Preliminary Results of the London Congestion Charging Scheme
By G. Santos, Blake Shaffer. 2004
175 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Automotive Engineering, Transportation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b020c992ccbc0dc9e11fe0e1e6658b5cb9ff6d58
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Automotive Engineering
In Transportation
- G. Santos
- Maria Börjesson
- I. Kristoffersson
- Jonathan Leape
- Hannah Behrendt
- Lorraine Whitmarsh
- Alexander Teytelboym
Citations in the corpus
- A multi-level analysis of sustainable mobility transitions: Niche development in the UK and Sweden (2008, background): “Research has suggested that consumer behaviour is more sensitive to congestion charging and road tolls than to fuel taxes, which are not visible directly in the fuel price [100,101].”
- The Gothenburg congestion charge. Effects, design and politics (2015, background): “In particular, analyses of traffic effects have only been published for the congestion charging systems in Singapore (Olszewski and Xie, 2005; Phang and Toh, 1997), London (Santos, 2005; Santos and Shaffer, 2004), Stockholm (Börjesson et al.”
- Road Pricing: Lessons from London (2006, unknown): “ Santos and Shaffer (2004) and Santos (2004) estimate pre and post-charging MCC at 186.5 pence per PCU-km and 182 pence PCU-km respectively.”
- The London Congestion Charge (2006, background): “…in London (ignoring the network complications discussed earlier) concluded that the £5.00 charge would correspond to the optimal congestion charge if, on average, charge payers undertake journeys of about two miles, or just over half the width of the charging zone (Santos and Shaffer, 2004).”
- Urban Congestion Charging: A Comparison between London and Singapore (2005, background): “Santos and Shaffer (2004) estimate the average MCC in the charging zone in London at £1.65 per vehicle-km.”
- Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport (2010, background): “Although bus ridership increased in line with expectations, underground and rail travel did not (Santos & Shaffer, 2004, p. 171).”