IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oruesi/2009_016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Green Cars Sterilize Congestion Charges: A Model Analysis Of The Reduced Impact Of Stockholm Road Tolls

Author

Listed:
  • Hultkrantz, Lars

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

  • Liu, Xing

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

Abstract

Beforeafter comparisons indicate that the impact of the road toll in Stockholm on traffic volumes was smaller when the system was reopened in 2007, compared to the effect during the trial in 2006. We calibrate a modalchoice model on data for Stockholm from before and during the trial and use it to simulate the effects of some seemingly subtle changes of the design of the congestioncharge scheme. We find that the growth of the share of exempted ”green” cars and the decision to make charges deductible from the income tax may have considerably reduced the positive welfare effect of the toll.

Suggested Citation

  • Hultkrantz, Lars & Liu, Xing, 2009. "Green Cars Sterilize Congestion Charges: A Model Analysis Of The Reduced Impact Of Stockholm Road Tolls," Working Papers 2009:16, Örebro University, School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2009_016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eliasson, Jonas, 2009. "A cost-benefit analysis of the Stockholm congestion charging system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 468-480, May.
    2. Glazer, Amihai & Niskanen, Esko, 2000. "Which consumers benefit from congestion tolls?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt70v033nx, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Isaksson, Karolina & Richardson, Tim, 2009. "Building legitimacy for risky policies: The cost of avoiding conflict in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 251-257, March.
    4. Small, Kenneth A. & Yan, Jia, 2001. "The Value of "Value Pricing" of Roads: Second-Best Pricing and Product Differentiation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 310-336, March.
    5. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    6. Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
    7. Winslott-Hiselius, Lena & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Vagland, Asa & Byström, Camilla, 2009. "The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 269-282, March.
    8. Armelius, Hanna & Hultkrantz, Lars, 2006. "The politico-economic link between public transport and road pricing: An ex-ante study of the Stockholm road-pricing trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 162-172, March.
    9. Glazer, Amihai & Niskanen, Esko, 2000. "Which consumers benefit from congestion tolls?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt33d88115, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. Small, Kenneth A., 2001. "The Value of Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0rm449sx, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.
    12. Richard Arnott & An Yan, 2000. "The Two-Mode Problem: Second-Best Pricing and Capacity," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 474, Boston College Department of Economics.
    13. Kutzbach, Mark J., 2009. "Motorization in developing countries: Causes, consequences, and effectiveness of policy options," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 154-166, March.
    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. Whitehead, Jake & Franklin, Joel P. & Washington, Simon, 2014. "The impact of a congestion pricing exemption on the demand for new energy efficient vehicles in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 24-40.
    2. Jonas Westin, 2011. "Labor Market Effects of Road Pricing in a Population with Continuously Distributed Value of Time," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1458, European Regional Science Association.
    3. André de Palma & Robin Lindsey, 2009. "Traffic Congestion Pricing Methods and Technologies," Working Papers hal-00414526, HAL.
    4. Shewmake, Sharon & Jarvis, Lovell, 2014. "Hybrid cars and HOV lanes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 304-319.

    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. Jonas Westin, 2011. "Labor Market Effects of Road Pricing in a Population with Continuously Distributed Value of Time," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1458, European Regional Science Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Coria, Jessica & Bonilla, Jorge & Grundström, Maria & Pleijel, Håkan, 2015. "Air pollution dynamics and the need for temporally differentiated road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 178-195.
    4. Kutzbach, Mark J., 2009. "Motorization in developing countries: Causes, consequences, and effectiveness of policy options," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 154-166, March.
    5. Hultkrantz, Lars & Nilsson, Jan-Eric & Arvidsson, Sara, 2012. "Voluntary internalization of speeding externalities with vehicle insurance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 926-937.
    6. 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.
    7. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Börjesson, Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2012. "Estimating welfare effects of congestion charges in real world settings," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:13, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    9. 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.
    10. De Vos, Jonas, 2016. "Road pricing in a polycentric urban region: Analysing a pilot project in Belgium," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 134-142.
    11. Hysing, Erik & Isaksson, Karolina, 2015. "Building acceptance for congestion charges – the Swedish experiences compared," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 52-60.
    12. Vandyck, Toon & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2018. "Regional labor markets, commuting, and the economic impact of road pricing," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 217-236.
    13. Diao, Mi, 2019. "Towards sustainable urban transport in Singapore: Policy instruments and mobility trends," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 320-330.
    14. 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.
    15. Jens West & Maria Börjesson, 2020. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: cost–benefit analysis and distribution effects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 145-174, February.
    16. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    17. 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.
    18. West, Jens & Börjesson, Maria, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: CBA and equity," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:17, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    19. Börjesson, Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2014. "Assessing the welfare effects of congestion charges in a real world setting," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 339-355.
    20. Börjesson, Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2018. "The Swedish congestion charges: Ten years on," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 35-51.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    congestion pricing; equity effects; modal choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
    • R48 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government Pricing and Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:oruesi:2009_016. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieoruse.html .

    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.