Hugosson

The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in Stockholm : 

The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in Stockholm Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD

Congestion charging in Stockholm: 

Congestion charging in Stockholm On 2 June 2003 the Stockholm City Council adopted a majority proposal to introduce congestion charging on a trial basis On 16 June 2004 the Swedish Parliament adopted The Congestion Charge Act

3 parts: 

3 parts Referendum 17 september 2006 Public transport 22 August 2005 – 31 December 2006 Congestion charges 3 January – 31 July 2006

Objectives: 

Objectives Reduce traffic volumes by 10-15% on the most congested roads Increase the average speed Reduce emissions of pollutants harmful to human health and of carbon dioxide Improve the urban environment as perceived by Stockholm residents

Slide5: 

County 6500 km2 Charging zone 47 km2 City of Stockholm 770 000 inhab. Charging zone 280 000 inhab. County 1.9 millions inhab.

No barriers, no stops, no roadside payments: 

No barriers, no stops, no roadside payments Amount due for payment shown at the control point Automatic identification. License plates were photographed A limited part of the car was shown on photograph

Congestion charges and times: 

Congestion charges and times PEAK PERIODS 7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20 EUR 2 SEMI PEAK PERIODS 7.-7.30 a.m., 8.30-9 a.m. 3.30-4 p.m., 5.30-6 p.m. SEK 15 EUR 1.5 MEDIUM-VOLUME PERIODS 6.30-7 a.m., 9 a.m.-3.30 p.m. 6-6.30 p.m. SEK 10 EUR 1 MAXIMUM CHARGE: SEK 60/day EUR 6 Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays: NO CHARGE

Slide8: 

Improved Public Transport 12 new express bus lines 18 bus lines with extended service Improvements of rail-bound lines 1800 new park- and-ride places

These traffic categories were exempted:: 

These traffic categories were exempted: Emergency vehicles Vehicles with disability permits Foreign vehicles Transport services for the disabled Taxis Motorcycles Buses over 14 tons Vehicles using alternative fuel

Evaluation programme: 

Evaluation programme Evaluation of the Stockholm trial objectives Complete analysis (30 evaluation projects) (Before) autumn 2004 (spring 2005) (During) spring 2006 Monthly indicators - monitor changes over time Selected indicators Monthly indicators starting in October 2005, ends September 2006 “Go live” - effects after introduction Selected indicators Daily starting the 22 august 2005 during the first 2 weeks of the public transport reinforcement Daily starting the 3 January 2006 during the first 2 weeks of the congestion charging

Evaluation tasks: 

Evaluation tasks Car Traffic Public transport Stockholm county travel survey Business and economic impacts Retail sales, contractors, taxi, transport services etc Environment and Health effects Other studied effects Traffic safety, attitude surveys, events affecting the evaluation programme Cost benefit analysis Effects on regional economy

Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00: 

-22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00 End of trial

Slide13: 

Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone Time Vehicles/h

30-50% less time spent in queues : 

30-50% less time spent in queues

Trafikarbete: 

Trafikarbete Trafikkontoret

Clean vehicle sales: 

Clean vehicle sales

Public transport 2006 compared with 2005: 

Public transport 2006 compared with 2005

Public transport 2006 compared with 2005: 

Public transport 2006 compared with 2005

Many different adaptation strategies: 

Many different adaptation strategies Several different ways to change travel pattern: Change route Change destination Trip chaining Max. half of the car trips were shifted to public transport New park & ride facilities were used – but a small contribution Changed departure times not a large effect

Which car trips have ”disappeared”?: 

Which car trips have ”disappeared”? Work/school -22% business -30% shopping/services -27% leisure -23% other -33%

Where did the they go?: 

Where did the they go? Work/School: To public transport Change of route Leisure, shopping/services, business and other: Not public transport Instead: Change of destination Change of route Less trips

Men changed their trips more than women: 

Men changed their trips more than women Men -21% Women -9% Car trips during charging time, origin or destination in city centre

Traffic safety: 

Traffic safety Less traffic – fewer accidents Higher travel speed – worse injuries (small effect) Time period too limited to observe accident rates Estimated reduction of personal injury accidents of 5 - 10 % within the congestion charging zone

Environment and health effects: 

Environment and health effects Climate effects large for a single measure Emissons were reduced in the ”right” area Inner City 9-14 % reduction County 2-3 % reduction

Retail: 

Retail Minor effects on the retail trade Department stores, malls and shopping centres trade increased 7 % in city (+ 7 % in nation) Small-scale shops sales -6 % (trend)

Cost benefit analysis: 

Cost benefit analysis Costs of the trial EUR 340 millions (revenue EUR 75 millions) Congestion tax as permanent feature EUR 76.5 millions/year – considerable values in social benefit Payback time 4 years Expansion of bus traffic as permanent feature Benefits EUR 18 millions/year Operating costs EUR 52 millions/year

The objectives were fulfilled : 

The objectives were fulfilled Reduce traffic volumes by 10-15% on the most congested roads Reduction of 20-25% Increase the average speed Travel times reduced 30-50%, except of E4/E20 Reduce emissions of pollutants harmful to human health and of carbon dioxide 14% reduction in city centre, 2.5% Stockholm County Improve the urban environment as perceived by Stockholm residents Difficult to measure

Was it a good idea to carry out the congestion charge trial?: 

Was it a good idea to carry out the congestion charge trial? Good idea Bad idea

Slide29: 

Yes No Stockholm 51.3 % 45.5 % County (14 Municipalities) 39.8 % 60.2 % Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006

Lessons learned: 

Lessons learned Better public transport cannot reduce road congestion on its own If congestion charge is made permanent Simple zone structure seems to work OK Charge levels and time periods can be fine-tuned Continue simplification of payment and administration Consider seasonal traffic variation Charge on E4/E20? Change of opinion when people get real experience

The process efter the referendum: 

The process efter the referendum Conservative Liberals have decided to introduce congestion charges in August 2007 The revenue should be used to invest in new roads in the Stockholm County No extended public transport Small changes of system

Thank you!Muriel Beser Hugossonmuriel@trivector.seInformation on the webwww.trivector.sewww.stockholmsforsoket.se: 

Thank you! Muriel Beser Hugosson muriel@trivector.se Information on the web www.trivector.se www.stockholmsforsoket.se