AMPL005 (Metropolitan Transport Planning)

Final Essay:

Effective transportation resource allocation

in the Zuidvleugel region, The Netherlands –
a look at road pricing

December 2009

Nevin Freeman (6138136)

ABSTRACT

This paper is an exploration of a policy process for addressing accessibility and

sustainability of the Zuidvleugel region of The Netherlands. I expand upon the problem
identification executed by Blom, Freeman, and Weterings (2009c), and deduce that
shaping road pricing policy is currently the most effective use of transportation-related
time and money for the region, probabilistically speaking. I lay out potential avenues for
accommodating equity concerns, reducing emissions, and gaining public support for the
road pricing initiative. Following these suggested avenues, I discuss potential policy
frameworks that could be useful for the process, which actors will need to be involved in
which capacity, and some of the complexities that will likely be faced during the process.
Finally, I reflect on weaknesses, omissions, and uncertainties within my plan.

1
Table  of  Contents  
1.  INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................3  
2.  PROBLEM  SELECTION ......................................................................................................................4  
3.  PROBLEM  DEFINITION.....................................................................................................................5  
SURVEY  OF  FRAMEWORKS ........................................................................................................................................8  
APPLICATION  OF  THESE  FRAMEWORKS ..............................................................................................................10  
5.  REFLECTION ..................................................................................................................................... 13  
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 15  

2
1.  Introduction  
This document is a look at how to improve accessibility and reduce transport emissions
and equity issues in the Zuidvleugel region. After some consideration, I determined that a
review of the options for the upcoming Dutch road pricing policies is likely the best
(most efficient, and probably most effective) way to address all of these issues. Similar to
the dilemma of which scale to frame planning issues in general, wherein city
governments often look to a regional or sometimes national level, road pricing isn’t
something that can exist only in the Zuidvleugel region. However, although this policy
will be made on a national level, that doesn’t fundamentally preclude it from being the
best use of resources at this point in time. Therefore, I freely discuss the issue on a
national level, al the while with the Zuidvleugel region in mind, considering what is in its
best interest.

Blom, Freeman, and Weterings (2009) identified a simple scheme for guiding
transportation decision-making that aims to (1) accommodate accessibility of spatially-
disjointed activities and (2) reduce the environmentally threatening outputs of our
mobility system, which is the main means to providing this accessibility. As illustrated in
Figure 1, possible realities exist that include zero, one, or both of these outcomes, and we
are aiming for the region of potential reality-space that includes both.

Environmentally harmful,
Not accommodating of
accessibility

Environmentally benign,
Not accommodating of
accessibility
State of a human
mobility system over Environmentally benign,
time Accommodating of
accessibility

Environmentally harmful,
Accommodating of
accessibility

Figure 1: possible states of human mobility systems

Source: Blom, Freeman, and Weterings (2009, pp.11)

Blom, Freeman, and Weterings (2009) also identified five main problems related to
accessibility and environmental impact of the transportation network in the Zuidvleugel
region of The Netherlands. This list is not exhaustive, but for the purpose of this paper I
will assume that it is representative of such problems for the region, and will draw from it
in order to select an area of focus. The problems identified were:

3
 1. Lack of support for new types of fuel (for example, electric vehicle charging
stations)
2. Too much JIT transport of goods, which can be categorized as unnecessary travel
3. Lack of inter-city low-energy transport options
4. Overall lack of robustness and redundancy of the network
5. Disconnect between equity, environmental impact, and economic efficiency
goals, especially with regard to planned road pricing
 
2.  Problem  Selection  
In order to calculate which of these five problems to focus on first, we must define some
implications along with our goals in more specific terms.

Goal 1: Accommodate accessibility of spatially disjointed activities

• Implies: accessibility should not vary significantly as a result of income
• Implies: urban environments should allow access to a reasonable amount of
economic and social activities

Goal 2: Reduce the environmentally threatening outputs of our mobility system

• Implies: emissions should be reduced as quickly and drastically as possible to
avoid potential negative outcomes
• Implies: reducing emissions today is significantly more valuable than in some
undefined time in the future

With these goals in mind, I offer an SCBA-like representation of the expected urgency,
value, and cost of addressing each of the aforementioned problems (by rating from 1 to
10):

Lack of Too much Lack of Overall Lack of planned

support JIT inter-city lack of road pricing account
for new transport low-energy robustness for accessibility and
types of of goods transport and environmental
fuel options redundancy impact

Accessibility Urgency 1 1 4 3 5
Value 1 1 6 5 5
Environmental Urgency 7 2 4 1 9
Impact Value 7 4 5 1 8
Time Investment -10 -5 -5 -9 -4
Money Investment -8 -2 -3 -9 -3

Figure 2: Urgency, expected value, and expected investment for addressing problems identified

Of the five problems identified, the first and last (support for new fuel types, and
balancing road pricing goals) have a distinct urgency in that they both need to be

4
executed properly on a relatively short timescale. This implies that they are good places
to start, but which one is a better use of policy problem-solving energy at this point in
time? Since the adoption of electric or other non-petrol vehicles is ultimately market-
based, I hypothesize that there is a low probability of policy measures having a
significant impact on the timescale of adoption. Road pricing, however, is already slated
to take place in The Netherlands, and will be completely driven by political decisions.
Because of these circumstances, extra research and discussion on this topic have a high
probability of making a significant impact on both accessibility and environmental
impacts that come from the mobility system.

Therefore, from the perspective of the Zuidvleugel region, it is very favorable to spend
time and energy contributing to the road pricing policymaking process in the coming 1-3
years. Ultimately, the policy will likely be on a national level only, but since the
investment is low enough and the expected value high enough, political actors from the
region may want to focus more on this issue than issues that are on a regional scale in the
area. I’ll be focusing on the problem and process on a larger level, but will keep the
region’s interests in mind.

 
3.  Problem  Definition  
Road pricing has been considered in many countries, for many years as a way to increase
the efficiency of infrastructure use and in some cases to reduce vehicle distance traveled.
By adding a distance-based use fee to highways, we can make the cost of travel to an
individual more closely reflect the cost of that travel to the general population (called the
'marginal cost'), which will in theory cause the equilibrium of number of road users to
settle closer to the socially optimum point. (Rouwendal and Verhoef 2006) This is
illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The Pigou–Knight analysis Source: Rouwendal and Verhoef 2006, pp.107

5
In The Netherlands, road pricing is slated to be completely built out within the decade.
The most heavily influenced population is likely to be residents of the Randstad region,
where there is the highest concentration of highways. The system proposed will likely use
Global Navigation Satellite System tracking, wherein each vehicle will have a location-
tracking device.

The package is planned to be revenue-neutral, meaning all revenue from the new policy
will be offset by reduction in the current standard vehicle taxes paid by every vehicle
owner. This is very important, as any road pricing measure "is more acceptable when
revenues are used for a decrease in fuel taxes, an abolishment of existing car taxation or
to lower existing car ownership taxes together with the construction of new roads,"
according to Ubbels and Verhoef (2005 pp.17), who did a survey-based study to gauge
acceptability of possible road pricing measures by Dutch car owners.

The pricing policy is also planned to account for time of day, section of highway, and
efficiency of one's vehicle. While this may seem to be too complex for some parties,
according to Ubbels and Verhoef's surveys (2005 pp.17) "the complexity of a measure
does not affect the levels of acceptance." It's unclear how far this extends; for example,
we can't assume that varying the toll based on other variables like individual income
would not negatively impact the acceptability of the package.

