IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i10p8104-d1148538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Travel Choice Probability of Link-Based Congestion Charging Scheme for Car Commuter Trips in Jakarta

Author

Listed:
  • Masrono Yugihartiman

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40115, Indonesia)

  • B. Budiono

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40115, Indonesia)

  • Maman Setiawan

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40115, Indonesia)

  • Achmad Kemal Hidayat

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40115, Indonesia)

Abstract

The likely effects on car commuters of enforcing congestion charging using the link-based corridor method include that they may shift to public transport, divert their route of travel, or decide not to travel to the related area. However, most recent research has focused mainly on the choice of modes. This paper examined the travel choices of private car commuters resulting from the congestion charging scheme set to be implemented in Jakarta, Indonesia. The scheme is intended to replace the current odd-even strategy. It is imperative to study all possible mutually exclusive alternatives faced by car commuters. A web-based e-survey was used for data collection, employing the stated preference method. The discrete choice multinomial logit model was chosen to analyze the data. A total of 401 of the 2125 respondents to the e-survey questionnaire link, evenly distributed to all areas of Greater Jakarta, were sampled in this study. The sample respondents who traveled by car, passing through the eight designated corridors, were analyzed. NLOGIT6 software was used to analyze the parameter of attributes, the probability of alternatives chosen, and the marginal effects of congestion charging on such corridors, employing the multinomial logit model (MNLM). One surprising finding was that the load factor and taxi fares were not significant, indicating that the level of in-vehicle overcrowding is not a concern of respondents, and taxi services are not a substitute for car travel. Another surprising finding was that income variables and job type do not significantly influence travel behavior. In terms of the probability of commuters to continue to travel by car when link-based congestion charging is imposed, only around half of the car travelers were willing to pay the congestion levy and pass through congestion charging corridors. The probability of car travelers diverting onto alternative roads is high, i.e., around 16.82% to 22.88%, while the probability of car travelers shifting to mass transportation is 17.69%. When interpreting direct marginal effects, there is a change in the probability of all travelers choosing to use private cars through the congestion charging corridor of −0.0338, or a decrease of −3.38% for every IDR 1000 increase in the congestion charging levy rate, ceteris paribus.

Suggested Citation

  • Masrono Yugihartiman & B. Budiono & Maman Setiawan & Achmad Kemal Hidayat, 2023. "Estimating Travel Choice Probability of Link-Based Congestion Charging Scheme for Car Commuter Trips in Jakarta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8104-:d:1148538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8104/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8104/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Lindsey, 2006. "Do Economists Reach A Conclusion on Road Pricing? The Intellectual History of an Idea," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 3(2), pages 292-379, May.
    2. Hau, Timothy D., 1992. "Economic fundamentals of road pricing : a diagrammatic analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1070, The World Bank.
    3. De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2012. "A political economy model of road pricing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 79-92.
    4. Meyer, Michael D., 1999. "Demand management as an element of transportation policy: using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 575-599.
    5. Agarwal, Sumit & Koo, Kang Mo, 2016. "Impact of electronic road pricing (ERP) changes on transport modal choice," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-11.
    6. C. Robin Lindsey & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "Traffic Congestion and Congestion Pricing," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-101/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Xijie Li & Ying Lv & Wei Sun & Li Zhou, 2019. "Cordon- or Link-Based Pricing: Environment-Oriented Toll Design Models Development and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Handy, Susan & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 1996. "The Future of Telecommuting," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5nm777c1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Claudio R. Lucinda & Rodrigo Moita, 2019. "The Political Economy of an Optimal Congestion Tax: An Empirical Investigation," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_10, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    3. Börjesson, Maria & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Not invented here: Transferability of congestion charges effects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 263-271.
    4. Carmona, Miguel, 2010. "The regulatory function in public-private partnerships for the provision of transport infrastructure," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 110-125.
    5. Vanoutrive, Thomas & Zijlstra, Toon, 2018. "Who has the right to travel during peak hours? On congestion pricing and ‘desirable’ travellers," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 98-107.
    6. Chen, Daqiang & Ignatius, Joshua & Sun, Danzhi & Goh, Mark & Zhan, Shalei, 2018. "Impact of congestion pricing schemes on emissions and temporal shift of freight transport," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 77-105.
    7. Marcelo Maciel & Luiz Rosa & Fernando Correa & Ursula Maruyama, 2012. "Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation (IMT): A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-27, March.
    8. Jinwon Kim & Jucheol Moon & Dongyun Yang, 2024. "Pigouvian Congestion Tolls and the Welfare Gain: Estimates for California Freeways," Working Papers 2402, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    9. Blair Jenkins, 2009. "Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(1), pages 73-112, January.
    10. Janusch, Nicholas, 2016. "A note on the distortionary effects of revenue-neutral tolls in a bottleneck congestion game," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 95-103.
    11. Russo, Antonio & Adler, Martin W. & Liberini, Federica & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2021. "Welfare losses of road congestion: Evidence from Rome," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Julie Bulteau & Thierry Feuillet & Sophie Dantan & Souhir Abbes, 2023. "Encouraging carpooling for commuting in the Paris area (France): which incentives and for whom?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 43-62, February.
    13. Bertaud, Alain, 2003. "Clearing the air in Atlanta: transit and smart growth or conventional economics?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 379-400, November.
    14. Jun Guan Neoh & Maxwell Chipulu & Alasdair Marshall, 2017. "What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 423-447, March.
    15. Tscharaktschiew, Stefan & Reimann, Felix, 2021. "On employer-paid parking and parking (cash-out) policy: A formal synthesis of different perspectives," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 499-516.
    16. Jesper de Groote & Jos van Ommeren & Hans R. A. Koster, 2018. "The Impact of Parking Policy on House Prices," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 52(3), pages 267-26-282.
    17. Ngee-Choon Chia & Albert K C Tsui & John Whalley, 2003. "Taxes and Traffic in Asian Cities: Ownership and use taxes on Autos in Singapore," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 20035, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    18. Apostolos Giantsidis, 2014. "Mobility Management in small and medium cities: The case of Serres," ERSA conference papers ersa14p390, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Ian W. H. Parry & Antonio Bento, 2001. "Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 103(4), pages 645-671, December.
    20. Goulden, Murray & Ryley, Tim & Dingwall, Robert, 2014. "Beyond ‘predict and provide’: UK transport, the growth paradigm and climate change," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 139-147.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8104-:d:1148538. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.