The Stockholm Trials Congestion charge in Stockholm Muriel

The Stockholm Trials Congestion charge in Stockholm Muriel Beser Hugosson, Ph. D

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

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

County 6500 km 2 Charging zone 47 km 2 City of Stockholm 770 000 inhab. Charging zone 280 000 inhab. County 1. 9 millions inhab. 18 control points a charge was made when entering/ exiting the centre of Stockholm E 4/E 20 bypass free of charge

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

Congestion charges and times PEAK PERIODS 7. 30 -8. 30 a. m. , 4 -5. 30 p. m 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 SEK 20 Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays: EUR NO CHARGE

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

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 End of trial -22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone

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

30 -50% less time spent in queues

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

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

Where did 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

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 • Climate effects large for a single measure • Emissons were reduced in the ”right” area Inner City 9 -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)

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 • 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 E 4/E 20 • 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? Good idea Bad idea

Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006 Yes Stockholm 51. 3 % County (14 Municipalities) 39. 8 % No 45. 5 % 60. 2 %

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 E 4/E 20? • Change of opinion when people get real experience

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 Hugosson muriel@trivector. se Information on the web www. trivector. se www. stockholmsforsoket. se