Road pricing in general is believed to be regressive, meaning it imposes a

disproportionately high burden on people with the lowest incomes. (Rouwendal and
Verhoef 2006) Cain and Jones (2008) did a case study in Edinburgh, Scotland to
determine the potential for Road pricing-related hardship. They found that "a congestion
charge payment at least once a week resulted in a significant additional cost burden
(potentially taking average motoring costs to above 50% of the total disposable income),
whereas the same payment frequency was easily absorbed by households in the higher
income quintiles." (pp.55) However, they also make note that only 25% of the lowest
income quintile are car-dependent in the study area, and the other 75% tend to use transit.
This is not something that can be said about all metropolitan regions, but in regions like
this it may make sense to put revenues towards transit facilities that would benefit the
25% that aren’t already using transit.

Based on this background knowledge, we can identify three overarching goals to make
Road pricing more effective in the Zuidvleugel region:

Goal one: reduce airborne emissions

From an end-use perspective, an important step towards an environmentally benign

mobility system is to reduce airborne emissions. The logical way to achieve this
economically is to internalize the external cost of these emissions, so that the driver is
held monetarily responsible for the harm they are presumably causing. Whereas road
pricing typically only occurs on highways, applying it to all travel would be possible with
a GNSS system. By applying a tax to all car travel that is calculated as the product of

6
distance driven and a coefficient derived from the emissions level of each individual car,
we could directly penalize emissions levels. This angle of taxing the negative outputs of
driving goes one step further than taxing fuel, since it can account for the fact that some
vehicles produce fewer emissions per amount of fuel than others. This concept could be
used as a point of departure for discussing a broader set of ideas on how to use road
pricing to reduce airborne emissions, and is not considered to be an end-all solution.

Goal two: reduce trip times on congested corridors

This goal is in line with the objectives that have driven the current proposal for road
pricing. As illustrated in Figure 3, by internalizing the marginal cost to all road users
when an individual drives on a section of road, the equilibrium will shift to a more
socially optimum point, with less congestion and shorter trip times during peak travel
hours. However, it may be beneficial to separate this toll from the emissions-based toll;
there is no need to take into account the emissions level of a vehicle when calculating the
immediate external costs to other road users in the form of lost time.

As Cain and Jones (2008) identified, the group that will be most harshly affected by this
type of tax is the group of car-dependent households in the bottom income quintile of the
population. However, giving this group a break on the tax itself based on their income
would be counter-productive, in that it would in theory undermine the pursuit of a
socially optimum equilibrium, and result in a smaller reduction in congestion.
(Rouwendal and Verhoef 2006) Since it is less acceptable to allocate revenues to services
not directly tied to road infrastructure (Cain and Jones 2008), it may be best to only focus
on funding public transit initiatives only for this small minority that would experience the
most hardship. By bundling a small amount of revenue spending on extra subsidy of
public transit for this group, we could effectively minimize the most negative impact
without compromising the viability of the policy package. Again, this concept is offered
as a point of departure for further discussion, and not as a solution per se.

Goal three: cultivate public support

In order to create a package that will be adopted and supported by the public, we need to:
(1) avoid measures that the public will inevitably find objectionable, and (2) educate the
public on how the package will work, including who pays, who benefits, and why. I offer
some details on how to potentially achieve each of these three stated goals in the next
section, and especially emphasize the cultivation of public support. With regard to public
support of sustainable accessibility-driven policy, Banister (2007, pp. 79), says “[t]he
open and active involvement of all parties would be far more effective than the
conventional passive means of persuasion.” He advocates a wide range of methods for
involving the public, and my assertions in the next section are partially based on his
claims.

7
4.  Decision  Making  Process

Survey  of  frameworks  

In this subsection I summarize various decision- and policy-making frameworks, and

pick out which parts of each apply most concretely to the case of road pricing in the
Zuidvleugel region.

Figure 4: Funnel model, AMPL005 lecture sheets, RtB

This scheme does a good job of explaining the planning process overall, but falls short of
lending particular insight to our case. It touches on a key concept though, with the words
'diverge' and 'converge'; by comparing and combining this scheme with the scheme of de
Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof (2004), we can better describe why diverging and converging
are of particular value to our process.

