[Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

Congestion pricing: A Case Study of Four Different Cities

Feasibility Study for the City of Paris, FranceCAZARES Jerry, GEORGE Mathews, LIN LaurentTexas A&M University, Zachry Department of Civil EngineeringINSTRUCTOR: Dr. wang xiubin

CONGESTION PRICING

ABSTRACTCongestion Pricing has not received global acceptance as a tool to alleviate congestion levels. But it has been successfully implemented in cities like London, Stockholm, Singapore and Milan. In order to analyze the factors to be considered while designing a congestion pricing system for a new city a case study of the aforementioned four cities were done. From the literature review on congestion pricing it was inferred that congestion levels, environmental pollution, safety, technology used and public and political acceptance are the key elements to be stressed upon while designing a pricing system. So for the four cities a case study was done to analyze how each of the above mentioned elements have to be tackled for a successful implementation of pricing system. The situation on account of these elements were analyzed before and after the implementation of the pricing system. Using the inferences a feasibility study was done for Paris by obtaining the data pertaining to each of the above mentioned elements. Based on the feasibility study a pricing system that addresses both the congestion levels and the pollution on account of vehicular emissions was proposed. As public acceptance is one of the major hurdles in successful implementation of congestion pricing a trial run followed by referendum was also proposed for Paris.

Page 1 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................3

LITTERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................3

I. BACKGROUND AND ACTUAL SYSTEM FOR THE CITIES STUDIED...........................................6

I.1. Background to why congestion pricing is necessary...........................................................................6

I.2. Existing congestion Pricing Schemes in various cities:......................................................................7

II. IMPACTS AND SHORTCOMINGS:....................................................................................................13

II.1. Impact on the traffic.........................................................................................................................13

II.2. Modal shift.......................................................................................................................................15

II.3. Safety results....................................................................................................................................17

II.4. Economic impact..............................................................................................................................18

II.5. Environmental impact......................................................................................................................19

III. PUBLIC AND POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE.......................................................................................21

III.1. Cases of public and political support..............................................................................................22

III.2. Cases where people finally approved.............................................................................................23

III.3. Cases of failure...............................................................................................................................24

III.4. Factors influencing public acceptance............................................................................................24

IV. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE CITY OF PARIS:.........................................................................26

IV. 1. Background:...................................................................................................................................26

IV.2. Our Solution for Paris:....................................................................................................................30

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................32

TABLE OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................33

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................33

Page 2 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

INTRODUCTIONThe number of vehicles utilizing available road networks is always on the rise. The result has

been an incessant increase in traffic congestion. Congestion imposes various difficulties to travelers such as reduced speeds, increased travel times, greater fuel consumption, and inconvenience from having to reschedule trips to name a few. The costs of increased travel times and fuel consumption alone are estimated to amount to hundreds of dollars per capita per year in the U.S. (Schrank and Lomax, 1999) and similar values have been reported for Europe [23]. The public expects the states’ departments of transportation to enhance the total roadway capacity by building more roads. From a common man’s perspective the logic fits perfectly as the simple logic matches the concept of supply with demand. But often people do not realize that they have an equal responsibility in the issue of traffic congestion.

Demand is always on the rise but it iss not viable to increase the supply proportionately. The most obvious reason for this stems from paucity of funds and the time required to build the infrastructure required to match the demand. Various policies to curb traffic congestion have been considered over the years. The first solution that comes to one’s mind is to build more roads and thereby enhance the total roadway capacity. Another method is to reduce demand by limiting peak-period travel. A third method is to improve the efficiency of the road system, so that demand can be met at a lower cost. Re-timing of traffic lights, metering access to highway entrance ramps, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and Advanced Traveler Information Systems are examples of such measures. [23]

A tool that can be employed to implement the second method of limiting peak period travel is congestion pricing. The psychology behind this is that people tend to make alternative choices that are more economic and efficient when they have to pay extra. Pigou (1920) and Knight (1924) were the first to support this concept. But it was the late William Vickrey, who promoted congestion pricing for some forty years. Vickrey (1963) identified the scope for road pricing to influence commuters’ choice of route and mode. The charges vary according to time, location, type of vehicle and current circumstances (e.g. accidents or bad weather). Congestion pricing is already employed in other sectors of the economy like telephone and other such public utilities. Still congestion pricing is not used much across the globe. In this paper we are trying to analyze the cases of successfully implemented congestion pricing systems in London, Stockholm, Singapore and Milan, show how congestion pricing can be efficiently implemented in other cities and portray the numerous advantages that can be benefited from in the long run. In order to emphasize the results of the case study we will be proposing a methodology to successfully implement congestion pricing in the city of Paris, France.

LITERATURE REVIEW

What is congestion pricing? Congestion pricing can be defined as a system of charging users for the usage of a service in an

attempt to reduce congestion levels [1]. Though it is applicable for electricity or telephone services, this study will focus on the application of congestion pricing to roadways in order to lower traffic congestion.

Congestion pricing may be split into two categories: area and zone/cordon charging [2]. Area charging may be thought of as a “once per 24 hour” charge. Zone/cordon charging may be defined as a

Page 3 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

per passage charge. The major difference between the two forms of pricing may be best seen through an example. With zone/cordon charging, a fee is paid only to enter or exit the charging zone. Those who reside in the area are not subjected to such a policy. On the other hand, in an area charging scheme even those who reside within the area must pay the charge in order to move through the zone. This makes enforcing area charging schemes more challenging than zone/cordon pricing. To account for this, additional cameras are necessary within the zone under an area charging scheme to keep track of vehicles. Area charging schemes are typically favorable over zone/cordon schemes when inter-zonal traffic is a major cause of congestion.

