Document Sample
SRP_Final_wo_Maps Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                            Chen 1

              Evaluating the Feasibility of Road Pricing in Downtown Los Angeles

                   A study of the relationship between a city’s characteristics
                   and the successful implementation of a road pricing system

                                     Senior Research Project
                      Submitted to the Urban Studies and Planning Program
                              Senior Sequence Class of 2010-2011

                                        February 22, 2010

                                          Carmen Chen
                              University of California at San Diego
                              Urban Studies and Planning Program
                                     USP 186 Section A02

        This study suggests a road pricing scheme to relieve traffic congestion along major
roadways in Downtown Los Angeles. For proper and successful implementation, this proposal
examines existing and rejected schemes to identify the characteristics of urban cities which
influence the effectiveness of road pricing. Current research suggests that while road pricing
undoubtedly reduces congestion in major cities, applying similar schemes to other cities may not
be as successful or necessary. The research strategy compares Los Angeles to international case
studies of successful and rejected road pricing schemes. Evidence from traffic data analyses,
census data, and government policy reports is used for a cross-city comparison. The analysis
provides a critical insight into the factors which can aid and/or hinder the success of a road
pricing scheme in Los Angeles. Visually, a GIS traffic analysis of Los Angeles illustrates the
need for road pricing. The objective is to not only identify appropriate locations for road pricing,
but also identify areas which cannot accommodate it. The study contributes to literature on
congestion pricing and traffic management. The results will be shared with public sector
officials in hopes that the findings will help identify prime locations to have road pricing

            Keywords: road pricing, congestion pricing, cordon pricing, Los Angeles

The Absence of Road Pricing
      Transport economists and planners have long advocated for road pricing as an

instrumental alternative to reduce traffic congestion in urban centers. Instead, continuous efforts

are made in the United States to add roads and expand highways, furthering sprawled

development and automobile dependency. The addition of such infrastructure only temporarily
                                                                                          Chen 2

relieves congestion and tends to induce new traffic that worsens the situation. For cities to

address the continuing growth of car use, rather than building new roads, existing roads need to

be rationed, and users, charged for their usage and contribution to congestion.

       The idea behind road pricing or congestion pricing is that road users should pay the social

cost they impose on society for contributing to congestion, pollution, noise, etc. The pricing

involves charging drivers more to travel at times and locations at which traffic is heavy (Wachs

1993). The goal is to discourage people from driving into congested areas during peak hours by

using alternative modes of transportation and shifting to less crowded routes.

       There are two forms of congestion pricing: area charges and facility charges. Area

charging, also known as cordon pricing, sets a cordon line or border around a congested area and

charges an entry fee. Facility charges are tolls which are levied when drivers uses a particular

segment of roadway such as a bridge or highway. Facility charging is currently used in the

United States, whereas area charging is more popular in European and Asian cities. For the

purpose of this paper, the terms “road pricing” and “congestion pricing” refer to area charging

and not facility charging. Facility charging or tolls will be referred to separately.

       Internationally, there are very few congestion pricing schemes mainly due to political and

public skepticism of the benefits. Although U.S. policy makers have expressed interest for many

years, thus far, city-wide congestion pricing proposals have been unsuccessful. Even in cities,

such as New York and Hong Kong, where politicians have proposed road pricing, strong public

opposition stopped its implementation. Therefore, this study evaluates the relationship between

the characteristics of a city and the success of is road pricing scheme. The following questions
                                                                                           Chen 3

will be addressed: (1) what are the necessities and barriers to implementation; and (2) how do

they affect the performance of road pricing schemes?

       The study looks at existing road pricing systems (London, Singapore, and Stockholm) as

well as schemes that were rejected (Hong Kong and New York). The purpose of identifying

social, geographical, and political patterns between best and worst practices is to identify

similarities and/or differences to the City of Los Angeles (LA), a location which could

implement road pricing. A cross-city comparison examines demographic, housing, income,

employment, economy, circulation, traffic network conditions, public transport, and travel

demand. This approach serves as guidance for cities interested in future road pricing systems.

The result is a more efficient, cost and time-effective implementation.

       Essentially, this feasibility study encourages a road pricing system in Los Angeles. The

end result is a model which determines the success of a city’s road pricing scheme. The study

illustrates the model’s function by demonstrating how downtown Los Angeles is a prime

location for road pricing due to similar patterns it shares with cities which have successful

schemes. Based on high population, employment, and student densities comparable to

international cities pre-road pricing, downtown LA can best support congestion charging.

