Jack Opiola explores the oft-underestimated effect that a charging scheme's name can have on public acceptability and ultimate success. The Bard of Avon wrote: "What's in a name?" For transport, especially Road User Charging, that is an especially relevant question.
Jack Opiola explores the oft-underestimated effect that a charging scheme's name can have on public acceptability and ultimate success
Economists and transport specialists have invented a series of terms to describe the various approaches to charging concepts that address demand management. A whole litany of names - Congestion Charging, Congestion Pricing, Road Pricing, Electronic Road Pricing, Tolling - has been used to describe the individual motorist's or driver's obligation to pay for access to use of a specific lane or road, or to pay for the impact of a trip on others sharing the roadway at the same time, therefore imposing a fee on the increment of traffic the trip imposes on all the other drivers.
The Hong Kong Electronic Road Pricing Study, conducted from 1997 to 2000, was one of the first survey and marketing efforts intended to address public reaction to the terms used. After the shelving of the prior 1985 study efforts, the second attempt to address the growing congestion problem in Hong Kong needed to be more sensitive to public reaction and acceptance of the concepts being proposed. Compounding the issue was the need to address not only the English language usage but also the translation of English terms into Chinese. The results were fascinating.
Positives and negatives
The mental or conceptual image of the word 'pricing' was negative in the Chinese language. A closer inspection in English also uncovered the negative connotations of the word. 'Price' is defined as the 'cost of something'; 'something sacrificed to get something else' and, 'quantity of payment or compensation given'. English is full of expressions such as 'at any price', 'having a price on your head', or 'paying the price', all of which relate to unpleasant consequences or suffering for an action or inaction or some description. In Chinese, the negative connotations of 'price' in all its definitions was even more severe.Out of the research on the semantics of 'price' came the discovery of 'value'. Value is a word that translates well conceptually in both English and Chinese. It is a word that connotes 'worth of importance', 'fully recovered worth' and 'absolute relative meaning'. The high relative importance of the term to the project team and the Hong Kong Government was not lost, the project was baptised with a new banner, and the term 'Value Motoring' was born. However, while it fitted well the Queen's English the word 'motoring' is seldom used in the American transportation vocabulary. It conveyed the concept of mobility but some argued that 'Value Mobility' was a better term. In the end, there was a consensus on keeping the project focused on road transportation.
The Manchester experience
In the Manchester (UK) Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) project, public outreach also indicated a less-than-enthusiastic response to the term 'Congestion Charging'. While it was an easily recognised term due to the London scheme's existence, the London Congestion Charge project was focused on former mayor Ken Livingstone's campaign promise to address congestion. The emphasis of the objectives in Manchester was different. The focus was not only on congestion, it was also about a package of measures that would enhance and expand the public transport choices. Hence, rather than make reference to congestion charging the emphasis during the initial TIF stages was on the public making 'Smart Choices' about modes of travel.Under the banner of providing Smart Choices, the intention was to provide a package of measures to improve public transport in the form of: a very comprehensive package of new tram lines with modern, sleek tram carriages; improved rail stations and services; rapid bus service, bus priority lanes and increased routes; integrated ticketing for all transport; cycling and walking paths; increased parking and several new park-and-ride areas connected with bus and tram services; and improvements to several junctions and interchanges to help vehicle traffic flow better into the Manchester Regional Centre. All this was coupled with ITS services to better monitor events and provide near real-time traffic information. Under the banner of Smart Choices and with a dual-cordon design with tidal flow charges, the programme was deemed sufficiently well formed to seek funding from the UK's
After receiving a record level of funding for more design development and business case investigations compared to the competition, the Smart Choices hallmark was set aside by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, the body responsible for running the project. 'Congestion Charging', which was familiar to the newly hired staff who had experience of the London scheme, was once again rolled out to describe the programme. The results of the public referendum, which followed a bitter political and public debate, may provide some insights into the relative acceptance of the terms used to describe the concept. The rejection of congestion charging was 79 per cent while the acceptance was just over 20 per cent. Clearly the issues were complicated, but the dramatic, four-to-one swing from backing of Smart Choices at the point of submission for TIF funding to such a resounding rejection of a Congestion Charging tagline at the public voting stage cannot be dismissed in any post mortem of the project.
Going to California
In recent outreach activity in Southern California, specific work was done to investigate the reference terms acceptable to the public. The outreach and search for acceptable terms was a lesson learned from the previous international review of projects. The outcome is startling and holds merit for other projects globally that are addressing demand management.Much like Hong Kong, the terms of reference and concepts have to be translated. Rather than Chinese, the translation and population of the Southern California Region is predominately Spanish. Therefore the terms for the public had to address the mental concepts reflected in English and Spanish.
The poll provided terms that people might hear when solutions for traffic congestion are discussed. They were asked whether each term conveyed a positive or negative connotation to the individual. Since familiarity with solutions for traffic congestion extended to less than 14 per cent of the population, most people were reacting to the nature of the concept connoted by the term. They were not asked to define or explain the term, just to offer an opinion on whether the term had a positive or negative ring or feeling to it.
The results parallel those obtained in Hong Kong and Manchester but have a greater statistical validity. The terms found to be most negative to the population sample were (in order of negativity, most negative to least negative): Peak Driving Fees; Transportation User Fees; Congestion Pricing; Traffic Relief Fees; Toll Lanes; and Facility Pricing.
It is fascinating to see the common terms or concepts of 'pricing' and 'fees' receiving such high negative reactions among the public. Coupled with 'congestion', the joined terms double the impact and placed it high on the negativity index.
It was also surprising to see the high negative reaction to toll lanes, but again in common, everyday life we find the word 'toll' used in many negative contexts. A simple
The poll went on to provide insights into positive terms. The public found several terms to be more positive in reference to describing measures to address traffic congestion. In terms of progression from highest positive response to neutral, these are: Choice Lanes; Express Lanes; Transit Improvement Fees; and Traffic Relief Tolls.
The results suggest that the public clearly thinks that 'choice', 'express' and 'improvement' are positive terms.
It is interesting to see the swing of opinion on 'Transit Improvement Fees' as being positive while the public negatively received "Transportation User Fees". Clearly paying a fee to 'improve' an asset is more positive than paying a 'user' fee. Maybe the difference is in the concept that paying fees to improve an asset is a positive action while just paying a 'user fee' with no aim to make the service better is negative in itself.
The very positive message in providing 'choice' and paying for 'express' service facilities should not be overlooked. Compared to the negative terms, paying a fee for congestion is a negative concept. We grow up trying to avoid congestion on the roadway, in the grocery store and at the refreshment stand. We flow to the less congested or shortest line. The time spent waiting is naturally a negative. On the other hand, we also learn life's lessons: that 'express' services demand a higher fee or charge. The express laundry service at a hotel costs more than the regular service, or an express line at a grocery store for cash-only or checking out with fewer than 10 items is a positive experience intended to allow consumers to avoid the longer queues.
As a result of the polling data, The
The lesson for all of us, encapsulated so many years ago in that question by Shakespeare, is that when it comes to using fees to tackle transportation capacity issues, getting the name right might in fact be one of the most important considerations.
