• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ilmastotalkoot: Muriel Hugosson
 

Ilmastotalkoot: Muriel Hugosson

on

  • 874 views

Tukholman ruuhkamaksujärjestelmä Muriel Hugossonin esittelemänä. Esitys Ilmastotlakoiden Älä hiilee liikenteessä -seminaarissa 15.9.2009 Finlandia-talossa.

Tukholman ruuhkamaksujärjestelmä Muriel Hugossonin esittelemänä. Esitys Ilmastotlakoiden Älä hiilee liikenteessä -seminaarissa 15.9.2009 Finlandia-talossa.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
874
Views on SlideShare
873
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ilmastotalkoot: Muriel Hugosson Ilmastotalkoot: Muriel Hugosson Presentation Transcript

    • 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
    • County 6500 km 2 County 1.9 millions inhab. County 754 000 cars and 403 cars/1000 inhab City of Stockholm 770 000 inhab. City of Stockholm 279 000 cars and 364 cars/1000 inhab Charging zone 47 km 2 Charging zone 280 000 inhab. 18 control points Charged when entering/ exiting the centre of Stockholm E4/E20 bypass free of charge
    • 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
    • Charging Point – Process Sequences
      • Vehicle Enters first detection line
      • Laser Line 1 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position
    • Charging Point – Process Sequences
      • Vehicle Enters Second detection line
      • Laser Line 2 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position
      • Position based Front image capture triggered
    • Charging Point – Process Sequences
      • Vehicle Leaves First detection line
      • Laser Line 1 Vehicle Exit message sent
    • Charging Point – Process Sequences
      • Vehicle Leaves Second detection line
      • Laser Line 2 Vehicle Exit message sent with vehicle classification data
      • Position based Rear image capture triggered
    • 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
    • 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 effects Last day without charges (low traffic - right after New Year’s Eve) First day with charges First normal working day with charges
    • Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00 -22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone End of trial before after
    • 1. All car drivers did not return 2. Reduction at same level as during the trial dashed line – 2006-2007 ”between” charging
    • Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone Time Vehicles/h before after
    • 30-50% less time in queue before 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
      • PM 10 - 9 percent
      • Emissons were reduced in the ”right” area
      Inner City 7-14 % 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? Good idea Bad idea
    • Exempted passages … Share of exempted vehicles trial after catogory
    • 2009 From environmental fee to revenues for infrastucture investments Month Tax decisions Amount, 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
    • 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 Hugosson [email_address] www.stockholmsforsoket.se www.stockholm.se/trängselskatt Thank you!
    • 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
    • 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
    • Avgifterna urholkas…
      • Inflationen
      • Skatten avdragsgill
        • För företag
        • För privatpersoners arbetsresor (knappt 40 %)
          • C:a 1/3 räknar med att göra bilavdrag
          • 10 kr blir drygt 4 kr
      • Ingår i förmånen för förmånsbilar
        • Ingen kostnad för förare med arbetsgivarbetald bil
        • 10 kr blir knappt 4 kr för förare med s.k. bruttolönebil
      • Systemets legitimitet – att skapa framkomlighet!
    • Yes No Stockholm 51.3 % 45.5 % County 39.8 % 60.2 % (14 Municipalities) Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006
    • Avgifterna urholkas…
      • Inflationen
      • Skatten avdragsgill
        • För företag
        • För privatpersoners arbetsresor (knappt 40 %)
          • C:a 1/3 räknar med att göra bilavdrag
          • 10 kr blir drygt 4 kr
      • Ingår i förmånen för förmånsbilar
        • Ingen kostnad för förare med arbetsgivarbetald bil
        • 10 kr blir knappt 4 kr för förare med s.k. bruttolönebil
      • Systemets legitimitet – att skapa framkomlighet!
    • Slutsatser
      • Avgifterna har samma effekt som förr…
      • … men allt eftersom befolkning etc. ökar så bör de justeras
      • … och det är politiskt svårt
      • Förmodligen tror många att avgiftseffekten ”nöts av”
      • Fylls omgivande vägutrymme ut?
      • Stort stöd – ca 2/3 av dem som har en uppfattning är positiva
      • Mindre kontroversiell fråga nuförtiden
    • Market share of brand new passenger cars in Stockholm County SIDAN Target 2010* *(Stockholms Miljöprogram 2008-2011) City of Stockholm 42.5 percent Jan-July 2009