This paper focuses upon public attitudes to and public acceptance of road-user charging as an effective means of managing travel demand, with the overall aim of identifying the characteristics of key interest groups, the kinds of attitudes they hold and their preferences for the distribution of the benefits of generated net revenues and released roadspace. It is argued that this knowledge can play a pivotal role in the design of road-user charging systems that satisfy two important criteria - namely, that they are capable of achieving their stated objectives and are generally acceptable to the public. A case-study of three toll-rings used for revenue generation by the Norwegian cities of Bergen, Oslo and Trondheim is selected, where a team of Norwegian interviewers administered a computer-based survey to a total of 756 respondents. Results of the analyses of the attitudinal data collected raise concerns about the approach of introducing initially low levels of road-use charge, designed to have negligible impacts on travel behaviour but to raise revenues to fund necessary improvements to public transport, both to familiarise private car-users with the principles of a pay-as-you-go system of charging and hopefully to reduce levels of public opposition prior to the introduction of the longer term objective of higher charges for traffic restraint. The timescale over which charges are increased may be crucial in terms of balancing a resistance to change in the longer term against the credibility of a system whose objectives are modified in the relatively short-term. The key conclusion from the first Stated Preference exercise is that there is a high degree of consensus among individuals on the importance of investing significant amounts of net revenues in new road infrastructure as well as improved public transport. The second Stated Preference exercise highlights respondents' concerns that the benefits in improved network performance achieved by a reduction in traffic levels through higher toll-charges should not be eroded by new (induced) traffic attracted onto the network. It is suggested that this may be overcome by allocating released roadspace to environmental improvement measures and priority-measures for buses and cyclists, at the expense of improved vehicle-speeds for those willing to pay to continue to drive. (Author/publisher).
Abstract