en CD; International audience; Regulation by means of price in order to remove excess demand is generally perceived as being unfair. This paper empirically tests different principles of regulation including lotteries, rationing, a moral rule and compensation.
We start from the postulate that the perception of the fairness of a urban road pricing policy is important for a successful implementation. This perception is analysed through the results of an attitudinal survey held in Lyons area in 2003 (N 400). We confirm that peak-period pricing as a means of limiting demand is overwhelmingly rejected. Administrative allocation and lotteries are also rejected. The reference transaction can also lead to rejection of waiting line. Price compensation is overwhelmingly considered to be fair and the right to this is demanded both from public or private sector monopoly: it is possible therefore to reinstate pricing in the form of compensation.
Those surveyed express rather definite preferences for some principles of regulation (moral rule, compensation) to the detriment of pricing or even the administrative or traditional regulation (queuing). Ways of unfreezing the situation are identified, who could be exploited in order to form coalitions likely to support this kind of policy. Finally, certain dimensions of the equity are revealed through the analysis of the survey.
The different versions of the original document can be found in:
Are you one of the authors of this document?