Cordon screen: A cordon-based congestion pricing policy evaluation method for U.S. cities

Figures & data

Table 1. Assumption ranges available for driver responses to cordon toll.

Response	Low	Mid	High
Time Shift (A)	10%	12%	14%
Mode Shift (to public transport) (B)	5%	9.75%	14%
Occupancy Increase (C)	7%	9%	11%
Route Shift (D)	6%	9.25%	12.5%
Scale Factor	$\frac{\left(A+B+C+D\right)}{Quantit{y}_{post-toll}}$

Table 2. Cordon toll price elasticity assumptions and sources.

Cordon Area	Elasticity Value	Source
Singapore (Short Term)	−0.214	(Olszewski 2007)
Singapore (Initial)	−0.58	(Luk 1999)
London (Initial, passenger car)	−0.55	(Evans 2008)
London (Initial, light good vehicles)	−0.12	(Santos, Fraser, and Newbery 2006)
Stockholm (Initial, total/private passenger car)	−0.87/ −1.57	(Borjesson 2018)
Stockholm (Initial, off-peak/peak)	−1.13/ −0.67	(Borjesson 2018)
Gothenburg, Sweden (initial, total/private passenger car)	−0.69/ −1.18	(Borjesson 2018)
Gothenburg, Sweden (Initial, off-peak/peak)	−0.93/ −0.53	(Borjesson 2018)
Milan Area C (total, 2012 reinstatement)	−0.304	(Gibson and Carnovale 2015)
Milan Area C (2012, passenger/commercial)	−0.171/ −0.467	(Gibson and Carnovale 2015)
Norway (Short-term; 19 toll roads, including 3 cordons)	−0.45	(Odeck and Brathen 2008)

Table 3. Pollutant emissions rates used for high, mid, and low scenarios.

Emissions Rates (2018)
Pollutants	BTS National	GREET	EMFAC
	(High)	(Mid)	(Low)
VOC runex (g/mile)		0.121	0.023
NOx runex (g/mile)	0.289	0.188	0.089
Total Hydrocarbons (g/mile)	0.35
CO runex (g/mile)	3.941	3.157	1.218
PM 2.5 runex (g/mile)	0.008	0.007	0.002
PM 10 runex (g/mile)		0.008	0.002
SOx runex (g/mile)			0.003
Methane runex (g/mile)		0.011	0.005
CO2 runex(g/mile)			310.683

Figure 1. Denver congested corridors 2018 (purple) and 2040 (red) (DRCOG regional data catalog).

Figure 2. Proposed Denver cordon area and employment concentrations.

Figure 3. Volume flows into and out of Denver cordon.

Table 4. Sample results for mid-range travel and economic assumptions.

Sample Daily Results Incorporating Mid-Range Economic and Travel Assumptions
	Flat	Peak	Dynamic
MDV Multiplier	1.5	1.5	1.5
HDV Multiplier	2	2	2
Toll 2-Way Through Trips Twice?	No	No	No
Daily Financial Results and Trips Impacted
Daily Revenues	$ 2,833,464	$ 4,061,208	$ 4,387,514
Annual Net Income (1st year)	$ 637,070,925	$ 947,690,190	$ 1,030,245,543
Total Trips Shifted	32,220	46,169	49,489
Total Trips Reduced	27,554	39,387	42,244
Daily Congestion Mitigation (as percent increase in speed per period)
	“Detailed” Assumptions			“Simple” Assumptions
11PM – 5 AM (Graveyard)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
5 AM – 6 AM (AM Pre-Peak)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.03%
6 AM – 9AM (AM Peak)	5.56%	9.57%	9.72%	2.81%	4.83%	4.91%
9 AM – 10 AM (AM Post-Peak)	2.78%	4.30%	3.58%	2.26%	3.82%	3.04%
10 AM – 2 PM (Afternoon Peak)	3.99%	6.33%	5.20%	2.45%	4.19%	3.31%
2 AM – 3 PM (PM Pre-Peak)	5.25%	8.54%	6.94%	2.74%	4.71%	3.71%
3 PM – 7 PM (PM Peak)	5.40%	8.80%	8.91%	2.87%	4.92%	5.00%
7 PM – 11 PM (PM Post-Peak)	0.41%	0.00%	0.52%	0.57%	0.00%	0.76%
Daily Emissions Avoided
	Flat Rate			Dynamic
	GREET	BTS	EMFAC	GREET	BTS	EMFAC
VOC (grams)	37,792	–	7,113	57,939	–	10,905
NOx (grams)	58,479	90,040	27,864	89,656	138,042	42,718
Total HC (grams)	–	109,045	–	–	167,179	–
CO (grams)	983,616	1,227,846	379,423	1,508,002	1,882,435	581,701
Exhaust PM 2.5 (grams)	2,212	2,492	474	3,391	3,821	727
Exhaust PM 10 (grams)	2,399	–	515	3,678	–	790
SOx (grams)	–	–	959	–	–	1,470
Methane (grams)	3,271	–	1,629	5,015	–	2,497
CO2 Equivalent (grams)	–	–	96,795,299	–	–	148,398,862
Fossil Energy (MJ)	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total Energy (MJ)	–	–	–	–	–	–

Table 5. Traffic congestion mitigation percent speed increases for the morning and afternoon peak periods.

	Detailed Scenario
	Morning Peak			Afternoon Peak
	6	7	8	15	16	17	18
1 – Interstate	4%	81%	35%	54%	37%	21%	33%
2 – Freeways & Expressways	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%
3 – Other Principal Arterials	1%	8%	10%	6%	6%	6%	4%
4 – Minor Arterials	0%	2%	2%	2%	3%	4%	1%
5 – Major Collectors	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
	Simple Scenario
1 – Interstate	8%	26%	18%	22%	19%	15%	18%
2 – Freeways & Expressways	1%	3%	4%	2%	2%	2%	2%
3 – Other Principal Arterials	1%	5%	5%	3%	4%	4%	3%
4 – Minor Arterials	0%	1%	1%	1%	1%	2%	1%
5 – Major Collectors	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

Table 6. Contextualizing avoided emissions based on Denver non-attainment area motor vehicle emissions budgets.

Denver Non-Attainment Area Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget		BTS National	GREET	EMFAC
	(Tons per Day)	% Reduction of TPD Compliance
VOC (Ozone Precursor)	47		0.133%	0.025%
NOx (Ozone Precursor)	61	0.245%	0.159%	0.076%
NOx (PM 10 Precursor)	70	0.213%	0.139%	0.066%
PM 10	54		0.007%	0.002%
CO	1600	0.127%	0.102%	0.039%

Olszewski, P. S. 2007. Singapore motorisation restraint and its implications on travel behaviour and urban sustainability. Transportation 34 (3):319–35. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9115-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luk, J. 1999. Electronic road pricing in Singapore. Road Transp. Res 8 (4):28–40. Retrieved May 2020, from https://search-proquest-com.mines.idm.oclc.org/docview/215248878?accountid=25386&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

 Google Scholar

Evans, R. 2008. Demand Elasticities for Car Trips to Central London as revealed by the Central London Congestion Charge. London: Transport for London. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from https://content.tfl.gov.uk/demand-elasticities-for-car-trips-to-central-london.pdf

 Google Scholar

Santos, G., G. Fraser, and D. Newbery. 2006. Road pricing: Lessons from London. Econ. Policy. 21 (46):265–310 Retrieved May 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3601027

 Google Scholar

Borjesson, M. 2018. Long-Term Effects of the Swedish Congestion Charges. International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2018/14, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/d944f94b-en

 Google Scholar

Gibson, M., and M. Carnovale. 2015. The effects of road pricing on driver behavior and air pollution. J. Urban Econ 89:62–73. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2015.06.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Odeck, J., and S. Brathen. 2008. Travel demand elasticities and users attitudes: A case study of Norwegian toll projects. Transp. Res. Part A 42:77–94. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.06.013.

 Google Scholar