Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 511–535 | Cite as

Local Transportation Policy and the Environment

  • Armin Schmutzler
Article

Abstract

The paper introduces a simple framework for analyzing the environmental effects of local transportation policies, and it reviews some evidence. In several cases, subsidies for local public transportation have led to substantial reductions in road transportation and have thereby reduced externalities. Some but not all estimates suggest positive overall welfare effects of such policies. In the rare cases where road pricing has been applied, it has helped to reduce automobile transportation, and it has led to environmental improvements. The experience with specific driving restrictions like “days without cars” and “low emission zones” has been mixed. Local transportation policy can have a useful role to play as a complement to national policy instruments, but neither efficiency nor effectiveness can be taken for granted.

Keywords

Pollution Transportation Road pricing Public transport subsidies Driving restrictions 

JEL Classification

Q53 R41 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allianz pro Schiene (2010) 16 Beispiele erfolgreicher Bahnen im Nahverkehr, available at http://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/publikationen/stadt-land-schiene/
  2. ARE (Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung) (2008) Volkswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der LSVA mit höherer Gewichtslimite—SchlussberichtGoogle Scholar
  3. Beevers SD, Carslaw DC (2005) The impact of congestion charging on vehicle emissions in London. Atmos Environ 39: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Whalley A (2010) Green machines: The effects of Urban mass transit on air quality. Working Paper, University of California, Merced.Google Scholar
  5. Chin ATH (1996) Containing air pollution and traffic congestion: transport policy and the environment in Singapore. Atmos Environ 30: 787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christainsen GB (2006) Road pricing in Singapore after 30 years. Cato J 26: 71–88Google Scholar
  7. Currie J, Walker R (2009) Traffic congestion and infant Health: Evidence from Z-Pass. NBER Working Paper 15413Google Scholar
  8. Davis LW (2008) The effect of driving restrictions on air quality in Mexico City. J Polit Econ 116: 38–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodgson JS (1986) Benefits of changes in urban public transport subsidies in the major Australian cities. Econ Rec 62: 224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EPA: (2004) Air quality criteria for particulate matter (final report). US Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Eskeland GS, Feyzioglu T (1997) Rationing can backfire: the “day without a car” in Mexico City. World Bank Econ Rev 11(3): 383–408Google Scholar
  12. Evans JH (2004) Transit scheduling and frequency, traveler response to transportation system changes. TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9; <http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c9.pdf>
  13. FitzRoy F, Smith I (1998) Public transport demand in Freiburg: why did it double within a decade. Transp Policy 5: 163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaister S (1984) The allocation of urban public transport subsidy. In: LeGrand J, Robinson R (eds) Privatisation and the Welfare state. Allen and Unwin, London, pp 177–200Google Scholar
  15. Glaister S, Lewis D (1978) An integrated fares policy for transport in London. J Public Econ 9: 341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IFEU (2010) Fortschreibung und Erweiterung ’Daten- und Rechenmodell: Energieverbrauch und Schadstoffemissionen des motorisierten Verkehrs in Deutschland 1960–2030 (TREMOD, Version 5)’, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. Infras (2010) Handbook of road emission factors, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  18. Ison S, Rye T (2005) Implementing road user charging: the lessons learnt from Hong Kong, Cambridge and Central London. Transp Rev 25: 451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lalive R, Schmutzler A (2008) Exploring the effects of competition for railway markets. Int J Ind Organ 26: 443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lalive R, Schmutzler A (2010) Auctions vs. negotiations in public procurement—evidence from railway markets. Paper presented at the workshop of the Center for Industrial Economics, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  21. Lalive R, Lüchinger S, Schmutzler A (2011) The effects of railroad subsidies on the environment: evidence from Germany. (Work in Progress)Google Scholar
  22. Leape J (2006) The London congestion charge. J Econ Persp 20(4): 157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parry IWH, Small KA (2009) Should urban transit subsidies be reduced. Am Econ Rev 99: 700–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perry L, Wolff H (2009) Air pollution, traffic restrictions and low emission zones. Evidence from Germany, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  25. Pratt RH (2000) Texas Transportation Institute, Cambridge Systematics, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, SG Associates, and McCollom Management Consulting. 2000. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Interim Handbook. Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program Web Document 12 (March)Google Scholar
  26. Pucher J, Kurth S (1996) Verkehrsverbund: the success of regional public transport in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Transp Policy 2: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos G, Fraser G (2006) Road pricing: lessons from London. Econ Policy 21: 263–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savage I (1997) Evaluating transit subsidies in Chicago. J Public Transp 1: 93–117Google Scholar
  29. Tonne C, Beevers S, Armstrong B, Kelly F, Wilkinson P (2008) Congestion charge: spatial and socioeconomic inequalities. Occup Environ Med 65: 620–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vickrey WS (1963) Pricing in urban and suburban transport. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 53(2): 452–465Google Scholar
  31. Watson PL, Holland EP (1978) Relieving traffic congestion: the Singapore area licensing scheme. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 281Google Scholar
  32. Winston C, Maheshri V (2007) On the social desirability of urban rail systems. J Urban Econ 62: 362–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winston C, Shirley C (1998) Alternative route: toward efficient urban transportation. Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolff H, Perry L (forthcoming) Trends in clean air legislation in Europe: particulate matter and low emission zones. Rev Environ Econ PolicyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.CEPRLondonUK

Personalised recommendations