       As previously stated, there is a limited amount of city-wide road pricing schemes that can

be evaluated. Therefore, this study analyzes road pricing on the international scale. The problem

with a cross-international comparison is that generalizations are made and various confounding

variables are unaccounted for. Nevertheless, the study designs a basic framework that determines

the characteristics of a city which militate successful road pricing implementation.
                                                                                          Chen 4

The Core Issues of Road Pricing

        In the economic realm, studies cite the effectiveness of road pricing and its inclusion in

urban transport policy. Dating back to the seminal work of Vickrey in 1955, road pricing has

been the economist’s answer to encourage more efficient transportation. It is believed to have

three general objectives: congestion management, reduction of environmental impact, and

revenue management (TDM 2010).

        Some studies in this area are concerned with the best type of road pricing to implement.

The general notion is that different types of road pricing have various impacts on the

performance of a road network. Charges can be based on variations of cordons (borders) crossed,

distance travelled, time spent traveling, and/or time spent in congestion. Singapore and Norway,

for example, charges per entry in one direction (Goh 2002 & May 1992); whereas places such as

London have a more complex charging scheme based on cordons crossed, variable times, and

variable directions (Peirson and Vickerman 2008). This paper, however, does not include the

various types of charging in its cross-city comparison. The goal is to identify optimal

characteristics for road pricing in Los Angeles rather than to prescribe the optimal charging


        As presented by in the “2009 Urban Mobility Report” issued by the Texas Transportation

Institute, Los Angeles is arguably the most congested city in the United States. Holding the

nation’s highest rank of $76.80 per hour for the value of time consumed commuting; Los

Angeles is notorious for its congested roads and freeways. Also ranked as the city with the most

commuter pain in the same study, Los Angeles is in need of road pricing due to the factors set

forth in this study.
                                                                                            Chen 5

       This paper’s place-based approach contends that the effectiveness of road pricing varies

by location. The problem with current studies is that many only prescribe road pricing for large

cities where systems can make a substantial impact on areas with the highest levels of

congestion. London’s Congestion Charging Scheme (LCCS), for instance, reduced congestion in

the central London by about 30% (Peirson and Vickerman 2008). While this paper agrees that

not all cities can accommodate congestion pricing schemes, it also contends that they can benefit

smaller cities. Durham’s road pricing, for example, is for a single street where the Cathedral and

Castle are located. Unlike larger schemes where the purpose is to discourage congestion in and

around an urban centre, Durham’s function is to divert traffic away to the surrounding road

network (Blythe, 2004). This study argues that the purpose of road pricing varies by location. In

order for a system to be successful, it needs to be adapted to the environment in which it will be


       In extent, because road pricing needs vary by location, this paper addresses the

conceptual issue of how the unique political, demographical, and topographical dynamics of a

city impacts the performance of its road pricing scheme. Research in this area examines the

institutional, acceptability, and public transport barriers that affect road pricing implementation.

This paper considers three core issues (politics, public acceptance, and alternative transport) that

previous road pricing studies have identified and also refers to how existing road pricing systems

have dealt with these issues. This paper examined international road pricing developments and

identified the dynamics and barriers of a city which determine the success of a road pricing

                                                                                           Chen 6

       While economists and traffic planners have long advocated for road pricing, only until

recently, have city officials begun to give it serious consideration. Despite increasing political

support, however, the lack of public acceptance still hinders road pricing schemes. Even in cases

where feasibility studies and experiments conducted were successful, public opposition stopped

its implementation. Hong Kong’s Electronic Pricing System (ERP) two-year pilot experiment,

for example, proved 99.7% reliable and 99% accurate yet was still rejected by the public. The

public’s main concerns were the government’s profit-seeking motive and the invasion of privacy

caused from the tracking of people’s travel activities (Hau 1995). Therefore, a city needs strong

political backing and assurance of security in order to overcome the barrier of public opposition .

The LCCS, though met with public disapproval, was implemented due to the support of a bold

political leader, Mayor Livingston (Peirson and Vickerman 2008). Oslo’s Toll Ring met the

public’s concern of privacy distributing anonymous tags for users to affix to their cars and use to

pay tolls (EIU 2006).

