Presentation by Maria Börjesson, Deputy Director Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Delivered on 5 March 2014 to an audience of postgraduate students at the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS), University of Leeds
www.its.leeds.ac.uk/courses/masters/externalseminars
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Congestion pricing in Gothenburg
1. Gothenburg congestion charges
Maria Börjesson
Docent Transport systems analysis
Deputy Director Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of
Technology
3. Outline
• Gothenburg congestion charges – Stockholm paved the way
• Effects on flows
• Effects on travel times
• Effects on public transportation
• Single issue political party and GT newspaper referendum initiative
• Media attention and discussion
• Public Acceptance
4. Congestion charging in Stockholm paved the
way…
Jan-July 2006 Trial
Sep 2006 Referendum
August 2007 Permanent introduction
Cordon based
Time differentiated
1-2 € per passage
Delimited by water
18 entry points
sufficient
Bypass exempted from charging
5. A brief history of the Stockholm charges
• Discussed since early 1990’s, but no public or political support
• Idea floated before election 2002…
• … causing the Social democratic leader to promise ”no charges”
• Green party forces through charges anyway after the election
• Liberal/conservatives rejoice, charging supporters mistrust…
• Charges introduced January 2006, abolished August 2006,
referendum September
• Small majority in favour of charges!
• Charges reintroduced permanently August 2007
• Large majority in favour now (60-70%)
6. Factors for political support
Main reasons for previous political opposition:
• Who decides about scheme design?
• Who decides about revenue use?
• What happens with national infrastructure grants?
• In Stockholm solved through ”package approach”
• Gothernburg also wanted congestion charges
7. Non-financed wishinglist of investment:
• Västlänken - Rail tunnel under the city 2 billion €
• Marieholmstunneln - Road tunnel under the river 0.5 billion
€
• A broad coalition was formed from left to right supporting
congestion pricing
8. Objectives and constraints
• 80 million € net revenue in 2015.
• Congestion reduction (required by the law)
• Fit under the existing legislation
• Logical and easy to understand for users.
• ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology from
Stockholm
• Tax to be paid 06.00 am – 18.30 pm.
• Same fare for all non-exempted vehicles
9. ANPR
• Very effective
• No driver ”action”
necessary
• Invoice each month –
can pay either
manually or
automatically
11. • Working days (6:00 -18:29)
• Max 60 Kr per day
• One payment (the highest) when
passing multiple times within 60
min)
Gothenburg congestion charges
13. Traffic flows across the cordon
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
600,000
650,000
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
v
7
v
8
v
9
v
10
v
11
v
12
v
13
v
14
v
15
v
16
v
17
v
18
v
19
v
20
v
21
v
22
v
23
v
24
v
25
v
26
v
27
v
28
v
29
v
30
v
31
v
32
v
33
v
34
v
35
v
36
v
37
v
38
v
39
v
40
v
41
v
42
v
43
v
44
v
45
v
46
v
47
v
48
v
49
v
50
v
51
v
52
Volume accross the cordon weekdays charged hours
Charged hours 2012 Charged hours 2013
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
v
7
v
8
v
9
v
10
v
11
v
12
v
13
v
14
v
15
v
16
v
17
v
18
v
19
v
20
v
21
v
22
v
23
v
24
v
25
v
26
v
27
v
28
v
29
v
30
v
31
v
32
v
33
v
34
v
35
v
36
v
37
v
38
v
39
v
40
v
41
v
42
v
43
v
44
v
45
v
46
v
47
v
48
v
49
v
50
v
51
v
52
Volume accross the cordon weekdays morning peak 06.30-08.30
Morning peak 2012 Morning peak 2013
14. The model over predicted the effect
14
Cordon AM Peak Day
Traffic flow over cordon -20,4% -14,2%
21. Travel times
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
E6 Syd [Torrekulle - Tingstadstunneln]
2012 - Median 2013 - Median
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
E6 Norr [Kungälv-Tingstadstunneln]
2012 - Median 2013 - Median
On the most congested link
there is some effect ….
But on all other links the
effect is almost negligible...
22. What happened to disappearing traffic?
Trips
Work - to transit
Work - remaining
Professional traffic -
remaining
Discretionary - to
Ess.Discretionary -
"disappeared"
Professional traffic -
"disappeared"
Discretionary -
remaining
Public transport increase 5-
7% across the cordon
27. Achieving public support
• Initial support very low
• ”the most expensive and painful way to commit political suicide ever devised”
• Changed once effects were apparent: 53% in the referendum
• Increased further over time: now 65-70% support
”Charges heading for the
ditch”
”Bypass threatened by
chaos”
”Charging chaos
continues”
”Stockholm loves the
charges”
”Charges a success”
”Thumbs up for the
charges”
28. Vägvalet, Referendum autumn 2014
• Over 50 000 people have signed their
support to a referendum on congestion
charging. The highest number ever in
Sweden newspapers say.
• The arguments used:
• The issue was never taken up by
politicians in a realistic, normal way
• The revenues go largely to a tunnel
with a negative social benefit
• Other taxations are a cheaper to raise
revenue
• Scheme design is unfair to Hisingen
29. Customer service centre
• Most asked questions
• Why are the checkpoints placed there where they are placed
• Is the congestion tax, tax deductible
• Why isn’t there a free alternative like in Stockholm
31. • Identical survey in Stockholm, Lyon, Helsinki in spring 2011
• Questions about travel behaviour, socioeconomics, and attitudes
to transport pricing, fairness, and congestion pricing in particular
• In Gothenburg autumn 2012 and 2013
How is attitudes to congestion pricing formed?
What is the role of experience?
32. • Self-interest – winners/losers [political economists]
• Long-term attitudes to… [psychologists, sociologists]
• pricing as an allocation mechanism
• taxes and public interventions in general
• environmental problems
• Equity issues
• Socioeconomics
• Experience
Factors that may affect acceptability
35. ENV RIGHT PRICING RED
Considerably more resources should be
used to protect the nature.
+
Automated speed cameras is a good way
to save lives
+
Traffic congestion is one of the worst
problems in Gothenburg
+
Car traffic is one of the worst threats to
the nature.
+ -
It is too Expensive to own, drive and
park cars.
+
Taxes are too high. +
Airplane tickets should cost more. +
Charter operator raises its prices when
weather is bad.
+
Space on a ferry is allocated by pricing. + +
Space on a ferry is allocated by
assessed need.
+
The state should prioritize reducing
differences between rich and poor.
+ +
Low-income drivers get a discount on
congestion charges
+
Factor Analysis
37. • Create many winners, few losers
• Smart scheme design => large congestion relief
• Do not focus on taxing and revenues
• Pricing viewed as a ”natural” mechanism
• Play the environment card
• Many burn for the environment – few burn for ”efficient use of road space”
• The equity argument does not seem to be important
• Acceptability not on the normal right-left political spectrum
Achieving acceptability
38. • Congestion Pricing without congestion to finance new
infrastructure.
• Increase PT use (!)
• Volume reduction
• Small travel time reductions
• Non-work trips vanish (do not diver to other modes).
• Stable effect after 8 month
• But less accurate predictions than ins Stockholm
• More route choice effects?
• The 1 hour rule?
Summing up: