Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Session 7 Karolina Isaksson
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Session 7 Karolina Isaksson


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Radical mobility transformations = sådana som inte bara handlar om effektivisering och smoother mobility utan snarare fundamentally changed mobility patterns, other modes and even reduced mobility Dvs change of mindsets and behavior
  • There is a need for critical perspectives on current cc initiatives, seeing them in their width and in their full social complexity (leta formuleringar i föreliggande utkast) = a main motive for our study
  • FIRST OF ALL: that we see congestion charging as a potentially very powerful transformative policy in relation to current environmental, social and economic challenges (=sust dev challenges) Add to first point …in an urban context, where urban decision makers have to navigate in a new uncertain context, facing new pressing demands to transform infrastructures and mobility trends etc Add to research strategy that what is presented here is still quite preliminary – What we have done so far is partly about formulating a common research approach, to be applied on other cases and more in depth in a close future. Say also something about the choice to compare Sthlm and Cphgn: Because we are located in these two contexts but also interesting since it is happening so close in time in two quite similar cities. There is a tendency to a common perspective outside Scandinavia that the two cases are very similar and no real differences are expeted. But the analytical approach also aims to draw out differences in the cultural and strategic roles of automobility, planning/policy making styles and cultures etc
  • in cph the share of car transport is abt the same as in other european cities while the share of bikes is high – abt 32 per cent in 2006 – it is the share of public transport which is low though this has increased with the metro (while the passengers in the busses decreased)]
  • På nationalt niveau er der i sommeren 2009 blevet indgået et trafikforlig mellem Folketingets partier (minus Enhedslisten) – heri ligger også et ambitiøst nationalt road pricing system, men det har dels lange udsigter og dels er der svært at bruge i byerne (sikkerhedsmargin er 30 m – ikke nok til en afgifts ring i Kbh). Men det betyder, at holdningen er ved at ændre sig markant nationalt – afgiften bliver italesat som en omlægning af beskatningen. Men den sidste tid er der slået flere skår i trafik forliget og nogen ser det på vej mod opløsning, blandt andet på grund af manglende vilje blandt Konservative og Venstre (de to regeringspartier) til at gennemføre road pricing. Men det har fået Socialdemokratiet til at skifte – før var de i mod. A proposal has [ exit: currently] been drafted and discussed in the city region, spearheaded by Municipality of Copenhagen with the not-sure status of the 2009 traffic agreement, the proposal is on stand-by Rates: between 0 and 25 DKK, depending on the time of the day/night and if it is weekend, holiday or regular day. Charged when the vehicle crosses the cordon
  • WHAT WILL IT COST? Monda y – Frida y Rate 05.00 – 06.00 10 dkk 06.00 - 10.00 + 14.00 - 18.00 25 dkk 10.00 - 14.00 + 18.00 - 23.00 10 dkk 23.00 - 05.00 0 dkk weekend/ helligdage 10.00 - 17.00 10 dkk 17.00 - 10.00 0 dkk
  • (20% reduction until 2015, whereof 10% reduction from the transportation sector )
  • Transcript

    • 1. Transforming mobilities? Comparing recent Scandinavian experiences with congestion tax policies
      • Karolina Isaksson, VTI
      • Anne Jensen, Aarhus universitet
      • Tim Richardson, Aalborg University
    • 2. A policy turn towards sustainable mobility
      • Congestion charging and taxation often seen as a pragmatic policy measure to enact change of unsustainable mobility trends
      • Climate change and targets of 50-80% CO2 reduction require dramatic and fundamental shifts in transport behaviour:
      • A need for radical mobility transformations
    • 3. Experience of congestion charging
      • There is a growing experience and knowledge of congestion charging systems (Singapore, London, Stockholm…)
      • Evaluations often focus on traffic system impacts and direct impacts for individuals, time costs/benefits, and economic costs.
      • Important also to take a broader social science approach, seeing congestion charging not only as a traffic intervention but potentially a key intervention to achieve radical and rapid transitions in mobility
    • 4. Our study
      • Aims to examine congestion charging implementation within a Scandinavian ”sustainable urban development” context.
        • How has congestion charging been discussed (and implemented) in the two cases?
        • What are the main features of the congestion charging scheme in the two cities?
        • What sort of mobility and what long term mobility trends does congestion charging, in the two cases, support? Does it create incentives for any radical mobility transformations?
    • 5. Stockholm and Copenhagen
      • Many similiarities:
      • Similar size (Stockholm 2 million, Copenhagen 1,7 million)
      • Growing city regions
      • Regional enlargement = many commuters
      • Economic growth – increased number of car owners and car drivers
      • An overall trend of increasing traffic and congestion
      • One difference between the two cities is the high share of bikes in Copenhagen: 30-35% of urban travels.
