No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
RESEARCH ARTICLE: Value of Time Clustering and the Efficiency of Destination-Based Congestion Pricing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2011
Abstract
In cities with a hub-and-spoke style transportation system, each individual's transit decision produces externalities contained within a particular transit spoke. When spokes vary in the typical number of drivers, in the capacity of the infrastructure, or in the average income of commuters, the efficient tax to charge drivers to minimize the externalities may vary across spokes. The size and importance of this variation are evaluated by comparing the potential welfare benefits of a congestion tax in Chicago, which is different rates for different highways to a tax that is a single rate. Using the 2000 United States Census Public Use Microdata to estimate wage distribution and data from the Illinois Department of Transportation on vehicle speed and road occupancy, this research provides estimates of optimal taxes for each neighborhood and for the city in aggregate. Results show that optimal tax rates vary substantially, from a low of $6.75 per vehicle per day to a high of $16.50, but that the overall welfare difference between charging a neighborhood-specific tax and charging a citywide tax is minor. This occurs because the number of drivers changes very slowly at high tax rates, meaning that a wide range of taxes can produce nearly optimal results in terms of welfare. An optimal congestion tax of $11.25 per day is estimated to result in 400,000 fewer downtown commutes per day, reducing pollution costs valued at $2.9 million per year.
Environmental Practice 13:1–10 (2011)
- Type
- Features
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2011
References
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). 2007a. Congestion Pricing. In Pricing and Managed Facilities. CMAP, Chicago. Available at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/strategy-papers/pricing-and-managed-facilities/congestion-pricing (accessed January 17, 2011).Google Scholar
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). 2007b. Congestion Reduction Demonstration for Northeast Illinois: A Proposal for Direct Highway Pricing, Transit, Technology, and Supporting Strategies. Submitted to the United States Department of Transportation. CMAP, Chicago, 36 pp. Available at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/20583/3f5acb24-0e45-4473-8313-af8a454a72d2 (accessed September 17, 2011).Google Scholar
Commute Solutions. n.d. The True Cost of Driving: How Much Does It Really Cost You to Drive? Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, Santa Cruz, CA, 1 p. Available at http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm (accessed September 5, 2010).Google Scholar
The Cost of Parking: Downtown Is Most Costly, but Early Birds Catch a Break. 2008. Chicago Tribune, May 5, p. 6. Available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-05-05/news/0805050347_1_parking-rates-parking-spaces-parking-survey (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
De Palma, A., Kilani, M., and Lindsey, R.. 2005. Congestion Pricing on a Road Network: A Study Using the Dynamic Equilibrium Simulator METROPOLIS. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice 39(7-9):588–611.Google Scholar
De Palma, A., and Lindsey, R.. 2001. Optimal Timetables for Public Transportation. Transportation Research, Part B: Methodological 35(8):789–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Palma, A., and Lindsey, R.. 2002. Private Roads, Competition, and Incentives to Adopt Time-Based Congestion Tolling. Journal of Urban Economics 52(2):217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Palma, A., and Lindsey, R.. 2004. Congestion Pricing with Heterogeneous Travelers: A General-Equilibrium Welfare Analysis. Networks and Spatial Economics 4(2):135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Palma, A., and Lindsey, R.. 2006. Modelling and Evaluation of Road Pricing in Paris. Transport Policy 13(2):115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasson, J., and Mattson, L.-G.. 2006. Equity Effects of Congestion Pricing Quantitative Methodology and a Case Study for Stockholm. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice 40(7):602–620.Google Scholar
Harris, J., and Shaikh, S.L.. 2010, October. Further Consideration of the Effects of Value of Time Clustering. Working Paper. University of Chicago, Chicago, 36 pp. Available at http://home.uchicago.edu/~sabina/Value%20of%20Time%20Clustering%20Working%20Paper.pdf (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Holguín-Veras, J., and Cetin, M.. 2009. Optimal Tolls for Multi-class Traffic: Analytical Formulations and Policy Implications. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice 43(4):445–467.Google Scholar
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). 2010, February 10. Gary–Chicago–Milwaukee Corridor Travel Data. IDOT, Springfield. Available at http://gcmtravel.com (upon request).Google Scholar
Leape, J. 2006. The London Congestion Charge. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(4):157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M.Z.F. 2002. The Role of Speed–Flow Relationship in Congestion Pricing Implementation with an Application to Singapore. Transportation Research, Part B: Methodological 36(8):731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metropolitan Planning Council. 2008, August. Moving at the Speed of Congestion: The True Costs of Congestion in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Planning Council, Chicago, 20 pp. Available at http://www.movingbeyondcongestion.org/downloads/MPC%20-%20Moving%20at%20the%20Speed%20of%20Congestion.pdf (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Parry, I.W.H. 2000, November. Comparing the Efficiency of Alternative Policies for Reducing Traffic Congestion. Journal of Public Economics 85(3):333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, I.W.H. 2008. Pricing Urban Congestion. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 36 pp. Available at http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-08-35.pdf (accessed January 19, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrank, D., and Lomack, T.. 2007, September. The 2007 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 133 pp. Available at Commuter Cars, http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/UrbanMobility07.pdf (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Schweitzer, L., and Taylor, B.D.. 2008. Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes. Transportation 35(6):797–812.Google Scholar
Small, K.A. 1994. Charging for Road Use Worldwide: An Appraisal of Road Pricing, Tolls and Parking. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice 28(5):447–448Google Scholar
Small, K.A. 2004. Road Pricing and Public Transport. In Research in Transport Economics, volume 9: Road Pricing: Theory and Evidence, Santos, G., ed. JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 133–158.Google Scholar
Small, K.A., and Yan, J.. 2001. The Value of “Value Pricing” of Roads: Second-Best Pricing and Product Differentiation. Journal of Urban Economics 49(2):310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census. 2000. Demographic Profiles. Available at www.census.gov (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Vickrey, W.S. 1952. The Revision of the Rapid Transit Fare Structure of the City of New York. Mimeo. Technical Monograph 3. Finance Project, Mayor's Committee for Management Survey of the City of New York. N.p., New York, 156 pp.Google Scholar