The Stockholm Trials Congestion charge in Stockholm

1
The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in
Stockholm
Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD
2
Congestion charging in Stockholm

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

3
3 parts
Public transport 22 August 2005 31 December 2006
Congestion charges 3 January 31 July 2006
Referendum 17 september 2006
4
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

5
County 6500 km2 Charging zone 47 km2 City of
Stockholm 770 000 inhab. Charging zone 280 000
inhab. County 1.9 millions inhab.
6
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

7
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
8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
Passages in/out of congestion charging zone
0600 1900
End of trial
-22 passages in/out of congestion charging zone
13
Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone
Vehicles/h

Time
14
30-50 less time spent in queues
15
Trafikarbete
Trafikkontoret
16
Clean vehicle sales
17
Public transport 2006 compared with 2005

• 45.000 passages in/out of the congestion
  charging zone
• 20.000 passengers to inner city per day
  increase of 6
• 140 000 boardings per day (2 400 000 boarding)

18
Public transport 2006 compared with 2005

• 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

19
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

20
Which car trips have disappeared?
other -33
leisure -23
shopping/services -27
Work/school -22
business -30
21
Where did the they go?

• Leisure, shopping/services, business and other
• Not public transport
• Instead
• Change of destination
• Change of route
• Less trips

• Work/School
• To public transport
• Change of route

22
Men changed their trips more than women
Car trips during charging time, origin or
destination in city centre
Women -9
Men -21
23
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

24
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
25
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)

26
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

27
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

28
Was it a good idea to carry out the congestion
charge trial?
Good idea Bad idea
29
Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006
Yes No Stockholm 51.3 45.5 County
(14 Municipalities) 39.8 60.2
30
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

31
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

32
Thank you!Muriel Beser Hugossonmuriel_at_trivect
or.seInformation on the webwww.trivector.sew
ww.stockholmsforsoket.se