Evaluating the equity effects of road-pricing in the European urban context - The Madrid Metropolitan Area

The paper identifies the potential spatial and social impacts of a proposed road-pricing scheme for different social groups in the Madrid Metropolitan Area (MMA). We appraise the accessibility of different districts within the MMA in terms of the actual and perceived cost of using the road infrastructure ‘before’ and ‘after’ implementation of the scheme. The appraisal framework was developed using quantitative survey data and qualitative focus group discussions with residents. We then simulated user behaviours (mode and route choice) based on the empirical evidence from a travel demand model for the MMA. The results from our simulation model demonstrated that implementation of the toll on the orbital metropolitan motorways (M40, M30, for example) decreases accessibility mostly in the districts where there are no viable public transport alternatives. Our specific study finding is that the economic burden of the road-pricing scheme particularly affects unskilled and lower income individuals living in the south of the MMA. The focus groups confirmed that low income drivers in the south part of the MMA would reduce their use of tolled roads and have to find new arrangements for these trips: i.e. switch to public transport, spend double the time travelling or stay at home. More generally, our research finds that European transport planners are still a long way from recognising the social equity implications of their policy decisions and that more thorough social appraisals are needed to avoid the social exclusion of low income populations when road tolling is proposed.

Evaluating the spatial and social equity effects of road pricing in the European urban context: the Madrid Metropolitan Area.

The paper explores the spatial and social impacts arising from implementation of a road-pricing scheme in the Madrid Metropolitan Area (MMA). Our analytical focus is on understanding the effects of the scheme on the transport accessibility of different social groups within the MMA. We define an evaluation framework to appraise the accessibility of different districts within the MMA in terms of the actual and perceived cost of using the road infrastructure "before" and "after" the implementation of the scheme. The framework was developed using quantitative survey data and qualitative data from focus group discussions with residents. We then simulated user behaviors (mode and route choice) based on the empirical evidence from a travel demand model for the MMA. The results from our simulation model demonstrated that implementation of the toll on the orbital metropolitan motorways (M40, M30, for example) decreases accessibility, mostly in the districts where there are no viable public transport alternatives. Our key finding is that the economic burden of the road-pricing scheme particularly affects unskilled and lower income individuals living in the south of the MMA. Consequently lower income people reduce their use of tolled roads and have to find new arrangements for these trips: i.e. switch to the public transport, spend double the time for their commuter trips or stay at home. The results of our research could be applicable more widely for anyone wishing to better understand the important relationship between increased transport cost and social equity, especially where there is an intention to introduce similar road-pricing schemes within the urban context.

Incorporating equity into transport planning: utility, priority and sufficiency approaches

The analysis addresses the issue of transport equity and explores three different approaches to equity in transport: utilitarianism, sufficientarianism and prioritarianism. Each approach calls for a different treatment of the benefits reaped by different population groups in the assessment of transport investments or policies. In utilitarianism, which underlies much of the current practice of transport project appraisal, all benefits receive the same weight, irrespective of the recipient of the benefits. In both sufficientarianism and prioritarianism, benefits are weighed in distinct ways, depending on the characteristics of the recipients. The three approaches are illustrated using a fictive case study, in which three different transport investment are assessed and compared to each other. Finally, the assessment of transport investments will be explored using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The CEA assesses the distributional effects of transport investments for utilitarism, sufficientarism and prioritarism approaches and addresses distinct needs associated with different population groups in respect to their transport