       The last issue is the availability of alternative transport. Because the purpose of road

pricing is to reduce traffic and discourage automobile dependency, a city needs to have a good

public transportation system to deter residents from driving. Mainly there needs to be another

mode of transportation into the city’s charging zone that is more effective and cheaper than using

the roads. An innovative approach the LCCS took was to package the road pricing scheme with

the improvement of public transportation. The scheme sought to insure the effectiveness of road

pricing by providing alternative transportation as well as using revenues from the tolls collected

to fund public transportation (Peirson and Vickerman 2008).
                                                                                           Chen 7

       This paper studies the three main barriers to road pricing (politics, public acceptance, and

alternative transport) to understand how existing road schemes have overcome them. These real-

world solutions serve as exemplary models for Los Angeles to follow. In addition, the study will

analyze common topographical, political, financial, and circulation elements which may affect

the success of a city’s road pricing scheme. This criterion is used to evaluate the likelihood of a

city-wide road pricing scheme in Los Angeles. Topographically, LA has an easily identifiable

congested commercial district which would benefit from road pricing.

Methodology: Quantitative Measures of Road Pricing

       This study employs quantitative methods to evaluate the characteristics that affect the

performance of a road pricing system and the feasibility of a Los Angeles scheme. Much of the

paper’s research is grounded in quantitative data which allows for the measurement and rating of

a city’s transit-related attributes. A combination of case study research, document analysis, and

spatial analysis was used to answer the questions set forth in this study.

Case study research and document analysis

       The initial step of the research project was to determine which cities to use in its cross-

city comparison. Content analysis of books and academic journal articles helped identify what

are considered transit theorists and economists’ best practices for road pricing schemes. A

subsequent review of over twenty international pricing projects led to this study’s focus on three

comprehensive area-wide schemes which have been in operation for long gestation periods

(Singapore, Stockholm, and London). These three schemes are also identified by the U.S.

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration as exemplary congestion pricing

abroad. Two rejected area-wide schemes were also identified to be included in the study’s
                                                                                            Chen 8

comparison (Hong Kong and New York). These five projects have received much depth and

attention during planning, design, implementation, and operational phases and have been

evaluated accordingly in this study.

       In order to determine the feasibility of a Los Angeles scheme , a baseline was identified

for ideal city characteristics to have when implementing road pricing. Extensive research from a

variety of government sources including statistics departments and transport authority was

documented into tables and charts for comparison. The cross-city comparison identifies similar

patterns regarding the characteristics of cities with successful and rejected schemes. Quantitative

demographic, housing, and economic data were collected from 2009 local and national census

surveys and statistical reports. Travel and congestion data were collected from local and national

travel surveys and transport authority reports. Political and financial data not available from the

previous sources were retrieved from content analysis of academic journals and administrative

records. The result of the data collection culminated in a comparison of population, housing,

income, travel preference and availability, and political systems.

       The structure of this feasibility study was loosely based on past market assessments of

public transit services and road pricing feasibility reports. The most recent and influential report

is the feasibility evaluation of a congestion pricing program for San Francisco. Similar to the

“Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study” conducted by the San Francisco County Transportation

Authority, this study conducted institutional, demographic, and baseline analyses. The cross-city

comparison tables and graphs stated previously formed the basis of each analysis. The

institutional analyses identified the importance of alternative transportation and political support

for public acceptance. The demographic analysis was also structured similar to market
                                                                                          Chen 9

assessments of regional transportation systems. These documents were available through my

internship with Transportation Management Design, Inc. (TMD, Inc.). This study applied the

same methodology of evaluating community profiles (population, demographics, employment,

etc.) to help determine what location is the most favorable for supporting congestion charging.

The baseline analysis examined available data regarding transportation performance and the

impacts of traffic congestion. The most relevant reports include “Texas Transportation Institute’s

2009 Urban Mobility Report” and “The City of Los Angeles Transportation Profile of 2009”.

Spatial Analysis

       This project combined two distinct geographic levels of analysis. On the macro level, a

global scale was used to study the few existing and rejected road pricing schemes. The cross-

global comparison of these cities allowed for the evaluation of differences and similarities

between varying road pricing approaches in different geographic areas. Critical spatial factors

include public transit accessibility and circulation; and proximity to transit demand.

       On the micro level a road pricing feasibility study for Los Angeles based on the above

spatial elements was conducted. Traffic speeds for all modes of public transit for the entire city

was obtained from TMD, Inc. Traffic speed measures include bus speeds at each stop and speeds

categorized by time period (early AM, AM peak, midday, PM peak, late-night). Using these

measures in GIS, congested areas of Los Angeles with heavy traffic and problematic transit

patterns were identified. This visual traffic data analysis identified downtown Los Angeles as the

optimal location for road pricing. Entries with high levels of congestion served as possible

locations for ERP gantries. The GIS spatial analysis also illustrated the importance of public

transportation in the road pricing zone.
                                                                                            Chen 10

Towards Implementation

       An extensive review of approved and rejected congestion pricing proposals highlights

two interrelated key areas which affect implementation: political approval and public acceptance.

This analysis finds that these barriers are best overcome with an efficient and reliable alternative

transit system that will displace Los Angeles’ heavy reliance on private automobiles. The study’s

cross-city comparison suggests that a dense business district is the optimal location for road

pricing and alternative transport. Moreover youth and student age populations are identified as

key private transport users who will be more inclined to switch to public transit with the advent

of road pricing. This analysis contends that the LA’s ideal location road pricing would be in

downtown, where employment and education enrollment are most dense and private vehicle

users are more susceptible to switching to public transportation.

Institutional Analysis and the Importance of Alternative Transit

       The implementation of a LA congestion pricing program requires public acceptance

through strong political support and the establishment of a broad transport policy. As shown in

the table below, past successful schemes were made possible with the combination of these three

interrelated elements. In the cases of Singapore, London, and Stockholm, congestion pricing was

positively received by the public as a result of a united political front which introduced the

scheme as a part of a broad transport policy. All three proposals were part of an ambitious and

wide-ranging transit plan whose fundamental goals and values were to reduce congestion and

exhaust emissions. Most assuring, however, was the promise of improved public transport with

the installation of a road pricing system. Because revenues generated from congestion charges

directly funded public transportation projects, the public was more receptive and less weary of
                                                                                             Chen 11

the government’s profit-seeking motive and the affordability of the fees for low to middle

income classes. Hong Kong’s scheme, in contrast, had a strong political support but was largely

rejected by the public. Not only was the revenue ratio of the scheme 8 to 1, but there was no

mention of whether these funds would be used for alternative transportation (Hau 1995). New

York City, on the other hand, received strong local, national, public, and media backing for its

sustainability plan that addressed fundamental congestion issues of air, energy, water, and

transportation (including: public transit and road pricing) (Schaller). Nevertheless, the pricing

scheme was rejected due to a split state legislature vote in which the Democratic assembly

expressed skepticism of its financial fairness to low and middle income households.

                            Singapore    London         Stockholm    HK (R)        NYC (R)
 Dominant political party   One-party    One-party      Two-party    Multi-party   Two-party
 Joint political support    X            X              X            X
 National support           X            X              X            X             X
 Public approval            X            X              X                          X
 Broad transport policy     X            X              X                          X
        For Los Angeles to experience the success of Singapore, London, and Stockholm’s

pricing schemes, a consolidated political authority needs to guarantee a similar promise of

improved public transport in light of congestion charging. Thus, the following market

assessment stresses the importance of public transport by identifying characteristics of a city

which affect public transit ridership and private vehicle usage. The fundamental goal is to

compare Los Angeles to various cities which have proposed road pricing schemes and assess

which areas are optimal for encouraging drivers to switch from private to public transportation.

Market Assessment

        As defined by TMD, Inc. the market assessment provides a market context for the

performance of the existing transit network. It will consist of the evaluation of characteristics of
                                                                                         Chen 12

the current Los Angeles population and overall demographic trends in comparison to overseas

schemes. This analysis is intended to identify opportunities to increase public transit ridership

and decrease private automobile use through the implementation of road pricing and capture of

unmet travel demand.

   The market assessment is intended to answer important questions concerning:

   1. Community Profile: What are the community population, demographics, and
      employment of the various cities? Where are these most favorable to supporting
      congestion charging and public transport?
   2. Baseline Analysis: What are the ideal travel patterns and demand, and how do Los
      Angeles’ road and transit network compare?

Community Profile

       The community profile is an integral part of the cross-city demographic analysis. Higher

populations and employment densities are a key focus of this review as well as demographic

characteristics more supportive of transit usage as opposed to private automobile usage. These

underlying conditions are often good indicators of where public transit service will most likely

be successful and sustainable. The purpose in doing so is to ensure for a pricing system that will

provide adequate alternative transport mode for those discouraged by the charge.

