Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in Stockholm Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD."— Presentation transcript:

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 congestion charging on a trial basis On 16 June 2004 the Swedish Parliament adopted The Congestion Charge Act

3 3 parts Referendum 17 september 2006 Public transport 22 August 2005 – 31 December 2006 Congestion charges 3 January – 31 July 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 18 control points a charge was made when entering/ exiting the centre of Stockholm E4/E20 bypass free of charge County 6500 km 2 Charging zone 47 km 2 City of Stockholm inhab. Charging zone 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 Laser Camera Antenna

7 Congestion charges and times PEAK PERIODS a.m., p.mSEK 20EUR 2 SEMI PEAK PERIODS a.m., a.m p.m., p.m.SEK 15EUR 1.5 MEDIUM-VOLUME PERIODS a.m., 9 a.m p.m p.m.SEK 10EUR 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 -22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00 End of trial

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

14 30-50% less time spent in queues

15 Trafikarbete Trafikkontoret

16 Clean vehicle sales

17 Public transport 2006 compared with passages in/out of the congestion charging zone passengers to inner city per day – increase of 6 % boardings per day ( 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? Work/school -22%business -30% shopping/services -27% leisure -23% other -33%

21 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

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

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

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 Hugosson Information on the web


Download ppt "The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in Stockholm Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google