PRICING, METERING, AND EFFICIENTLY USING URBAN TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
William Vickrey
Abstract
William Vickrey
Abstract
THIS ANALYSIS IS INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ROADWAY PRICING NEED NOT, AND INDEED SHOULD NOT, BE VIEWED PRIMARILY AS A MATTER OF REDRESSING A BALANCE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, ESPECIALLY TRANSIT. ROAD PRICING, PROPERLY APPLIED, CAN IN THE MOST SEVERELY CONGESTED SITUATIONS LEAD TO GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THE ROADWAYS ARE USED AND EVEN, IN SOME CASES, TO A REDUCED RELIANCE ON TRANSIT. WHERE HEAVY INVESTMENT IN SEPARATE-RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSIT FACILITIES IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ROADWAY PRICING MAY WELL TIP THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF LESS, NOT MORE, INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT SERVICES. ROADWAY PRICING IS NOT, THEREFORE, MAINLY AN ISSUE IN THE BATTLE BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE INTERESTS AND TRANSIT INTERESTS, IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION OF ROADWAY PRICING WOULD BE REGARDED AS A VICTORY FOR TRANSIT AND A DEFEAT FOR THE AUTOMOBILE. RATHER, ROADWAY PRICING HAS A GREAT DEAL TO OFFER ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT A DEFEAT FOR ANYONE BUT A VICTORY FOR THE CAUSE OF RATIONAL AND EFFICIENT URBAN TRANSPORTATION. /AUTHOR/
OpenAlex reports 138 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
THIS ANALYSIS IS INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ROADWAY PRICING NEED NOT, AND INDEED SHOULD NOT, BE VIEWED PRIMARILY AS A MATTER OF REDRESSING A BALANCE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, ESPECIALLY TRANSIT. ROAD PRICING, PROPERLY APPLIED, CAN IN THE MOST SEVERELY CONGESTED SITUATIONS LEAD TO GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THE ROADWAYS ARE USED AND EVEN, IN SOME CASES, TO A REDUCED RELIANCE ON TRANSIT. WHERE HEAVY INVESTMENT IN SEPARATE-RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSIT FACILITIES IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ROADWAY PRICING MAY WELL TIP THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF LESS, NOT MORE, INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT SERVICES. ROADWAY PRICING IS NOT, THEREFORE, MAINLY AN ISSUE IN THE BATTLE BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE INTERESTS AND TRANSIT INTERESTS, IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION OF ROADWAY PRICING WOULD BE REGARDED AS A VICTORY FOR TRANSIT AND A DEFEAT FOR THE AUTOMOBILE. RATHER, ROADWAY PRICING HAS A GREAT DEAL TO OFFER ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT A DEFEAT FOR ANYONE BUT A VICTORY FOR THE CAUSE OF RATIONAL AND EFFICIENT URBAN TRANSPORTATION. /AUTHOR/
Key concepts: Victory, Battle, Balance (ability), Investment (military), Transit (satellite), Transport engineering, Road pricing, Singapore Area Licensing Scheme