       Key data sources for profiling Los Angeles and the overseas case studies were from the

2009 US Census Bureau’s estimates, the 2001 London Census, and the respective statistics

departments of the Singapore, Stockholm, and Hong Kong governments.

Population Density

       For accurate measurement of population, both city and urban densities were documented.

As defined by the US Census Bureau, city density disregards the metropolitan density of at least

1,000 people per square mile, while urban density includes it. Densities recorded are based on
                                                                                                                           Chen 13

pre-road pricing schemes for an accurate assessment of the optimal density needed to propose a


            Particularly          for     cities   with
                                                                               Pre-Road Pricing Population Density
significant population densities, public                               30000

transportation can service more riders

                                                           ppl/sq mi
in a densely populated area (Steiner                                   15000

1994). Likewise as shown on the right,

all five schemes have city densities of                                    0
                                                                                         Singapore   London    Stockholm
                                                                                   LA                                      HK (1983)    NYC
                                                                                           (1997)     (2001)     (2004)

over 8,000 people per sq. mile.                            City Density           8667    11389      11815       10538      12559      27722.8
                                                           Urban Density          8858    11391      12750       8593       12559       5436

Although Los Angeles has the second

highest density in the United States after New York City, in comparison to the other cities, there

is a significant margin of difference. The pre-road pricing density graph indicates cities with

successfully implemented schemes tend to have higher city densities of 10,000 to 12,000 people

per square mile. Interestingly, however, while both New York and Hong Kong have the highest

city densities, neither scheme was implemented.

                                                                               A comparison of housing distribution,
             Housing Distribution
            Single-unit    Multi-unit     Mobile Homes           another factor of density, clarifies that although

      LA             46.0%                      54.0%           a dense city is ideal for pricing schemes, a more
Singapore   5.7%                        94.3%
                                                                sprawled urban area such as Los Angeles does
  London                  60.4%                    39.5%
                                                                not necessitate an incapacity for a congestion
Stockholm           45.0%                       55.0%
  NYC (R)    17.0%                        83.0%                 project. As shown in the graph at the left,
   HK (R)   5.0%                        95.0%
                                                                housing distributions of single and multi-unit
                                                                                         Chen 14

houses varies greatly. Similar to Stockholm, nearly half of Los Angeles’ housing stock consists

of single-units. With 60 percent of single-unit houses, London’s residential sprawl did not appear

to affect the application of charging scheme. Given that New York and Hong Kong’s housing

distribution is nearly comparable to Singapore’s housing density clearly does not play a large

role in road pricing. Therefore while population density is an important factor to consider in

introducing congestion charging, housing density does not hinder implementation. Rather,

additional factors explained later in have a heavier impact on its success.

Employment Density

       Local and regional locations with high employment and density are important trip

generators for any city. Particularly for metropolitan areas, the highest employment densities are

located in downtown where business districts are usually located. Core areas are the most sought

after spaces due to its central location and ease of access to employment. Not surprisingly,

attraction to downtown creates the greatest congestion for major cities and are prime locations

for congestion charging. All three successful schemes are based accordingly with congestion

charging zones inclusive of the central business districts. Fees are charged in relation to AM

peak and PM peak periods when employees are traveling to and from work.

       A GIS analysis of LA’s employment and population concentration in 2005 identifies

possible congestion charging locations that are dense enough to support an efficient and easily

accessible public transportation system. The map below shows that the greatest concentration of

both employment and population density is located in downtown Los Angeles and surrounding

communities. The widespread concentration of population in central Los Angeles extends from

the downtown corridor in all directions.
                                                                                       Chen 15

       Downtown Los Angeles consists of a large area of very high employment density bound

to the north and west by Interstate 110, Alameda Street to the east, and Washington Boulevard to

the south. The area contains a few densely populated residential pockets, but mostly serves as a

regional employment hub. Small areas of employment density extend beyond these boundaries

into Koreatown to the west and along Interstate 110 to the south. The majority of the downtown

area is surrounded by high density residential uses.

       As a whole, Los Angeles is largely low density residential with downtown Los Angeles

serving as the main employment center for the region. There are many areas surrounding the city

(those along the Highway 101 corridor and coastal communities south of Santa Monica) which

have little to no employment density and are largely residential. Residents of these suburban

communities are dependent on the centralized commercial and business centers of neighboring

cities and downtown Los Angeles. The surrounding suburban communities serve as target

locations to dissuade from using private vehicles. This is made possible through the

implementation of road pricing and the improvement of public transport from these areas into the

downtown corridor.