Variety, retention, and selection

De Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof (2004) propose that “[t]o create quality in [decision-
making] processes, three conditions always have to be met. The first is variety
[accounting for a wide range of solutions] in the process. The second is selection [of one
of those solutions]. Coupling variety and selection requires a third characteristic of
change processes: retention [keeping variety in the process as long as possible].” (p.95)
Each of these three steps apply to the creation of road pricing policy, but special attention
should be paid to the practice of retention – keeping as many possible solutions on the
table for as long as feasible. This practice is useful not only for creating the best solution,
but also for keeping as many parties engaged as possible, and ideally producing a
solution that is not only effective but commonly accepted. This is important because of
the numerous concerns over road pricing, including equity and privacy. The process will
need to involve many voices, in order to maintain support from a diverse range of parties.

8
Knowledge production and joint fact-finding

Van Buuren and Edelenbos (2004) take an interesting new view of knowledge production
during the planning process. They suppose that rather than the traditionally assumed
division of knowledge within ‘theory’ [academics] and ‘practice’ [policy making], the
more prominent division is between competing coalitions that disagree on an issue. They
point out that these coalitions often contain academics and practitioners, who work
together in research and knowledge production.

Figure 5 Source: van Buuren and Edelenbos 2004, pp. 296

This point of view illuminates a common problem: the discrediting of knowledge that is
produced during planning and decision-making. Since each coalition is likely to only
produce knowledge that supports its view and confirms its arguments, coalitions are
bound from the start to give little credit to each other's 'facts.' In our case this is
particularly dangerous, because road pricing is already a relatively unpopular idea; we
will need to be very careful to maintain the credibility not only in the mental maps of the
actors directly involved, but also those of the general population.

Adaptive policymaking

Figure 6 Source: Marchau et al. 2008, pp. 407

9
Marchau et al. (2008) outline "The adaptive policymaking procedure." They emphasize
that often times it is difficult to craft policy that will continue to work at an optimal level
into the future. By taking an adaptive approach, it's possible to account for unpredictable
possible scenarios by building in the ability for policymakers to monitor the performance
of the policy and adjust it accordingly. This type of approach would likely be helpful in a
multi-stage pricing implementation process, and is discussed further below.

Social cost benefit analysis and expected value

Social cost benefit analysis (SCBA) is something of an institutional norm in

contemporary policymaking, wherein the expected outcomes of alternatives are converted
to monetary values and compared in order to put decisions in perspective of quantitative
effectiveness. However, some (including Næss 2006) object to some of the core practices
involved in SCBA. Næss (2006) says, "[c]ost-benefit analyses of transportation
investment projects tend to neglect long-term environmental consequences and needs
among population groups with a low ability to pay." (pp.15) Since long-term
environmental consequences and population groups with a low ability to pay are the main
focuses of reshaping road pricing policy, this particular quote warrants cause for concern
when using SCBA in the process. To avoid these outcomes, I propose that two basic
principles should be accounted for:

1. Only use SCBA in early stages of the decision-making process, to compare small
parts of alternatives, rather than complete packages. This approach is meant to
avoid pitfalls associated with overcomplexity and low resolution of data.

2. Consider using a probabilistic calculation of 'expected value' in a unit applicable

to the situation, rather than monetary numbers, and don't treat the result as
comprehensive. This could mean that for this case we could compare the expected
effects on emissions in a unit of emission-damage, using the SCBA process, but
still acknowledging that there are costs and benefits not related to emissions. This
would allow for topic-centric comparisons that could be blended together into a
comprehensive package.

Application  of  these  frameworks  

In this subsection I lay out five steps to reach an equitable, environmentally friendly,
publicly acceptable road pricing system. Each of the above frameworks is referenced
where appropriate.

