Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 621–639 | Cite as

Estimating commuter mode choice: A discrete choice analysis of the impact of road pricing and parking charges

  • Kevin WashbrookEmail author
  • Wolfgang Haider
  • Mark Jaccard
Article

Abstract

Automobile use leads to external costs associated with emissions, congestion, noise and other impacts. One option for minimizing these costs is to introduce road pricing and parking charges to reduce demand for single occupant vehicle (SOV) use, while providing improvements to alternatives to encourage mode switching. However, the impact of these policies on urban mode choice is uncertain, and results reported from regions where charging has been introduced may not be transferable. In particular, revealed preference data associated with cost recovery tolls on single facilities may not provide a clear picture of driver response to tolls for demand management. To estimate commuter mode choice behaviour in response to such policies, 548 commuters from a Greater Vancouver suburb who presently drive alone to work completed an individually customized discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which they chose between driving alone, carpooling or taking a hypothetical express bus service when choices varied in terms of time and cost attributes. Attribute coefficients identified with the DCE were used in a predictive model to estimate commuter response to various policy oriented combinations of charges and incentives. Model results suggest that increases in drive alone costs will bring about greater reductions in SOV demand than increases in SOV travel time or improvements in the times and costs of alternatives beyond a base level of service. The methods described here provide an effective and efficient way for policy makers to develop an initial assessment of driver reactions to the introduction of pricing policies in their particular regions.

Key words

parking charges road pricing stated preference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burris MW (2003). The toll-price component of travel demand elasticity. International Journal of Transport Economics 30(1): 45–59Google Scholar
  2. DeCorla-Souza P and Kane AR (1992). Peak period tolls: Precepts and prospects. Transportation 19: 293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunne JP (1984). Elasticity measures and disaggregate choice models. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 18: 189–197Google Scholar
  4. Ewing G & Sarigollu E (1998) Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research D 3: 429–444Google Scholar
  5. Flannelly KJ, McLeod MS, Flannelly L and Behnke RW (1991). Direct comparison of commuter’s interests in using different modes of transportation. Transportation Research Record 1321: 90–96Google Scholar
  6. Greene WH (1998). LIMDEP Version 7.0. Econometric Software Inc, PlainviewGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagler Bailly Ltd. (1999) The Potential of Fuel Taxes to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Transportation. Transportation Table Study No. 3, National Climate Change ProcessGoogle Scholar
  8. Higgins TJ (1997). Congestion pricing: public polling perspective. Transportation Quarterly 51: 97–104Google Scholar
  9. Hirschman I, McKnight C, Pucher J, Paaswell R and Berechman J (1995). Bridge and tunnel toll elasticities in New York. Some recent evidence. Transportation 22: 97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hug K, Mock-Hecker R and Wurtenberger J (1997). Transport demand management by electronic fee collection in a zone-based pricing scheme. The Stuttgart MobilPASS field trial. Transportation Research Record 1576: 69–76Google Scholar
  11. Hunt JD and McMillan JDP (1997). Stated preference examination of attitudes toward carpooling to work in calgary. Transportation Research Record 1598: 9–17Google Scholar
  12. Koppelman FS, Bhat CR and Schofer JL (1993). Market research evaluation of actions to reduce suburban traffic congestion: commuter travel behaviour and response to demand reduction actions. Transportation Research A 27(5): 383–393Google Scholar
  13. KPMG Peat Marwick Stevenson Kellogg (1993) The cost of transporting people in the British Columbia Lower Mainland. Background report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District as part of Transport 2021Google Scholar
  14. Kuppam A, Pendyala R and Gollakoti M (1998). Stated response analysis of the effectiveness of parking pricing strategies for transportation control. Transportation Research Record 1649: 39–46Google Scholar
  15. Larsen OI and Ostmoe K (2001). The experience of urban toll cordons in norway. Lessons for the future. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 35(3): 457–471Google Scholar
  16. Litman T (2001) Online Transportation Demand Management Encyclopaedia. Victoria Transportation Policy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  17. Litman T, Komanoff C, & Howell H (1998) Road Relief: Tax and Pricing Shifts for a Fairer, Cleaner, Less Congested Transportation System in Washington. Energy Outreach CenterGoogle Scholar
  18. Louviere J, Hensher D and Swait J (2000). Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. McFadden D (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka, P (eds) Frontiers in Econometrics, pp. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Mahony M, Geraghty D and Humphreys I (2000a). Distance and time based road pricing trial in Dublin. Transportation 27: 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Mahony M, Geraghty D and Humphreys I (2000b). Potential response to road user charging in Dublin, Ireland. Transportation Research Record 1732: 50–54Google Scholar
  22. Oum TH, Waters WG and Yong J-S (1992). Concepts of price elasticities of transport demand and recent empirical estimates. Journal of transport economics and policy 26: 139–154Google Scholar
  23. Pickrell D (1999). Cars and clean air: a reappraisal. Transportation Research Record Part A 33: 527–547Google Scholar
  24. Polak J, Jones P, & Vythoulkas P (1991) The Trondheim Toll Ring: Results of a Stated Preference Study of Travelers’ Responses Deliverable 17, Transportation Studies Unit University of Oxford and Solveig Meland Terje Tretvik, Division of Transport Engineering, SINTEF, Trondheim NorwayGoogle Scholar
  25. Toh RS and Phang S-Y (1997). Curbing urban traffic congestion in Singapore: A comprehensive review. Transportation Journal 37(2): 24–33Google Scholar
  26. TransLink (2000) Regional Travel Survey. GVRD Results. TransLink Marketing Department and Canadian FactsGoogle Scholar
  27. Transport for London (2003) Congestion Charging: Six Months On October 2003 Google Scholar
  28. Washbrook K (2002) Assessing the Potential of Road and Parking Charges to Reduce Demand for Single Occupancy Vehicle Commuting in the Greater Vancouver Region. Report No. 298, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, June 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Washbrook
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolfgang Haider
    • 1
  • Mark Jaccard
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Resource and Environmental ManagementSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations