01095616

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2067-06

http://scholar.google.com...ones&publication_year=2008

A major criticism of the principle of urban road pricing (also known as congestion charging and congestion pricing) is that it is regressive, namely, that the implementation of a charging scheme is likely to result in the imposition of a disproportionately large financial burden on low-income car users and their dependents, thereby resulting in hardship. A road pricing proposal in Edinburgh, Scotland, was used as a case study to assess the potential for road pricing-related hardship. Hardship occurs when people are denied access to basic needs. A quantitative definition of hardship was developed on the basis of an affordability measure derived from the utilities sector, supplemented by two additional conditions to account for the fact that transportation in itself is not a basic need. By using this definition, it was demonstrated that households in the lowest income quintile already spent an unaffordable proportion of their income on motoring costs, as much as about 40%, whereas the affordability threshold was 32.5%. The impact of a £2 (approximately $4 in 2008) charge on these low-income households would be negligible if it were paid less than once a week but would have a significant impact if it were paid four or more times a week, taking average aggregate motoring costs to above 50% of a low-income household’s total disposable income. A simple regression analysis showed that of the five different basic needs identified in the research literature, work trips were the most likely to be linked to frequent congestion charge payment among low-income car users and, thus, the most likely to be linked to an additional risk of hardship.

01116567

English

pp 47-55

2008

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309113397

Print

Figures (3) ; References (10) ; Tables (4)

Case studies; Congestion pricing; Low income groups; Road pricing; Socioeconomic factors; Urban areas

Affordability; Disposable income

Edinburgh (Scotland)

Highways; Society; I10: Economics and Administration

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Jan 29 2008 4:57PM

• Analysis of Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Hurricane Disaster Relief Plans
• Comparing Rail Transit Capitalization Benefits for Single-Family and Condominium Units in San Diego, California
• Critical Steps for Enacting Cultural Change
• Diesel Truck Traffic in Low-Income and Minority Communities Adjacent to Ports: Environmental Justice Implications of Near-Roadway Land Use Conflicts
• Economic Impact of Traffic Incidents on Businesses
• Endogenous Regional Economic Growth Through Transportation Investment
• Gender and Travel Behavior in Two Arab Communities in Israel
• Geographic and Demographic Profiles of Morning Peak-Hour Commuters on Highways in North Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia
• Highway-Induced Development: Research Results for Metropolitan Areas
• Indicators for Sustainable Transportation Planning
• Is Inadequate Transportation a Barrier to Community Involvement? Evidence from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey
• Market Segmentation Analysis Using Attitudes Toward Transportation: Exploring the Differences Between Men and Women
• Partnerships for Progress: Toward Sustainable Road Systems
• Sharing Fast-Speed and Slow-Speed Roads with Bicyclists and Pedestrians: A Source of Female and Male Driver Frustration?
• Simulation Model for Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Transportation and the Economy in Canada
• Sociodemographic Groups and Mode Choice in a Middle-Sized European City
• Sustainable Urban Policies for Developing Countries by Integrating Center-Based Telecommuting with Transit and Road Pricing: Case Study of Bangkok, Thailand, Metropolitan Region