Journey to Work – Origins and Destinations

       Additionally, various cities on the periphery have small downtown areas of their own

with reflecting small pockets of high employment density throughout the urban area . Cities such

as Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Hollywood, and Long Beach have small areas of

moderate and high employment density. However, the following analysis shows that this
                                                                                             Chen 16

variation of employment density surrounding Los Angeles, does not affect the city’s potential for

road pricing.

       The table below shows that the represents origins and destinations of over 1.4 million

work trips in Los Angeles. The data was collected from the US Census Bureau and Labor

Department’s 2009 database that compiled payroll records to identify worker origins and

destinations. Accounting for half of primary work trips, the vast majority of Los Angeles

employees and residents stay within the city to work. The large portion of inter-city commute

represents the potential for an improved local public transit system which will deter employees

from driving to work.

                          Table 2 - Census Journey to Work (2009)
Origin                                          Destination
Where do Los Angeles employees live?            Where do Los Angeles residents work?
Place/City            Count         Percent     Place/City            Count        Percent
Los Angeles           714,303       50.2%       Los Angeles           714,303      50.7%
Long Beach            25,641        1.8%        Burbank               64,327       4.6%
Glendale              24,046        1.7%        Santa Monica          35,365       2.5%
Santa Clarita         18,965        1.3%        Glendale              27,592       2.0%
Pasadena              15,966        1.1%        Beverly Hills         25,768       1.8%
Simi Valley           14,597        1.0%        Culver                24,977       1.8%
San Diego             12,493        0.9%        Torrance              19,494       1.4%
Santa Monica          12,471        0.9%        Pasadena              18,513       1.3%
Inglewood             12,328        0.9%        West Hollywood        16,913       1.2%
Burbank               10,869        0.8%        Long Beach            16,714       1.2%
All Other Locations   560,288       39.4%       All Other Locations   445,160      31.6%
Total Primary Jobs    1,421,967     100.0%      Total Primary Jobs    1,409,126    100.0%

Baseline Analysis: Travel Demand

       The study’s baseline evaluation is centered on travel patterns of the three model road

pricing schemes. The overseas travel data is based on 2009 figures and provided by the

Singapore Land Transport Authority and the European Urban Audit on the quality of life in

European cities. Transit data for Los Angeles is taken from 2009 US Census Bureau estimates
                                                                                                       Chen 17

and TMD Inc’s past reports for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Demographic

data regarding LA’s target populations (youth and college-aged) are based on 2000 Census data.

The following data is particularly useful in comparing patterns for private automobile travel with

those on the public transit network. This analysis may indicate areas where road pricing will

enable public transit to increase its mode share of total travel demand.

Journey to Work: Travel Modes

       As    previously    stated,   employment
                                                                          Transport Mode to Work
attracts people to a metropolitan area. Therefore,     90.0%
the working population constitutes the biggest         70.0%
contributor to congestion in high employment
dense areas such as Downtown Los Angeles.
       An analysis of transport methods to work
evaluates the amount of congestion Los Angeles
                                                                  Los Angeles   Singapore (1997) London (2001)   Stockholm
employees contribute in comparison to the
                                                               Priv Transport     Public Transport    No Transport needed
overseas counterparts. For fair assessment, pre-

road pricing figures were collected for this evaluation. As shown on the graph,

LA’s reliance on private transport for work is significantly greater than Singapore, London, and

Stockholm’s. While such high figures ensure a profit potential for a road pricing scheme in Los

Angeles, it also signifies an inability of the city’s public transportation system to attract


Key Student Populations
                                                                                            Chen 18

       The mark of success of any road pricing scheme is the reduction of congestion caused by

private vehicles and the increase of public transit ridership. By identifying the trip purpose of car

trips made into overseas congestion zones, the study determines the specific populations which

would likely switch from private to public transit if road pricing were implemented. An analysis

of the travel tendencies of Singapore, London, and Stockholm identify commute, business,

school, and leisure as key motivations for driving into the charging zone. Thus in addition to

residents and workers, students and shoppers are also target populations to deter to use public


Youth Population

       The US Census Bureau defines youth as persons between 12 and 17 years of age. They

are typically middle school and high school students able to independently utilize public transit

as a means of daily travel needs. Youth residents are more likely to switch to public transport

rather than being driven to school through a potential charging zone.

