Safour, A and Egbu, C (2010) City centre road user charging; real schemes and field-based experimental studies: State of art. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Recently, road user charging (RUC) is considered a suitable tool for tackling urban traffic and transport problems. All over the world, there are different types of road user charging which have been implemented in order to reduce traffic congestion in the centres of the cities. This paper, firstly, focuses on reviewing existing examples of real RUC schemes which are applied to solve congestion traffic problems, such as in Singapore, Durham, London and Dubai. Other cities have used RUC to obtain revenue for new infrastructure funds; for instance, Bergen, Oslo and Trondheim. This paper also discusses a number of field-based RUC experiments that have been done to study the behavioural response towards road charging policy. The sample size of these experiments ranges from twenty three in the Dublin experiment, to thirty seven in Newcastle experiment and five hundred in the Copenhagen experiment, with continuous experimental periods between two weeks to over one year. The results of the existing RUC schemes and field experiment RUC studies indicated that road users might react or act in response to a RUC in several different ways. For instance, some of them prefer to change their departure time to earlier or later to avoid charges. Others change their mode of travel while some of them preferring to choose new destinations for certain activities. The analysis of real RUC schemes and field-based RUC experiments have concluded that RUC could be a powerful instrument in reducing traffic congestion, in raising revenue and in improving the environment in cities centres.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | road user charging; traffic congestion; transport |
| Index terms: | traffic congestion, city centre, revenue, Dubai, London, experiment, Singapore, Oslo, sample size |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, transportation engineering, research design and methodology, economic analysis, Geography, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here