CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Transportation Planning and OptimizationTransportation and Mobility InnovationsTraffic control and management

Congestion pricing in a world of self-driving vehicles: an analysis of different strategies in alternative future scenarios

Open access
Simoni, Michele D., Kockelman, Kara M., Gurumurthy, Krishna M., Bischoff, Joschka·2019·Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
DOI 10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Travel time-based charge results in better congestion reduction compared to traditional distance-based toll.

    “Similarly, travel time-based charge results in better congestion reduction, when compared to the traditional distance-based toll.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Simoni et al. (2019)

    The Network performance section (p. 18) says the travel-time–congestion scheme produced delay reductions comparable to the distance-based scheme, not better congestion reduction. The Policy implications section (p. 22) calls it the most beneficial strategy for welfare, which is a different outcome. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In traditional congestion pricing schemes, link-based toll performs better than distance-based toll in terms of travel delay reductions.

    “In case of traditional schemes, link-based toll performs better than distance-based toll, in terms of travel delay reductions.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Simoni et al. (2019)

    The Network performance section (p. 18) reports greater travel-delay reductions from traditional link-based tolls than distance-based tolls in the AV- and SAV-oriented scenarios. It reports the reverse in the Base Scenario, so the unqualified claim does not hold across all scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • All congestion pricing and tolling strategies tested by Simoni et al. (2019) reduce travel demand and delays.

    “Results from the study show that all the strategies reduce travel demand and delays.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Simoni et al. (2019)

  • Time-varying link-based toll performs better than traditional link-based toll.

    “Further, time-varying link-based toll performs better than the traditional link-based toll.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Simoni et al. (2019)

  • Traffic congestion can be reduced by the application of congestion pricing.