Step 1. Pricing economics analysis

The economics of road pricing have been studied from many angles. Rouwendal and
Verhoef (2006) present the basic theoretical outcomes (detailed above), and Steininger et
al. (2007) present a valid argument that contributions to sustainability are apparent in past
pricing schemes, and should be included in campaigns to garner public support. Many of

10
these models and calculations are portable to the current case in The Netherlands, but
some case-specific calculations will be needed as well. Before any tangible combinations
are generated, monetary and emission forecasts as a result of different types of location-
specific pricing should be calculated.

Since this research immediately presents a threat of being perceived as biased and/or
invalid, different coalitions (such as environmental groups, the ministry of transport, and
economic development advocates) should be invited to research the same questions and
collaborate on producing knowledge of the situation that is universally acceptable. In
addition, review of this knowledge by less biased groups after the fact is also a way to
bring legitimacy. (van Buuren and Edelenbos 2004)

Step 2. Gathering diverging, varying ideas

Some base criteria for this eventual policy package have already been established in the
previous section; these ideas are meant to guide the road pricing policy to be as effective
as possible in relevant arenas. On top of these criteria, specific options need to be
generated and thought out. Note that no option generated in this step is a complete
package, or even a complete policy, but rather a possible facet of the package to come
(for example, the option of pricing local roads).

One way to take on this option-generation phase is to involve regional governments. I

propose a working-group made up of members from the parties that created each
Regionale Netweranalyze, since they will presumably have a good understanding of the
needs for their respective region. Since this is the time to seek variety, any interested
parties should be invited to the table, and options that directly conflict with other options
should all still be recorded for future decision-making. In this step, a modified SCBA
(described above) should be used as a tool for distilling options to meet explicit goals
related to sustainability, equity, and acceptability.

Step 3. Early public education

Once knowledge of potential effects has been evaluated and legitimized, and a multitude
of options has been generated, the public should be well educated about what is on the
table. Banister (2008) argues that to implement transportation solutions that address
sustainability issues, the debate itself needs to go beyond the needs of individuals. This
issue should be debated in public, in the context of the larger (emissions) problems of
transportation systems, before any policy is made.

Additionally, an educated public will be extremely useful in conducting accurate

willingness-to-pay studies. With the opportunity to survey people who have a formed
opinion about the issue, it will be easier to judge the public-acceptability of alternatives.

11
Step 4. Pilot phase

At this point, a strategic move would be to launch a pilot phase in one or two regions that
have higher levels of public support than others. This would allow for some real-world
testing before a package is created for the whole country, and could also serve as a way to
boost acceptance in other areas by normalizing the practice. Policies during the pilot
should in theory be easier to craft, since they will only last a short time.

Step 5. High-level selection

Once all of the above steps have been completed (no doubt with some setbacks and many
additional intermediate steps), the groundwork will be laid for the selection phase,
wherein a comprehensive policy package can be created for the entire country. It is in this
step that adaptive policymaking needs to be executed; there are many variables that relate
to the future of road pricing. Some things that could have a profound impact are electric
vehicles (different amount/type of emissions), and usage rates (and perception) of public
transit. There are many more that will only show on a lower level. For this reason, I
propose appointing local governments to the job of monitoring indicators and informing
the central government. This monitoring on a lower level should reduce the burden on the
central government, and at the same time should ensure that the local governments have a
continued voice throughout updates in policy in years to come.

The process described is illustrated in Figure 7. After package creation, if adaptive policy
indicators show that change of policy is needed, a modified version of the option
generation phase will take place again.

Option  
Generation  

Sustainability,  
Indicator   Equity,  and   Public  
Monitoring   Education  
Acceptibility  
Constraints  

Package  
Creation  

Figure 7: Proposed iterative process for road pricing policy generation

12
5.  Reflection  
What’s missing from this paper?

