ilmastotalkoot: muriel hugosson

Congestion charging in Stockholm

Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Background

• Regional or local government not authorised to introduce a congestion fee

• National decision• Regulated by law• Executive responsibility - the National Road

Administration• Time limited full-scale trial • Referendum – voted yes• Permanent system since Aug 2007

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

18 control points

Charged when entering/exiting the centre of Stockholm

E4/E20 bypass free of charge

County 6500 km2

County 1.9 millions inhab.County 754 000 cars and

403 cars/1000 inhabCity of Stockholm 770 000 inhab.City of Stockholm 279 000 cars and

364 cars/1000 inhabCharging zone 47 km2

Charging zone 280 000 inhab.

No barriers, no stops, no roadside payments

• Amount due for payment is shown at the control point

• Automatic identification. License plates are photographed

• A limited part of the car is shown on photograph

Laser

Camera

Antenna

6

Charging Point – Process Sequences• Vehicle Enters first detection line

DBLSRU

DBLS

TX

TXS

R

R

R

R

R

R

RU

R

R

R

R

DBLS

Road Surface

VDSLasers

TX / R /MR

RearVRU

FrontVRU

EIS

• Laser Line 1 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position

7

Charging Point – Process Sequences• Vehicle Enters Second detection line

DBLSRU

DBLS

TX

TXS

R

R

R

R

R

R

RU

R

R

R

R

DBLS

Road Surface

VDSLasers

TX / R /MR

RearVRU

FrontVRU

EIS

• Laser Line 2 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position

• Position based Front image capture triggered

8

Charging Point – Process Sequences• Vehicle Leaves First detection line

DBLSRU

DBLS

TX

TXS

R

R

R

R

R

R

RU

R

R

R

R

DBLS

Road Surface

VDSLasers

TX / R /MR

RearVRU

FrontVRU

EIS

• Laser Line 1 Vehicle Exit message sent

9

Charging Point – Process Sequences• Vehicle Leaves Second detection line

DBLSRU

DBLS

TX

TXS

R

R

R

R

R

R

RU

R

R

R

R

DBLS

Road Surface

VDSLasers

TX / R /MR

RearVRU

FrontVRU

EIS

• Laser Line 2 Vehicle Exit message sent with vehicle classification data

• Position based Rear image capture triggered

Congestion charges and timesPEAK PERIODS

7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20EUR 2

SEMI PEAK PERIODS7.-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 PERIODS6.30-7 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

Package 3 parts

Public transport

Congestion charges

Park and ride facilities

Improved Public Transport and park and ride facilities

• 14 new express bus lines• 18 bus lines with extended service• 200 new busses• Improvements of rail-bound lines• 2500 new park- and-ride places

Visible effectsLast day without charges (low traffic - right after New Year’s Eve)

First day with charges

First normal working day with charges

-22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone

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

End of trialbeforeafter

-28% -23% -22% -21% -20% -21% -24% -21% -20% -17% -18% -17%

-17%-19%-16%-19%-17%-22%-19%-16%-17%-17%-19%

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

jan feb mar apr maj jun jul aug sep okt nov dec

2005 (before charges)

2006 (with charges)

2006 (no charges)

2007 (no charges)

2007 (with charges)

2008 (with charges)

1. All car drivers did not return2. Reduction at same level as during the trial

dashed line – 2006-2007 ”between” charging

Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000Innerstadssnittet

Tidpunkt

Flö

de (

ford

on

/h)

April 2005

April 2006

Time

Vehicles/h

before

after

30-50% less time in queue

Kötid, morgonrusning

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

inreinfartIN inreinfartUT innerstadsgata innerstadsledN innerstadsledS

fm 2005 fm 2006before after

Public transport after compared with before

• Extended public transport itself did not increase amount of passengers

• Increase of passengers 6 % (4.5 % due to congestion charging)

• Accessibility increased

• Small increase of congestion in underground

Environment and health effects

• CO2 - 14 percent

• NOx - 7 percent

• PM10 - 9 percent

• Emissons were reduced in the ”right” area

Inner City7-14 % reduction

County 2-3 % reduction

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)

Changed reporting in the media

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Bra idé

Dålig idé

Good idea

Bad idea

Exempted passages…

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

An

de

l

Kategori

Andel undantagna fordon

Försöket

jan-09

Share of exempted vehicles

trialafter

catogory

2009Month Tax

decisionsAmount, MEuro

Januari        409 500 5,46

Februari 423 800 5,97

Mars 441 100 6,72

April 437 500 5,74

Maj 449 200 5,71

Juni 479 500 6,17

From environmental fee to revenues for infrastucture investments

Why a success story?

• Technical system worked

• Information – people knew what to do

• Visible congestion reductions

• Comprehensive evaluation programme

• Clear objectives – achieved

• The design was consistent with expressed purpose

Conclusions

• Better public transport cannot reduce road congestion on its own

• Change of opinion when people get real experience

• Positive evironmental effects in decided areas

• Sold clean vehicles increased rapidly

Muriel Beser Hugossonmuriel@kth.se

www.stockholmsforsoket.se

www.stockholm.se/trängselskatt