The Assessment of the Change in the Share of Public Transportation by Applying Transportation Demand Management Policies

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Art, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Abstract

The growing car ownership has caused a lot of problems, such as increased travel time and environmental pollution. In recent years, different policies have been proposed for travel demand management. Among these plans conducted in Tehran, the Odd-Even day plan starting from the door of each house or the extension of the traffic congestion zone to the Odd-Even plan zone can be mentioned. In the present study, to determine the change in the behavior of the people traveling in the Odd-Even plan in Tehran in return for the payment of a various toll and exploring their pro-environmental beliefs and attitudes which supports the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, a stated preference questionnaire has been designed, and 500 of it were distributed among the individuals in this area and then were collected. The results showed that 51% of people have used their private cars to travel within the area. 24% of people have used semipublic transportation, and 25% of them have used public transportation (bus and subway) for their traveling. Based on the tolling design scenario, which was with an increase of 15 to 18% of the base traffic congestion zone prices of 2016, the relative frequency of using four types of non-public transportation (which is the sum of private vehicles and semipublic transportation) decreased 20 and 21% for different types of tolls throughout the day.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Lindsey, R., 2003. Road Pricing Issues and Experiences in the US and Canada. Department of Economics, University of Alberta, Alberta. Retrieved on 25th July 2004.
  2. Cipriani, E., Mannini, L., Montemarani, B., Nigro, M., & Petrelli, M., 2019. Congestion pricing policies: Design and assessment for the city of Rome, Italy. Transport Policy, 80, 127-135.
  3. De Vos, J., 2016. Road pricing in a polycentric urban region: Analyzing a pilot project in Belgium. Transport Policy, 52, 134-142.
  4. Agarwal, S., Koo, K. M., & Sing, T. F., 2015. Impact of electronic road pricing on real estate prices in Singapore. Journal of urban economics, 90, 50-59.
  5. Phang, S. Y., & Toh, R. S., 2004. Road congestion pricing in Singapore: 1975 to 2003. Transportation Journal, 16-25.
  6. Croci, E., & Douvan, A., 2016. Urban Road Pricing: A Comparative Study on the Experiences of London. Stockholm and Milan, IEFE WP, 85.
  7. Walker, J., 2011. The acceptability of road pricing. RAC Foundation.
  8. Glavic, D., Mladenovic, M., Luttinen, T., Cicevic, S., & Trifunovic, A., 2017. Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 79-94.
  9. Jou, R. C., Lam, S. H., & Wu, P. H., 2007. ACCEPTANCE TENDENCIES AND COMMUTERS' BEHAVIOR UNDER DIFFERENT ROAD PRICING SCHEMES. Transportmetrica, 3(3), 213-230
  10. Xu, S., 2009. Development and test of dynamic congestion pricing model (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  11. Ding, L., & Zhang, N., 2016. A travel mode choice model using individual grouping based on cluster analysis. Procedia Engineering, 137(1), 786-795.
  12. Coria, J., & Zhang, X. B. 2017. Optimal environmental road pricing and daily commuting patterns. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 105, 297-314.
  13. Wangsness, P. B., 2018. How to road price in a world with electric vehicles and government budget constraints. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 65, 635-657.
  14. Wen, L., & Eglese, R., 2016. Minimizing CO2e emissions by setting a road toll. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 1-13.
  15. Yagi, S., & Shiraishi, H., 2017. Policy Analysis for New Commuter Rail and Road Pricing Alternatives Using an SP Survey in Abidjan. Transportation research procedia, 25, 2520-2535.
  16. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D., 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge university press.
  17. Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. 2019. Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity, and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145-156
  18. Stren, P. C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
  19. Hiratsuka, J., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. 2018. Testing VBN theory in Japan: Relationships between values, beliefs, norms, and acceptability and expected effects of a car pricing policy. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behavior, 53, 74-83.
  20. Jakovcevic, A., & Steg, L., 2013. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: Values, beliefs, norms, and car use reduction. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 20, 70-79.
  21. Kiatkawsin, K., & Han, H., 2017. Young travelers' intention to behave pro-environmentally: Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Management, 59, 76-88
  22. Nordfjærn, T., & Zavareh, M. F., 2017. Does the value-belief-norm theory predict acceptance of disincentives to driving and active mode choice preferences for children's school travel among Chinese parents?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 31-39.
  23. Ünal, A. B., Steg, L., & Granskaya, J., 2019. “To support or not to support, that is the question.” Testing the VBN theory in predicting support for car use reduction policies in Russia. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 119, 73-81.
  24. Van der Werff, E., & Steg, L., 2016. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: Comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy research & social science, 22, 107-114.
  25. Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M., 2005. Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro‐environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
  26. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J., 2003. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(4), 339-347.
  27. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J., 2014. The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163-192.
  28. Mahpour, A., Mamdoohi, A., Hossein Rashidi, T., Schmid, B., & Axhausen, K. W., 2018. Shopping destination choice in Tehran: An integrated choice and latent variable approach. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behavior, 58, 566-580.
  29. Johari, M., & Haghshenas, H., 2019. Modeling the cordon pricing policy for a multi-modal transportation system. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(3), 531-539.
  30. Abulibdeh, A. O., Zaidan, E. A., & Alkaabi, K. A., 2018. Empirical analysis of the implementation of cordon pricing: Potential impacts on travel behavior and policy implications. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behavior, 53, 130-142.
  31. Abulibdeh, A., 2018. Implementing congestion pricing policies in a MENA Region City: Analysis of the impact on travel behavior and equity. Cities, 74, 196-207.
AUT Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 2
June 2021
Pages 199-212

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics