1 / 9

Perspectives on Transport Management from London, Stockholm & Paris

Perspectives on Transport Management from London, Stockholm & Paris. Rémy Prud’homme (Un. Paris XII) Imperial College, London, Jan. 17, 2007. Three urban transport policies. Much publicized London: an area toll in a small (3% in pop.) part of the agglomeration

galena
Download Presentation

Perspectives on Transport Management from London, Stockholm & Paris

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Perspectives on Transport Management from London, Stockholm & Paris Rémy Prud’homme (Un. Paris XII) Imperial College, London, Jan. 17, 2007

  2. Three urban transport policies Much publicized • London: an area toll in a small (3% in pop.) part of the agglomeration • Paris: a reduction in road space in a larger (20%) part of agglomeration • Stockholm: a cordon toll in a similar (15%) part of agglomeration Lessons from such policies

  3. An apparent success ? In all three cases, stated objective of traffic reduction achieved, by some 15% For the media: enough to call it a success Take a second look

  4. Two effective benefits in London & Stockholm time gains + environmental gains Unit costs Surplus loss S(q) I(q) B Time gain c1 A c2 D(q) Toll Quantities q2 q1

  5. No Benefits in Paris Road space reduction No time gains, only time losses Time loss I2(q) I1(q) c2 c1 D(q) q q2 q1 No environmenal benefits either

  6. Magnitude of time benefits Very real, but relatively small: in M£/yr • in London: 60 - 10 (surplus) = 50 net • In Stockholm: 11 - 5 (surplus) = 6 net Two comments: 1) = congestion costs. Relative to GDP of area: 0.1% in London, 0.02% in Stockholm 2) Much less than toll proceeds (1/5 in London, even less in Stockholm)

  7. Minus: implementation costs • Enormous in London : 500 M£/yer • High in Stockholm : 100 M£/yr In both cases : eat up the decongestion benefits

  8. Minus: public transport congestion costs PT congestion exactly like road congestion. Replace time loss by confort loss More PT users —> increase in PT congestion, for all PT users Poorly known. In Stockholm, data suggests increase in PT congestion costs = road decongestion costs

  9. Conclusions • Road congestion costs vastly exagerated. • Can be reduced by tolls. A good policy when and if : a) congestion is severe, b) implementation costs are low c) PT congestion is moderate, or costs of PT supply increase are low 3) Paris road supply restriction policy worst

More Related