-You-Drive pricing scheme for city traffic: The case of Athens," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 270-284.

    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. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    2. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    3. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    4. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    5. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Mohamad Shatanawi & Mohammed Hajouj & Belal Edries & Ferenc Mészáros, 2022. "The Interrelationship between Road Pricing Acceptability and Self-Driving Vehicle Adoption: Insights from Four Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, October.
    7. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    8. Jean-Philippe Meloche, 2019. "Towards a New Era in Road Pricing? Lessons from the Experience of First Movers," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-35, CIRANO.
    9. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    10. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    11. Emma Ejelöv & Andreas Nilsson, 2020. "Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Elmar Fürst & Maria Dieplinger, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing in Vienna: the preference patterns of car drivers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 765-784, July.
    13. Hansla, André & Hysing, Erik & Nilsson, Andreas & Martinsson, Johan, 2017. "Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 98-106.
    14. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    15. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Congestion charging and car use: A review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 47-61.
    16. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Romero, Fernando & Gomez, Juan & Paez, Antonio & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2020. "Toll roads vs. Public transportation: A study on the acceptance of congestion-calming measures in Madrid," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 319-342.
    18. Yacan Wang & Yu Wang & Luyao Xie & Huiyu Zhou, 2018. "Impact of Perceived Uncertainty on Public Acceptability of Congestion Charging: An Empirical Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    20. Sugiarto, Sugiarto & Miwa, Tomio & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2017. "Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 36-53.

    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:transa:v:135:y:2020:i:c:p:63-79. 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/547/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.