    “Results from Simoni et al. (2019) show that traffic congestion can be reduced by the application of congestion pricing.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Simoni et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Arnott, R., De Palma, A., & Lindsey, R. (1990). Economics of a bottleneck. Journal of Urban Economics , 27(1), 111-130.
  2. Arnott, R. (1998). William Vickrey: Contributions to Public Policy. International Tax and Public Finance , 5(1), 93-113.
  3. M.J. Beckman. (1965). On optimal tolls for highways, tunnels and bridges. Vehicular Traffic Science , American Elsevier, New York, pp. 331-341
  4. Charypar, D., & Nagel, K. (2005). Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms. Transportation, 32(4), 369-397.
  5. De Palma, A., & Lindsey, R. (2011). Traffic congestion pricing methodologies and technologies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , 19(6), 1377-1399.
  6. Dresner, K., & Stone, P. (2008). A multiagent approach to autonomous intersection management. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 31, 591-656.
  7. Ecola, L., & Light, T. (2010). Making congestion pricing equitable. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , (2187), 53-59.
  8. Eliasson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (2006). Equity effects of congestion pricing: quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(7), 602-620.
  9. Fagnant, D. J., Kockelman, K. M., & Bansal, P. (2015). Operations of Shared Autonomous Vehicle Fleet for Austin, Texas, Market. Transportation Research Record : Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2536, 98-106.
  10. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2018). Dynamic Ride-sharing and Fleet Sizing for a System of Shared Autonomous Vehicles in Austin, Texas. Transportation , 45(1), 143-158.
  11. Greenshields, B. D., Channing, W., & Miller, H. (1935). A study of traffic capacity. Highway Research Board Proceedings (Vol. 1935). U.S. National Research Council
  12. Gu, Z., Liu, Z., Cheng, Q., & Saberi, M. (2018). Congestion Pricing Practices and Public Acceptance: A Review of Evidence. Case Studies on Transport Policy , 6(1), 94-101
  13. Gucwa, M. (2014). Mobility and energy impacts of automated cars. Proceedings of the Automated Vehicles Symposium, San Francisco.
  14. Gulipalli, P. K., & Kockelman, K. M. (2008). Credit-based congestion pricing: A Dallas-Fort Worth application. Transport Policy, 15(1), 23-32.
  15. Hoogendoorn, R., van Arem, B., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2014). Automated driving, traffic flow efficiency and human factors: A literature review. Transportation Research Record , 2422, 113-120.
  16. Horni, A., Nagel, K., & Axhausen, K. W. (Eds.). (2016). The multi-agent transport simulation MATSim . London: Ubiquity Press.
  17. Kaddoura, I., Kickhöfer, B., Neumann, A., & Tirachini, A. (2015). Optimal public transport pricing: Towards an agent-based marginal social cost approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 49(2), 200-218.
  18. Kickhöfer, B., Grether, D., & Nagel, K. (2011). Income-contingent user preferences in policy evaluation: application and discussion based on multi-agent transport simulations. Transportation , 38(6), 849.
  19. Kim, K., Rousseau, G., Freedman, J., & Nicholson, J. (2015, May). The travel impact of autonomous vehicles in metro Atlanta through activity-based modeling. In Proceedings of 15th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Atlantic City, May (Vol. 18).
  20. Lawphongpanich, S., & Yin, Y. (2010). Solving the Pareto-improving toll problem via manifold suboptimization. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , 18(2), 234-246.
  21. Lighthill, M. J., & Whitham, G. B. (1955, May). On kinematic waves. II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 229, No. 1178, pp. 317-345). The Royal Society.
  22. Lin, D. Y., Eluru, N., Waller, S., & Bhat, C. (2008). Integration of activity-based modeling and dynamic traffic assignment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , No. 2076, 52-61.
  23. Maciejewski, M., Bischoff, J., & Nagel, K. (2016). An assignment-based approach to efficient real-time city-scale taxi dispatching. IEEE Intelligent Systems , 31(1), 68-77.
  24. Maciejewski, M., Bischoff, J., Hörl, S., & Nagel K. (2017). Towards a Testbed for Dynamic Vehicle Routing Algorithms . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 69-79.
  25. Martinez, L. M., & Viegas, J. M. (2017). Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon, Portugal. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology , 6(1), 13-27.
  26. May, A., Shepherd, S., Sumalee, A., & Koh, A. (2008). Design tools for road pricing cordons. Chapter 7 in Road Congestion Pricing in Europe: Implications for the United States , (eds. Harry Richardson and ChangHee Bae), Cheltenham, UK, 138-155.
  27. Milakis, D., Van Arem, B., & Van Wee, B. (2017). Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , 1-25.
  28. Nagel, K., & Flötteröd G. (2009). Agent-based traffic assignment: going from trips to behavioral travelers. 12th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research (IATBR), Jaipur, India.
  29. Richards, P. I. (1956). Shock waves on the highway. Operations Research , 4(1), 42-51.
  30. Scheltes, A., & de Almeida Correia, G. H. (2017). Exploring the use of automated vehicles as last mile connection of train trips through an agent-based simulation model: An application to Delft, Netherlands. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology , 6(1), 28-41.
  31. Shoup, D. C. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport Policy , 13(6), 479-486.
  32. Small, K. A., Verhoef, E. T., & Lindsey, R. (2007). The Economics of Urban Transportation . Routledge.
  33. Spieser, K., Treleaven, K., Zhang, R., Frazzoli, E., Morton, D., & Pavone, M. (2014). Toward a systematic approach to the design and evaluation of automated mobility-on-demand systems: A case study in Singapore. Road Vehicle Automation (pp. 229-245). Springer International Publishing.
  34. Tientrakool, P., Ho, Y. C., & Maxemchuk, N. F. (2011). Highway capacity benefits from using vehicle-tovehicle communication and sensors for collision avoidance. In Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), IEEE (pp. 1-5).
  35. Verhoef, E. T. (2002). Second-best congestion pricing in general networks. Heuristic algorithms for finding second-best optimal toll levels and toll points. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 36(8), 707-729.
  36. Vickrey, W. S. (1963). Pricing in urban and suburban transport. The American Economic Review , 53(2), 452-465. Chicago
  37. Vickrey, W. S. (1969). Congestion theory and transport investment. The American Economic Review , 59(2), 251-260.
  38. Vickrey, W. (1997). Public economics: selected papers by William Vickrey. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Walters, A.A. (1961). The theory and measurement of private and social cost of highway congestion. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society : 676-99.
  40. Winter, K., Cats, O., van Arem, B. & Martens, K. (2017). Impact of relocation strategies for a fleet of shared automated vehicles on service efficiency, effectiveness and externalities. 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Naples, 2017, pp. 844-849. doi: 10.1109/MTITS.2017.8005630 · DOI
  41. Zhang, X., & Yang, H. (2004). The optimal cordon-based network congestion pricing problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 38(6), 517-537.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simoni, M. D., Kockelman, K. M., Gurumurthy, K. M., & Bischoff, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Simoni, Michele D.
ORCID
Venue
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
98
Pages
167-185
ISSN
0968-090X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.002
OpenAlex
W2795339856
Cited by
214
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2
FWCI
26.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DepositOnce (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Technische Universität Berlin – Universitätsbibliothek
Funders
Texas Department of Transportation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Traffic control and management
Keywords
congestion pricing, autonomous vehicles, shared autonomous vehicles, road tolls, social welfare (welfare economics), vehicle miles traveled, mode choice, Austin, Texas

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review