    • 6. Initial findings: 1a) The policy process in Stockholm
      • Election Sep 2002: government negotiations at local and national levels led to the Stockholm congestion charging trial
      • A highly challenged decision, not the least among citizens and municipalities in the greater Stockholm area
      • A process characterized by political disagreements, time pressure, technical and legal challenges + a complex interplay between different governance levels
    • 7.
      • When the trial started, it was soon percieved as a success
      • ( ~ 22% congestion reduction at the cordon)
      • Public resistance turned into public support (51,3% YES in the local referendum Sep 2006)
      • After the national election 2006: The new government decided to introduce cong tax on a regular basis from 1 Aug 2007
    • 8. 1b) The policy process in Copenhagen
      • Congestion charging has been put on the agenda by 16 municipalities in the Greater Cph Area (the ”Municipal Forum”), spearheaded by Cph
      • A planning unit has also been formed at Cph Municipality.
      • The Municipal Forum + the planning unit propesed a congestion charging scheme in 2008.
      • Nothing is however settled formally yet - congestion charging is still an open and contested issue
      • New legislation is required
      • An history of resistance from the national political level is perhaps shifting? 2009 traffic agreement = proposal currently on stand-by
    • 9. 2a) The Sthlm congestion tax: main features
      • Formal Aim:
      • The trial : To decrease traffic and congestion, enhance accessibility and improve the environment
      • The regular tax : improving the environment, the accessibility and to contribute financially to new road investments in the Stockholm region
    • 10.
      • Stockholm – main features (cont)
      • A cordon around the inner city (Essingeleden)
      • Motor vehicles passing one of the 18 charging stations (along the cordon) must pay 10-20 SEK, depending on time of the day.
      • Maximum fee: 60 SEK a day. Nights, weekends, holidays and days before holiday = free of charge.
      • According to the legislation, revenues may be used for public transportation and new road infrastructure
    • 11. 2b) The Cph congestion tax: main features
      • A cordon within the Municipality of Copenhagen
      • Rates: between 0 and 25 DKK, depending on the time of the day
      • Charged when wehicles pass the cordon
      • Nights = free of charge. Daytime at weekends + holidays = reduced price
      • Congestion tax + extra investments in public trp
    • 12.
      • Cph main features (cont)
      • Formal Criteria:
      • Must ensure 15-20% reduction in car traffic within the toll ring
      • Must decrease the traffic work in the city region
      • Must not induce a rise in traffic on smaller roads
      • Must not hinder mobility
      • Must appear logical, fair and easy to understand
      • Must be accompanied by an extended public transport system of high quality and reliability
      • Congestion charging = central in relation to the ambitions for a CO2-neutral city by 2025
      • The overall rationale is still however to maintain and improve accessibility in the Greater Copenhagen area
      • Revenue will be used to finance ”key projects” that will ensure ”an effective and more environmentally friendly decrease in traffic in the Greater Cph Area”
    • 13. 3) What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported?
      • Stockholm during the trial :
      • Congestion tax + extra investments in public transport = Decreasing traffic and congestion while increasing accessibility by public trp
      • Winners : inner city residents, public trp users, motorists who want (and can afford) to pay
      • Losers : residents in districts where conditions in terms of congestion and pollution got worse
      • An ambivalence about the place of the car in the city
    • 14. What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported? (cont)
      • Stockholm since the regular tax :
      • T he tax is clearly part of a large infrastructure plan including investments in road and railway infrastructure and part of the long-term multi nodal plan for Stockholm
      • Revenues earmarked for Bypass Stockholm
      • The tax is now deductible, fine for unpaid tax lower than during the trial
      • Worth to note is that while congestion is reduced, traffic is still increasing at large in the region – this seems to be seen as unavoidable
      • Current and future drivers who want and can afford to pay are a stronger group of winners than before
    • 15. What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported? (cont)
      • Copenhagen :
      • Clear aims for reduced congestion in the inner city as well as in the region
      • Clear aims to invest extra in public trp and biking
      • As in the Sthlm case, congestion reduction might support motorists who can afford to pay - and lead to smoother mobility for them…
      • … but an ambition for overall reduction + extra investments for other modes of transport is still an indication of a willingness to transform overall mobility trends
      • Still unclear however what will actually be decided and implemented in practice
    • 16. Discussion
      • One clear similarity is that the schemes in both cities combine cong charging with overall increasing car-based mobility trends…
      • Still an open question how upcoming new climate targets will influence the long-term transport planning in each city
      • According to the proposal, the Copenhagen scheme seems to have more of a critical edge than the current Stockholm scheme
      • The management of challenging issues is decisive for to what extent the scemes manage to confront car-based urban mobility
      • Are initially radical ambitions being watered down?
    • 17. Thank you [email_address]