Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Congestion Charging
Presentation for California
Environmental Dialogue



 Ed Pike, P.E.
 July 13, 2010
International Council on Clean Transportation
  Goal of the ICCT is to dramatically reduce conventional pollutant and gre...
Congestion Charging Topics
  What is congestion charging?

  Two international examples: London and
   Singapore

  ICC...
What is a Congestion Charge ?
  When roadways are congested, each
   additional driver imposes an additional delay
   on ...
London Congestion Charge
  Major surface congestion causes
   delay and uncertainty for drivers
   and surface transit us...
London Congestion Charge
London Congestion Charge
  Initially 5 pounds, now at 8 pounds ($12)
    with exemptions
  Pay via Internet, text, retai...
London Congestion Charge
  Cut traffic by 20-30% in original zone

  Increased bus ridership and cycling

  CO2 dropped...
London Congestion Charge
  Over $180 million in net revenue for bus and
   other transportation improvements (FY
   2007/...
Singapore Congestion Charge
  Electronic Road Pricing started in 1970’s and
   updated to electronic system with smartcar...
Singapore Congestion Charge
  Price adjusted to keep traffic between 45-65
   kph (28-40 mph)
  Price increase in 2008 (...
Singapore Congestion Charge
  Transit share increased from 40% then to
   60% now
  Traffic decreased 31% in first ten y...
What about California ?
  Worst traffic in US – large city (San Jose area)
   and very large city (LA area) categories
 ...
Santa Clara County Study
  ICCT sponsored congestion charging study
    for Santa Clara County - investigate
    feasibil...
Santa Clara County Study
  Pricing levels (per mile) set at different levels
   for different weekday times
  Off-peak, ...
Santa Clara County Study
  Shaving peak traffic during congested hours
   can make a big difference
  Graph based on ove...
Santa Clara County Study
  Estimated 2012 benefits to society outweigh costs
  Amount of net benefit depends on amount o...
Santa Clara County Study
  Decreased travel time is largest projected
   benefit, followed by gasoline savings
  Polluti...
Santa Clara County Study
  System administration and “lost amenity” are
   largest costs (lost amenity is due to a trip t...
Santa Clara County Study
  Average driver sees time savings benefit
   about equal to charge paid
  –  However, costs may...
Privacy Options
  Anonymous cash accounts
  Smart card option would not need to collect
    data on vehicle or driver (e...
Conclusion
  Congestion Charging has been implemented
   successfully
  Expected congestion benefits exceed
   expected ...
Contact Information
Ed Pike, P.E.
ed@theicct.org
(415) 202-5753
www.theicct.org

Congestion charging paper:
http://www.the...
Back-up Slides




                 Slide 24
Area-wide charging technology
           examples

–  European area-wide charging examples
   •  7500 miles of highway in ...
“HOT” Lanes vs Carpool Lanes
Bay Bridge vehicle tolls
  Base toll of $5
  Increased by $1 weekday on-peak, decreased
    by $1 weekday off-peak
  Ne...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Congestion Charging: Presentation for California Enviromental Dialog

1,337 views

Published on

Presentation to the CED Clean Air Dialog meeting, 13 July 2010, for a discussion on strategies for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

