Upload
gema
View
57
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Stockholm Trials - Congestion charge in Stockholm. Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD. Congestion charging in Stockholm. On 2 June 2003 the Stockholm City Council adopted a majority proposal to introduce congestion charging on a trial basis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Stockholm Trials -
Congestion charge in Stockholm
Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD
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 parts
Referendum 17 september 2006
Public transport22 August 2005 –31 December 2006
Congestion charges3 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
18 control pointsa charge was made when entering/exiting the centre of Stockholm
E4/E20 bypass free of charge
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
• 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
Congestion charges and times
PEAK PERIODS
7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20 EUR 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
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
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
-22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone
Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00
End of trial
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
(fo
rdo
n/h
)
April 2005
April 2006
Time
Vehicles/h
30-50% less time spent in queues
Kötid, morgonrusning
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
inreinfartIN inreinfartUT innerstadsgata innerstadsledN innerstadsledS
fm 2005 fm 2006
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”?
Work/school -22%business -30%
shopping/services -27%
leisure -23%
other -33%
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
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 City9-14 % 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 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?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Bra idé
Dålig idé
Good idea
Bad idea
Yes No
Stockholm 51.3 % 45.5 %
County (14 Municipalities) 39.8 % 60.2 %
Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006
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
• 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 [email protected]
Information on the web
www.trivector.se
www.stockholmsforsoket.se