This document discusses the evolution of congestion charging in Sweden, including: 1) A brief history of congestion charging trials starting in Stockholm in 2006 and expanding to Gothenburg, resulting in reduced traffic volumes and travel times. 2) Empirical results showing charging reduced traffic by 10-20% and improved public transit ridership and air quality. Congestion charging also increased acceptance after introduction. 3) The changing role of congestion charging to fund large infrastructure packages and support sustainable growth by improving public transit and making private vehicles less attractive. 4) Potential future developments like distance-based charging differentiated by time, place and occupancy as autonomous vehicles and mobility as a service change transportation.

1. Evolution of congestion
charging in Sweden

2. Presentation outline
— A brief history of congestion charging in Sweden
— Some empirical results
— Changing role for congestion charging
— Outlook

3. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Stockholm congestion charging
trials
jan 3
Permanent introduction Stockholm
congestion charges
aug 1
Gothenburg congestion charging
jan 1
Gothenburg update charging scheme
jan 1
Foreign vehicles included in charging
legislation
jan 1
Stockholm update of charging scheme
jan 1
Congestion charging timeline

4. Stockholm
2016
Month
Total number of
vehicles passing
cordon
Total charged
passages
Total amount
charged
January 6 945 100 6 259 200 118 807 400
February 8 391 900 7 604 800 145 189 100
March 8 013 600 7 292 200 137 951 600
April 9 085 800 8 278 200 155 852 000
May 8 618 700 7 853 200 147 016 300
June 8 591 300 7 852 400 144 778 500
August 9 056 500 8 301 000 152 258 200
September 9 276 400 8 410 900 159 608 500
October 8 895 000 8 106 100 153 386 200
November 8 180 800 7 436 200 140 199 100
December 8 336 400 7 626 500 142 088 100
Total
revenues 1 597 135 000
Time
Charge
(SEK)
Charge
(SEK)
Essingelede
n
bypass
6.30–6.59 15 15
7.00–7.29 25 22
7.30–8.29 35 30
8.30–8.59 25 22
9.00–9.29 15 15
9.30–14.59 11 11
15.00–15.29 15 15
15.30–15.59 25 22
16.00–17.29 35 30
17.30–17.59 25 22
18.00–18.29 15 15
Daily maximum charge is 105 SEK
25 SEK ~ 3.5 AUD ~223 M AUD
105 SEK ~ 15 AUD

5. Gothenburg
Time Charge (SEK)
06:00–06:29 9 kr
06:30–06:59 16 kr
07:00–07:59 22 kr
08:00–08:29 16 kr
08:30–14:59 9 kr
15:00–15:29 16 kr
15:30–16:59 22 kr
17:00–17:59 16 kr
18:00–18:29 9 kr
18:30–05:59 0 kr
Multipassage rule: if a vehicle passes a charging station twice or
more within 60 minutes, the vehicle is only charged once and the
highest occuring charge is applied.
2016
Month
Total number of
vehicles passing
cordon
Total charged
passages
Total amount
charged
January 10 139 500 5 284 800 71 669 400
February 12 302 700 6 387 100 87 415 400
March 12 213 200 6 334 400 85 763 700
April 13 217 700 6 854 300 92 562 200
May 12 629 600 6 526 400 87 412 100
June 12 733 400 6 596 700 87 258 300
August 13 077 000 6 747 800 88 271 900
September 13 585 800 7 061 400 96 105 800
October 13 023 400 6 781 600 92 377 200
November 12 911 900 6 728 100 91 434 900
December 12 336 400 6 417 060 86 108 600
Total revenues 966 379 500
~145 M AUD
Daily maximum charge is 60 SEK
60 SEK ~ 8.4 AUD

6. Some
empirical
results

7. Congestion charging effects
Stockholm Gothenburg
Traffic volume -20% across the cordon -10% across cordon,-2.5% vehicle-km in
Gothenburg
Travel times -33% in delays -10-20% reduction median travel time on
corridors
Public transit ridership +5% +6%
CBA and/or changes in
consumer surplus*
80 million USD/year 1.8 million USD/year*
Business effects +5% in retail sales No effects on business found
CO2 -13% -2.5% (region)
NOx -8% Uncertain
PM2.5 n.a. Uncertain
PM10 -13% Uncertain

8. Political and public acceptance
— Low political and public acceptance before introduction
Place Before After
Stockholm 21% 67%
Bergen 19% 58%
Oslo 30% 41%
Trondheim 9% 47%
London 39% 54%

9. Changing
role of
congestion
charging

10. Political objectives
— Objectives of Stockholm trials
” 1. to decrease traffic with 10-15% during peak hours to and from
the city center
2. to reduce delays
3. to reduce CO2, NOx and partical matter emissions
4. to improve how inhabitants experience the city environment”
— Gothenburg
”Develop a congestion charging policy that generates between 800-
1200 million SEK annually”
”The West Swedish Solution support the sustainable growth of the
Gothenburg region to 1.5 milllion inhabitants by improving the
quality of public transit and active modes while reducing the
attractiveness of the car”

11. Funding packages of infrastructure
— 34 billion SEK ”West Swedish Agreement” for Gothenburg
— A variety of investments in public transit and cycling
infrastructure, including 55km dedicated bus lanes.
— A new rail tunnel under the city center with 3 new stations
— A new road tunnel under the river
— A new bridge across the river
— Stockholm Agreement (2013)
— 19.5 billion SEK metro extensions blue and green lines
— 78 000 new housing units
— Swedish negotations (2017
— 25 billion SEK investment
— New metroline, extension commuter rail, extension of tramway, new
metrostation Hagalund
— 100 000 new housing units

12. Overuse of private mobility
Increased congestion and
environmental problems
Increase road capacity
Decrease public funds and
space.
Congestion charging enables breaking the downward spiral
Underprized private
mobility

13. Decreased use of private
mobility
Decreased congestion and
environmental problems
Increased public transit use
and active modes
Increased public funds and
space.
Congestion charging enables breaking the downward spiral
Underprized private
mobility + Congestion
charge

14. Congestion pricing as part of overall transport plan –
Example Stockholm mobility plan
“Traffic comprises people and goods – not vehicles”
http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/237245/engelsk%20fram.pdf

15. Outlook

16. Current developments
— Infrastructure funding gap
— For countries with base gas taxes based infrastructure funding
— Autonomous vehicles
— Zero occupancy driving
— Changed values of time and willingness to pay
— Changes in parking demand and effectiveness of parking policies
— Changes in vehicle ownership
— Mobility as a Service
— Packaged pricing for monthly mobility needs
— Incentive structures between modes that maximise profit for
private MaaS operators

17. Future for congestion pricing?
— Distance based charging
— Differentiated after time,
place, and vehicle occupancy
— Network capacity auctioning
among mobility service
providers
— Time slot bookings with
differentiated service
offers?

18. Thank you!
wsp.com