  • Be the first to comment

Congestion Charging: Presentation for California Enviromental Dialog

  1. 1. Congestion Charging Presentation for California Environmental Dialogue Ed Pike, P.E. July 13, 2010
  2. 2. International Council on Clean Transportation   Goal of the ICCT is to dramatically reduce conventional pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from all transportation sources in order to improve air quality and human health, and mitigate climate change.   Promotes best practices and comprehensive solutions to:   Improve vehicle emissions and efficiency   Increase fuel quality and sustainability of alternative fuels   Reduce pollution from the in-use fleet, and   Curtail emissions from international goods movement.   The Council is made up of leading regulators and experts from around the world. Slide 2 www.theicct.org
  3. 3. Congestion Charging Topics   What is congestion charging?   Two international examples: London and Singapore   ICCT-sponsored Santa Clara County, California study
  4. 4. What is a Congestion Charge ?   When roadways are congested, each additional driver imposes an additional delay on every other driver   Congestion Charges during congested times encourage different transit modes/times   When congestion goes down, travel becomes faster and more reliable   Unlike revenue tolls, congestion charges are not imposed 24/7
  5. 5. London Congestion Charge   Major surface congestion causes delay and uncertainty for drivers and surface transit users (most travelers use transit)   Cordon fee around dense downtown initially established in 2005 and later expanded
  6. 6. London Congestion Charge
  7. 7. London Congestion Charge   Initially 5 pounds, now at 8 pounds ($12) with exemptions   Pay via Internet, text, retail location, phone Slide 7
  8. 8. London Congestion Charge   Cut traffic by 20-30% in original zone   Increased bus ridership and cycling   CO2 dropped 15-20%, Nitrogen Oxides & Fine Particulates by 10%   No evidence of impact on business & economic activity
  9. 9. London Congestion Charge   Over $180 million in net revenue for bus and other transportation improvements (FY 2007/8)   High operating costs for camera-based system, FastTrak type system under investigation
  10. 10. Singapore Congestion Charge   Electronic Road Pricing started in 1970’s and updated to electronic system with smartcards on-board the vehicle & camera enforcement © 2005 Mailer Diablo
  11. 11. Singapore Congestion Charge   Price adjusted to keep traffic between 45-65 kph (28-40 mph)   Price increase in 2008 (peak fee $3 US) accompanied by vehicle tax decrease
  12. 12. Singapore Congestion Charge   Transit share increased from 40% then to 60% now   Traffic decreased 31% in first ten years despite 77% increase in vehicle ownership
  13. 13. What about California ?   Worst traffic in US – large city (San Jose area) and very large city (LA area) categories   Congestion typically dips during recession, then rebounds (red=worst, green=best) source: Valley Transportation Authority “2008 Monitoring and Conformance Report”
  14. 14. Santa Clara County Study   ICCT sponsored congestion charging study for Santa Clara County - investigate feasibility in area with diffuse development patterns rather than compact urban core   Lead model development by consultant Charles Komanoff   Feasibility-type study, not implementation -type study
  15. 15. Santa Clara County Study   Pricing levels (per mile) set at different levels for different weekday times   Off-peak, weekend travel not charged   Freeways & major arterials would be tolled   Average per trip charge during congestion hours: $1.73
  16. 16. Santa Clara County Study   Shaving peak traffic during congested hours can make a big difference   Graph based on over 1000 Santa Clara County data points
  17. 17. Santa Clara County Study   Estimated 2012 benefits to society outweigh costs   Amount of net benefit depends on amount of traffic reduction in response to charge (“elasticity”), gas prices, drivers’ time valuation
  18. 18. Santa Clara County Study   Decreased travel time is largest projected benefit, followed by gasoline savings   Pollution reductions are added benefit   Reduced crash costs anticipated but not determined   Based on 2012 (assuming congestion growth just under 1% per year)
  19. 19. Santa Clara County Study   System administration and “lost amenity” are largest costs (lost amenity is due to a trip that the driver decided not to take due to charge)   Congestion Charge payments/revenue are both a cost and a benefit – substantial revenue after paying system costs –  Need to invest in transit to encourage switching –  Can use for transportation purposes, target low -income, and/or rebate
  20. 20. Santa Clara County Study   Average driver sees time savings benefit about equal to charge paid –  However, costs may seem more tangible than benefits prior to implementation   Transit users see benefits –  Need transit upgrades to accommodate & encourage increased ridership when charge starts   Substantial net charge revenue –  Could be distributed per capita, targeted to low -income, additional transportation uses, etc Slide 20
  21. 21. Privacy Options   Anonymous cash accounts   Smart card option would not need to collect data on vehicle or driver (except for evaders)   “Firewalls” on data usage   Prompt data deletion
  22. 22. Conclusion   Congestion Charging has been implemented successfully   Expected congestion benefits exceed expected costs in Santa Clara County by a wide margin, with additional pollution reduction as a bonus   However, potential Catch-22: costs may seem more tangible than the benefits before implementation –  Education, outreach, leadership necessary Slide 22
  23. 23. Contact Information Ed Pike, P.E. ed@theicct.org (415) 202-5753 www.theicct.org Congestion charging paper: http://www.theicct.org/programs /climate_change/congestion_charging_paper_
  24. 24. Back-up Slides Slide 24
  25. 25. Area-wide charging technology examples –  European area-wide charging examples •  7500 miles of highway in Germany using GPS for truck tolls •  1800 miles in Austria & Czech Republic using overhead gantries & transponders for truck tolls Slide 25
  26. 26. “HOT” Lanes vs Carpool Lanes
  27. 27. Bay Bridge vehicle tolls   Base toll of $5   Increased by $1 weekday on-peak, decreased by $1 weekday off-peak   New carpools toll for $2.50 (half of base toll)   Implemented July 1   Revenue Toll not Congestion Charge, but with a partial congestion component Slide 27

×