What does any of this have to do with the Zuidvleugel region? This paper really has two
main points:
• Regional transport planning policy efforts need to focus on whatever
improvements are most important, urgent, and doable, regardless of the scale. In
this case, I hypothesized that addressing road pricing, a national issue, would be
the best way to improve accessibility and reduce emissions in the near future.
Other regions may have a different set of problems, and need to focus, for
example, on problems that are at the city level instead.
• Now is the time to look at road pricing policy in The Netherlands, because there
are very significant potential benefits, and the investment needed to shape the
policy package at this point is relatively low.

So to answer my question, what’s missing is a region-specific infrastructure project.

However, I found the exercise of constructing a process from various frameworks almost
identical, considering the vast different in scale of the problem and solutions addressed.

Other omissions

I wasn’t able to find any government documents in English about the proposed road
pricing ideas. As a result, my information came from various English texts on the Internet
(though my main claims were verified on the day of my in-class presentation). As a
result, it was difficult to focus on exactly who would need to be connected to have the
Zuidvleugel region gain a voice in the planning process. It was also hard to talk about
specific amendments, which wasn’t so bad, since the paper was meant to be focused on
process rather than product.

Notes about uncertainty

The biggest known uncertainty when planning road-centric transport policy is presumably
the vehicles themselves. At this point there is significant research and development of
alternative types of vehicles, so making policy that is flexible in how it deals with vehicle
types will be important. But of course there are uncertainties that are unknown to us still;
to deal with this, the best strategy seems to be captured by Marchau et al. and others like
them; make policy that can cope with new situations you didn’t foresee.

There are also uncertainties that have less to do with timescale (i.e. not being able to
predict the future) and more to do with the present situation. For example, it is often
difficult to make the type of value judgment I used as a basis for this paper, wherein a
group of planners has to decide which problems need to be addressed. This problem can
be linked to the need for information gathering, but can also have to do with other
aspects, such as the backgrounds and points of view of the actors involved.

13
Conclusion

In his inaugural speech address earlier this year, Luca Bertolini (2009, pp.5) said:

On the one hand, mobility has become an essential condition for social
emancipation and economic development, as we have witnessed. However, on the
other hand, the negative effects of mobility are also becoming more and more
obvious, with energy consumption, air pollution, noise pollution, accidents, the
severing of landscapes and communities being just a few poignant examples.

This paper is a direct attempt to envision reconciling these two opposing aspects of
mobility through policy, rather than infrastructure. As Bertolini points out, the negative
affects extend beyond air pollution, and the opportunities for how to address them are
even more plentiful. I chose road pricing because it has the opportunity to bring
significant change at a reasonable investment, and is already nearing fruition.

14
References  
Banister. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy (2008) vol. 15 pp.73-80

Bertolini. The planning of mobility [English translation of the inaugural speech by L.

Bertolini, delivered on 23-01-2009 - with thanks to Howard Turner]. (2009)

Blom, Freeman, and Weterings. Towards a more environmentally benign and accessible
Zuidvleugel Randstad. Universiteit van Amsterdam Course: Metropolitan Transport
Planning. (2009)

Cain and Jones. Does Urban Road pricing Cause Hardship to Low-Income Car Drivers?:
An Affordability-Based Approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board (2008) vol. 2067 (-1) pp. 47-55

de Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof. Process arrangements for variety, retention, and selection.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy (2004) vol. 16 (4) pp. 91-108

Marchau et al. An adaptive approach to implementing innovative urban transport

solutions. Transport Policy (2008)

Næss. Cost-benefit analyses of transportation investments: neither critical nor realistic.

Journal of Critical Realism (2006)

Rouwendal and Verhoef. Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to
applications. Transport Policy (2006)

Steininger et al. Sustainability impacts of car road pricing: A computable general

equilibrium …. Ecological Economics (2007)

Ubbels and Verhoef. Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands.
45th Congress of the European Regional … (2005)

van Buuren and Edelenbos. Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?. Science
and public policy (2004) vol. 31 (4) pp. 289-299

15