       According to the 2000 Census data, there are few significant concentrations of youth

throughout the Los Angeles. Downtown Los Angeles holds the greatest concentrations of youth

population within the city. These neighborhoods (Koreatown, Central LA, and Nevin)

collectively contain four middle schools and five high schools. Several communities surrounding

Downtown Los Angeles have expansive areas of moderately high concentrations of youth,

including Inglewood, City Terrace, Huntington Park and South Gate.

       Public transportation is highly important for the communities of central Los Angeles, and

a few surroundings cities, which have large populations of youth aged residents because many
                                                                                          Chen 19

are too young to obtain a driver’s license, cannot afford the costs of purchasing and operating a

privately-owned vehicle; and most often need access to other educational resources.

Student Age Population

       The student age population is defined as persons age 18-24. Students contribute to the

road traffic generated from school and leisure trips. However, because students typically have

lower levels of income and prefer to avoid unnecessary charging, alternative modes of

transportation are more popular among students.

       Student age population differs slightly from the distribution of the youth population

within Los Angeles and surrounding communities. Similar to previous density distributions, the

Downtown Los Angeles area holds a significant collection of colleges within its boundaries: LA

Community College, California Design College, West Coast University, American Pacific

College, Pacific States University, Peoples College of Law, Abraham Lincoln University - Law,

Loyola Law School, Westwood College of Technology, and FIDM – Fashion Institute of

Design. All located within a two mile radius of each other, the multitude of professional and

education centers located near Downtown Los Angeles contribute to the area’s significantly high

concentration of student aged residents.

       In addition, areas of Hollywood, Westwood, and Palms have significantly high student

age populations. California State University, Long Beach off of Bellflower Boulevard between

East 7th Street and East Atherton Street is the largest contributor to student presence within Long

Beach. Also, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in Westwood, draws very high

levels of student residents to the area surrounding the campus. The distribution of student age

population is focused between Wilshire Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard, east of Interstate 405.
                                                                                                      Chen 20

Less than a mile from each other, LA City College and DeVry University attract a moderate to

high concentration of student aged residents to eastern Hollywood neighborhoods.

Congestion in Downtown Los Angeles

       The downtown corridor serves as the Los Angeles’ optimal location for a road pricing

scheme. Its high population, residential, employment, and student densities contribute to the

city’s most congested arterial roads. This section solely examines the congestion in downtown

LA rather than the entire city. The purpose is to reaffirm the area’s potential for supporting road

                                                                         Average AM & PM Peak Speed
       Low traffic speeds are a good                                20
                                                    speed (mi/hr)
indicator of overly congested roads in need                         10
of road pricing. The chart on the right                              0
                                                                            LA   Singapore London Stockholm
displays vehicle speeds during peak work                                           (1997)   (2001)  (2004)

hours in central business districts. Compared

to Singapore, London, and Stockholm’s pre-road pricing traffic speeds, downtown LA’s average

vehicle speed is the lowest (8.83 mi/hr). Such a low vehicle speed expresses the success potential

for congestion charging to mitigate congestion.

       Moreover, the high private vehicle traffic volume hinders the efficiency of the public bus

routes serving the downtown corridor. The prevalence of employee vehicles entering and exiting

the area exacerbate downtown LA’s congestion, contributing to traffic delays for public buses.

Therefore in order to increase bus speeds and consequently attract private vehicle users, road

pricing needs to be implemented as a means to dissuade drivers and moderate congestion.

                                                                                        Chen 21

       Over three decades of experience overseas with pricing programs and studies provides a

rich body of knowledge about various practices and approaches to congestion charging. Rather

than studying the different types of schemes, this study sought to evaluate how effective a road

pricing scheme would be in Los Angeles through case studies of three area-wide schemes and

two that were rejected. This section ties together the lessons learned from evaluating

characteristics of a city which affect the performance of a road pricing proposal.

