, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 21–42 | Cite as

Distributional impacts of road pricing: The truth behind the myth

  • Georgina SantosEmail author
  • Laurent Rojey


This paper shows that road pricing can be regressive, progressive or neutral, and refutes the generalised idea that road pricing is always regressive. The potential distributional impacts of a road pricing scheme are assessed in three English towns. It is found that impacts are town specific and depend on where people live, where people work and what mode of transport they use to go to work. Initial impacts may be progressive even before any compensation scheme for losers is taken into account. When the situation before the scheme is implemented is such that majority of drivers entering the area where the scheme would operate come from households with incomes above the average, it can be expected that, once the scheme is implemented, these drivers coming from rich households will continue to cross the cordon and will be prepared to pay the charge. In such a case the overall effect will be that on average, rich people will pay the toll and poor people will not.

congestion charging congestion tolls distributional impacts regressive effects road pricing traffic congestion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acts of Parliament (1999) Greater London Authority Act 1999 c. 29, London: HMSO. Scholar
  2. Acts of Parliament (2000) Transport Act 2000 c. 38. December 2000. Scholar
  3. Blow L & Crawford I (1997) The distributional effects of taxes on private motoring. Commentary No. 65. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Button K & Verhoef E (1998) Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment. Lincolnshire: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. CASWEB, Web-based Interface to Census Area Statistics. Scholar
  6. Census Dissemination Unit (CDU), MIMAS, Manchester Computing Service. Scholar
  7. Commission for Integrated Transport (2002) Congestion Charging in the UK, December 20. Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, and World Bank (1993) System of National Accounts 1993. Brussels, Luxembourg, New York, Paris, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  9. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan. Scholar
  10. Dodgson J, Young J & van der Veer J (2002) Paying for Road Use, Technical Report, A Report to the Commission for Integrated Transport, National Economic Research Associates (NERA), London, February. Scholar
  11. Durham County Council Press and Publicity Unit (2002) Country's First Town Centre Toad Toll Goes Live Next Week, September 26. Scholar
  12. Digitised Boundaries for Cambridge. Edinburgh UKBORDERS Facility, UKBORDERS, EDINA Data Centre, Digital Boundary Data (DBD) associated with the 1991 Census of Population, University of Edinburgh. Scholar
  13. Eliasson, J & Mattsson L-G (2001) Transport and location effects of road pricing. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 35: 417-456.Google Scholar
  14. Evans A (1992) Road congestion pricing? When is it a good policy? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 26: 213-243.Google Scholar
  15. Flowerdew A (1993) Urban Traffic Congestion in Europe: Road Pricing and Public Transport Demand, Research Report, The Economics Intelligence Unit, London, May.Google Scholar
  16. Giuliano G (1994) Equity and fairness considerations of congestion pricing. In: Transportation Research Board (1994): 250-279.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin P (1989) The rule of three: A possible solution to the political problem of competing objectives for road pricing. Traffic Engineering and Control 30: 495-497.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin P (1990) How to make road pricing popular. Economic Affairs 10: 6-7.Google Scholar
  19. Harrington W, Krupnick A & Alberini A (2001) Overcoming public aversion to congestion pricing. Transportation Research A 35: 87-105.Google Scholar
  20. Ison S (2000) Local authority and academic attitudes to urban road pricing: A UK perspective. Transport Policy 7: 269-277.Google Scholar
  21. ITS International (1999) Great expectations. ITS International, Jan–Feb: 37-39.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson P, McKay S & Smith S (1990) The distributional consequences of environmental taxes. Commentary No. 23. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Jones P (1998) Urban road pricing: Public acceptability and barriers to implementation. In: Button and Verhoef (1998): 263-284.Google Scholar
  24. Larsen O & Østmoe K (2001) The experience of urban toll cordons in Norway: Lessons for the future. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 35: 457-471.Google Scholar
  25. Layard R (1977) The distributional effects of congestion taxes. Economica 44: 297-341.Google Scholar
  26. Lex Services (1998) Lex Report on Motoring: Driving for the Future. Bucks: Lex Service PLC, January.Google Scholar
  27. Litman T (1996) Using road pricing revenue: Economic efficiency and equity considerations. Transportation Research Record 1558: 24-28.Google Scholar
  28. Madsen B & Jensen-Butler C (2001) Modelling the Local Economic Impacts of Road Pricing, SØM Publication No. 46, Society, Economics & Environment Research Centre, Institute of Local Government Studies, Denmark, December. Scholar
  29. Ministry of Transport (1964) Road Pricing: The Economic and Technical Possibilities. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  30. Morrison SA (1986) A survey of road pricing. Transportation Research A 20: 87-97.Google Scholar
  31. MVA (1995) The London Congestion Charging Research Programme, Final Report, Vol. 1: Text, Government Office for London, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. National Economic Development Office (1991) A Road User Charge: Londoner's Views, Report on Survey Findings, Harris/NEDO, London. Cited in Flowerdew (1993).Google Scholar
  33. Newbery D (1990) Pricing and congestion: Economic principles relevant to pricing roads. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6: 22-38.Google Scholar
  34. Newbery D (1994) The case for a public road authority. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 28: 235-253.Google Scholar
  35. Newbery D & Santos G (1999) Road taxes, road user charges and earmarking. Fiscal Studies 20: 103-132.Google Scholar
  36. Newbery D & Santos G (2002) Estimating urban road congestion costs. CEPR Discussion Paper 3176, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
  37. Odeck J & Bråthen S (1997) On public attitudes toward implementation of toll roads — the case of Oslo toll ring. Transport Policy 4: 73-83.Google Scholar
  38. Odeck J & Bråthen S (2002) Toll financing in Norway: The success, the failures and perspectives for the future. Transport Policy 9: 253-260.Google Scholar
  39. Office for National Statistics (1998) New Earnings Survey, Part D: Analysis by Occupation, Newport, December.Google Scholar
  40. Pigou A (1920) The Economics of Welfare. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. RAC Foundation for Motoring (2003) RAC Report on Motoring Making the Most of Britain's Roads, London.Google Scholar
  42. Richardson, H & Bae C-H (1998), The equity impacts of road congestion pricing. In: Button and Verhoef (1998): 247-262.Google Scholar
  43. ROCOL Working Group (2000) Road Charging Options for London: A Technical Assessment. London: The Stationary Office, March.Google Scholar
  44. Santos G, Newbery D & Rojey L (2001) Static versus demand-sensitive models and estimation of second-best cordon tolls: An exercise for eight English towns. Transportation Research Record 1747: 44-50.Google Scholar
  45. Small K (1983) The incidence of congestion tolls on urban highways. Journal of Urban Economics 13: 90-111.Google Scholar
  46. Small K (1992) Using the revenues from congestion pricing. Transportation 19: 359-381.Google Scholar
  47. Small K & Gómez-Ibáñez J (1998) Road pricing for congestion management: The transition from theory to policy. In: Button and Verhoef (1998): 213-246.Google Scholar
  48. Toh R (1992) Experimental measures to curb road congestion in Singapore: Pricing and quotas. Logistics and Transportation Review 28: 289-317.Google Scholar
  49. report_mayor.shtml.Google Scholar
  50. Transportation Research Board (1994) Curbing Gridlock: Peak Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Special Report 242, Washington DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. Verhoef E, Nijkamp P & Rietveld P (1997) The social feasibility of road pricing: A case study for the randstad area. Journal of Transport Economic and Policy 31: 255-276.Google Scholar
  52. Whitehead T (2002) Road user charging and business performance: Identifying the processes of economic change. Transport Policy 9: 221-240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of CambridgeSidgwick SiteUK
  2. 2.Ecole PolytechniqueFrance

Personalised recommendations