Hosford Kate, Firth Caislin, Brauer Michael, Winters Meghan
Transp Rev. 2021 Mar 15;41:766-787. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2021.1898488.
Road pricing is increasingly considered as an option to support transportation infrastructure costs, manage demand, and reduce emissions. However, the extent to which implementation of such approaches may impact transportation and health equity is unclear. In this scoping review, we examine the differential transportation and health effects of road pricing policies across population groups and geographic region. We conducted a systematic database search of Transport Research International Documentation, GEOBASE, Scopus, and Ovid Medline, supplemented by bibliographic review and internet searches. Fifteen studies were included in the review. The studies evaluated area and cordon road pricing systems in Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg, and had a median follow-up period of 12 months. Outcomes evaluated include car commuting, mode shift to public transit, accessibility to destinations, affordability, welfare, social interactions, air pollution, traffic injuries and deaths, acute asthma attacks, and life expectancy. While more studies across diverse urban contexts and policy settings will be needed to strengthen the evidence base, the existing evidence suggests road pricing has mostly net positive effects related to a reduction in car trips, air pollution, asthma attacks, and road traffic collisions, and increases in life expectancy. Frequency and ease of social interactions were found to be negatively impacted, with fewer visits to family and friends. The population groups that generally fared better across transportation and health outcomes were those with higher incomes, men, and people between the ages of 35-55. Across space, there are benefits for both the areas inside and outside the cordon boundary, but to a greater degree for the area inside. Overall, the evidence base is limited by a narrow set of health-related outcomes and a lack of longer-term studies. We did not come across any studies assessing distributional effects of noise pollution, mode shifts to walking or cycling, or other morbidities in the general population that are not listed above. In addition, there are few evaluations that include non-work trips, therefore potentially missing effects for unemployed populations or women who are more likely to make non-work trips. We find that the limited body of evidence on area and cordon pricing policies suggests these policies are beneficial for a number of transportation and health outcomes, particularly for populations inside the cordon area, but that there may be some degree of inequities in the distribution of the benefits and burdens.
道路收费越来越被视为一种支持交通基础设施成本、管理需求和减少排放的选择。然而，实施此类措施可能对交通和健康公平产生何种程度的影响尚不清楚。在本范围综述中，我们研究了道路收费政策在不同人群和地理区域对交通和健康的不同影响。我们对《国际交通研究文献》《地理数据库》《Scopus》和《Ovid医学在线数据库》进行了系统的数据库检索，并辅以文献综述和互联网搜索。该综述纳入了15项研究。这些研究评估了新加坡、伦敦、斯德哥尔摩、米兰和哥德堡的区域和拥堵收费系统，中位随访期为12个月。评估的结果包括汽车通勤、向公共交通的出行方式转变、到达目的地的可达性、可承受性、福利、社交互动、空气污染、交通伤亡、急性哮喘发作和预期寿命。虽然需要更多跨不同城市背景和政策环境的研究来加强证据基础，但现有证据表明，道路收费在减少汽车出行、空气污染、哮喘发作和道路交通碰撞以及提高预期寿命方面大多具有净积极影响。社交互动的频率和便利性受到负面影响，看望家人和朋友的次数减少。在交通和健康结果方面总体表现较好的人群是高收入人群、男性以及35至55岁之间的人。在空间上，拥堵边界内外的区域都有好处，但内部区域的好处更大。总体而言，证据基础受到与健康相关的结果范围狭窄以及缺乏长期研究的限制。我们没有找到任何评估噪声污染的分布影响、向步行或骑自行车的出行方式转变，或上述未列出的普通人群中的其他发病率的研究。此外，很少有评估包括非工作出行，因此可能遗漏了对失业人群或更可能进行非工作出行的女性的影响。我们发现，关于区域和拥堵收费政策的有限证据表明，这些政策对许多交通和健康结果有益，特别是对拥堵区域内的人群，但在利益和负担的分配上可能存在一定程度的不公平。