       Demographically, it was found that the density was a key attribute for road pricing. Both

implemented and rejected schemes have extremely high population densities. More convincing,

however, is the need for high economic density. As the case studies of Singapore, London, and

Stockholm show, the success in handling large numbers of vehicles lies in the ability to redirect

employment traffic from private automobile use to public transit use. While Los Angeles has an

undoubtedly densely populated urban core, it lacks an efficient public transit system to deter

employees away from private transportation. Further complicating the matter, the vast majority

of workers traveling to work by car is much higher in Los Angeles than the overseas cities pre-

road pricing. Therefore, youth and college-aged students are identified as target populations to

persuade to use public transportation rather than contributing to congestion. Despite the

shortcomings of heavy car reliance, the study assesses Downtown Los Angeles as the optimal

location for a road pricing scheme. Its residential and employment density make the urban core a

hotspot for future public transit development and road pricing.

       The main goal of this study is to identify the characteristics and barriers which help

and/or hinder the effectiveness and performance of a potential road pricing scheme. The study’s

application to Los Angeles illustrates how the cross-city comparison functions in determining
                                                                                           Chen 22

what factors are most influential in road pricing proposal and implementation. The three main

forces that are identified are public and political acceptance, and alternative transit systems. The

study of these underlying factors concludes that similar, road pricing can be proven to be

effective and successful when applied to the right location such as Los Angeles. However,

mainly due to public skepticism and lack of alternative transport, many proposals are continually

rejected by the public and shelved. The solution therefore is to incite positive connotations with

road pricing and to ensure through broad transport policies that revenues generated will be used

to support transport infrastructure.
                                                                                        Chen 23


Elliot, Ward. 1986. Fumbling toward the edge of history: California’s quest for a road-pricing
     experiment. Transportation Research Part A: General 20 (2) (3): 151-6.

Garrison, William. 2000. Tomorrow’s transportation : Changing cities, economies and lives.,
    72. Norwood: Artech House.
Goh, M. 2002. Congestion management and electronic road pricing in singapore. Journal of
    Transport Geography 10 (1): 29-38.

Hau, Timothy D., and University of Hong Kong. School of Economics. 1995. Transportation
    demand management in hong kong. [Hong Kong]: University of Hong Kong, School of
    Economics and Finance.

Higgins, Thomas J. 1986. Road-pricing attempts in the united states. Transportation Research
    Part A: General 20 (2) (3): 145-50.

Jakarta’s    ERP        project   stalled.    2010.     The     Jakarta                Post2010.             (accessed
    October 18, 2010).

Mattsson, L. -G. 2008. Road pricing : Consequences for traffic, congestion and location. Road
    Pricing, the Economy, and the Environment: 29-48.

May, A. D. 1992. Road pricing : An international perspective. Transportation 19 (4).

May, A. D., and D. S. Milne. 2000. Effects of alternative road pricing systems on network
   performance. Transportation Research.Part A, Policy and Practice. 34 (6): 407-36.

NITTA, . 1999. Electronic road pricing in singapore. Traffic 34 (4): 37.

Peirson, John, and R. W. Vickerman. 2008. The london congestion charging scheme : The
     evidence. Road Pricing, the Economy, and the Environment: 79-91.
Phang, . 1997. From manual to electronic road congestion pricing: The singapore experience and
experiment. Transportation Research.Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review 33 (2): 97.

Philip T. Blythe. Congestion charging: Challenges to meet the UK policy objectives.

Richards, Brian. 1990. Road-pricing and controls. In Transport in cities., 67-78. London:
    Architecture Design and Technology Press.

Road pricing: Congestion pricing, value pricing, toll roads and HOT lanes. 2010. Transport
    Demand Management Encyclodpedia (May 9, 2010),
                                                                                       Chen 24

Shinkman, Matthew, Malcolm Buchanan, and Economist Intelligence Unit (Great Britain). 2006.
    Driving change : How policymakers are using road charging to tackle congestion. London:
    The Economist Intelligence Unit.

Steiner, R. L., & Transportation Research Board. (1994).Residential density and travel patterns:
     a review of the literature and methodological appraoach

Transportation Management and Design.OCTA Market Assessment. October 2009.

Tuan Seik, Foo. 2000. An advanced demand management instrument in urban transport:
    Electronic road pricing in singapore. Cities 17 (1) (2): 33-45.

Verhoef, E. T. 2008. Implementation paths for marginal cost-based pricing in urban transport :
    Theoretical considerations and case study results. Road Pricing, the Economy, and the
    Environment: 49-78.

Wachs, Martin, University of California (System). Transportation Center., and University of
   California,Los Angeles.Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning. 1993.
   Learning from los angeles : Transport, urban form, and air quality. Berkeley, Calif.:
   University of California Transportation Center.

Shared By: