May, A.D., Hopkinson, P.G., Marler, N.W. et al. (1 more author) (1991) Road Pricing: The Potential for Comparative Monitoring. A Report to the London Planning Advisory Committee. Working Paper. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK.
This study was designed to review the proposals for road user charging in the Randstad, Stockholm, Oslo and Singapore, to determine the intentions for monitoring of each of these proposed schemes, to assess the implications for the development of policy in London, and to identify any opportunities for obtaining experience which would help in clarifying the uncertainties associated with proposals for road pricing in London. The study reviewed the objectives and operational requirements for road pricing in London and the criticisms levelled against such proposals. On this basis it developed a series of requirements for monitoring and information gathering to help clarify the outstanding uncertainties. These were used as a check list for a series of discussions with those responsible for proposals in the case study cities. Discussions indicated that the proposals in most cities had changed markedly in the period since the study was commissioned. These changes, and the resulting nature of the proposals, meant that only the proposals for Stockholm were sufficiently similar to those in London to justify collaborative monitoring. The report recommends that such collaboration be developed. However, both the Randstad and Oslo schemes offer the opportunity for obtaining information on actual or predicted user response, while the Singapore proposals will provide valuable experience of new technology. It is recommended that all of these are pursued. The discussions highlighted several lessons of direct relevance to the development of policy in London. In particular it is seen as important to keep the specification of the measures simple; to pursue extensive consultation with those who might be affected and with all political parties and government bodies who might be involved in policy decisions; to provide clear guidance on the anticipated uses of the revenue: and to develop a system which is implemented flexibly, so that problems can be remedied as they arise.
In this context, the role of assessment and monitoring is limited. It should not be used to delay decisions; however, once a commitment is made to proceed, experience from elsewhere will be of value in informing the consultations. A carefully designed monitoring programme will be important in assessing and enhancing a scheme once implemented. It is recommended that the monitoring programme should be based on the requirements identified in this report.
|Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information:||Copyright of the Institute of Transport Studies, University Of Leeds|
|Institution:||The University of Leeds|
|Academic Units:||The University of Leeds > Faculty of Environment (Leeds) > Institute for Transport Studies (Leeds)|
|Depositing User:||Adrian May|
|Date Deposited:||10 May 2007|
|Last Modified:||26 Oct 2016 09:53|
|Publisher:||Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds|
|Identification Number:||Working Paper 329|