Traffic Congestion Pricing

The following literature and studies in this chapter are found relevant by the researcher. These are presented to support the present study. Over the past decades, one problem that had caused economic losses in our country is the heavy traffic, primarily caused by road congestions. According to Domingo, S., Briones R. and Tolin, L. (2015), the primary cause of congestion is an effect of the chaotic transport regime of bus operations to meet the demand of the commuters, as for buses and similar modes of transportations it is just open franchising. The memorandum the government implemented in 2000 for Metro Manila, has many loop holes and created chaos in the road congestions. As of now, Metro Manila’s traffic congestion cost the Philippine

In addition to this, Benko and Smith (2008) mentioned that congestion pricing is not just a simple tax strategy to cure traffic, but it will also constitute a real way to raise investment for Philippine’s transit infrastructure. Black(2010) has also stated that congestion pricing may also cause the drivers to alter their destinations or even decrease their number of trips taken . However, according to Schaller (2010) that in New York and other countries, public acceptance has been a major barrier in implementing congestion pricing as a traffic regulation. According to Brownstone (2002), the success for one country or city to adopt congestion pricing depends fundamentally upon the public’s willingness to pay to reduce travel time during the congested peak periods. . In regards to this Litman(2006), based from his research suggested that basic economic principle is that consumers should pay directly for the costs they impose as an incentive to use resources efficiently. In addition, Liu and Huang (2015) have mentioned that further research can be done for establishing the model for congestion pricing with integrated simultaneous demand fluctuations and the

In relation to Pike (2010), Rye stated that the more complex the technology and enforcement, then the larger the proportion of the scheme revenue is absorbed by it operating costs. In London, as an example, it is possible to pay by direct debit, on the internet, by mobile phone, and at different pay points in capitals which accepts any kind of payment. This point in price scheming for can be explained from the results of London Congestion Pricing, as what Litman (2006) showed in the sample table below of the first 8 years of congestion pricing implementation in London, including the development costs.

Synthesis The above stated related literature and studies proves that traffic congestion has caused huge losses in the country. The studies showed how London and Singapore succeeded in implementing congestion pricing in their traffic scheme. These studies, also support the idea of implementing congestion pricing in Metro Manila. In relation to these studies, congestion pricing should be properly studied for its payment methods and pricing schemes to promote a peaceful public