Congestion pricing may also be oriented to either reduce traffic levels or to reduce emissions that are a result of a large volume of high-emission vehicle types. In the case of environmentally oriented schemes, alleviation of congestion is not a primary goal but rather it is obtaining lower pollutant levels that is desired.

Why is it contemplated as a tool to alleviate congestion? The system regulates demand and allows for management of congestion without increasing the

supply. In other words, it is possible to maintain traffic levels below capacity without having to make any physical modifications to the roadway i.e. adding new lanes or a new alternate road. Therefore, this method of control is considered to be an economically viable solution to reducing roadway congestion.

What are the impacts of congestion pricing? A reduction in traffic is expected when there is a price imposed to enter a particular area [2].

Drivers may attempt to change their behavior in order to avoid paying the charge. This can be done by either coming before or after a specific time period when prices are at a particular level. Another alternative is to purchase a vehicle that is exempt from paying any fees. Average travel speeds will typically increase during the peak hour, and travel times will also be reduced.

From a safety perspective, the number of accidents drop as the number of vehicles entering the charging zone decreases. It may be argued that increased travel speeds may increase the severity of the accidents, though previous studies show that the number of injuries will also drop as the total number of vehicles decreases [2]. Safety benefits extend to pedestrians and cyclists that also travel through the charging zone. Lower traffic volumes are conducive to a much friendlier environment for both pedestrians and cyclists, thus further promoting these alternate modes of travel.

As the number of vehicles in the charging zone decreases, so does the amount of emissions being released into the air. Air quality, thus, is expected to improve upon implementation of a congestion pricing scheme. In fact, one of the key supports used to justify congestion charges comes from the predicted emissions reduction [2]. Concentrations of particles that negatively affect health are reduced enough to even prevent numbers of premature deaths.

The revenues received from congestion pricing schemes may come in direct forms (i.e. fees paid for admittance into the zone) or non-direct forms (i.e. reduced number of accidents, travel time reduction) [2]. The benefits received from congestion pricing schemes go on to greatly outweigh the initial cost investments required to establish the system.

Congestion pricing schemes may help promote the use of alternative transportation modes of travel. For instance, in order to avoid paying the fees, motorists may choose to take the bus or light rail to reach their destination.

Page 4 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

What factors affect congestion pricing schemes? Public and political acceptance both play key roles in whether or not a congestion pricing scheme

will be adopted for use in any area. If either the public or the government are not well informed of the benefits that may be reaped from congestion pricing, then either may be inclined to reject the proposal. This was the case for both Manchester [3] and New York City’s [4] proposed congestion pricing schemes, which were rejected before even being implemented. If the scheme makes it to the trial run or is implemented due to initial government and public support, it is important that a healthy relationship is maintained between the system and those who will have to utilize it. If the public is provided with a scheme too soon, a large majority of motorists will be very unfamiliar with the way that the system functions, which may lead to an unnecessarily large number of fines and incidents [2]. If the desired results are not being met, it is also likely that the public will begin to complain, bring up suggestions, or lose approval for the pricing scheme altogether.

When it is not possible to acquire enough investment funds or a reliable fund source, the ability for the congestion pricing scheme to succeed is reduced. An insufficient amount of funds may prevent the initial start-up for the project, causing it to be prematurely cancelled. Another case would be one in which insufficient funds prevent necessary improvements to the system in attempts to address complaints from the users.

I. BACKGROUND AND ACTUAL SYSTEM FOR THE CITIES STUDIEDTo alleviate the congestion, a first approach was to offer more supply for an increasing demand,

i.e. building more roads. After fifty years of this policy, the traffic situations in cities worldwide have shown that it was not efficient. Two phenomena may be highlighted, the first is called the Downs-Thomson Paradox and the second is known as the Braess Paradox.

On one hand, the Downs-Thomson Paradox, or also called Pigou-Knight Downs Paradox, shows that a new road may provide a reduction in the travel time in the short term, but it is not sustainable. In fact, this decrease encourages other users to also use this new road, and so the new infrastructure will lose all the benefits in the long term due to an increased demand. This concept is so called induced demand.

On the other hand, the Braess Paradox is an example which shows that the construction of a new road could lower the performance of the network. Because drivers choose to optimize their own travel time, they only consider the delay from their personal perspective. Thus, the users do not take into account the impacts they cause to other drivers, and so this results in worsening of the general conditions. A congestion charge is capable to make the drivers realize what is the real cost of their trip, including what the external costs they impose to others.

I.1. Background to why congestion pricing is necessarySingapore:

Singapore has 3,122 km of roads. As per the motor vehicle data in 1999 there were 688,811 registered motor vehicles. If all the vehicles came out on to the streets there would be around 1.1 vehicles for every 5 meters. This would give rise to bumper to bumper traffic. With more and more people aspiring to be vehicle owners, the government of Singapore had to come up with measures to restrain the vehicular growth. Since 1975 they have come up with various measures to do so. [27]

Page 5 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Stockholm:Stockholm implemented a trial version of congestion pricing in 2006 and made it permanent in

2007. In 2006 facts suggest that around 560,000 vehicles crossed the inner city cordon of Stockholm. There is a 2.5% increase in vehicle ownership every year. The burgeoning number of vehicles have caused a lack of capacity in between the northern and southern halves of the region. An example to emphasize the level of congestion is that average speed of traffic during peak hours in Stockholm is around 11 mph (18 kph) [26]. Estimated cost to the economy due to congestion is around 600-800 million euros per year. It is not just the economy that is affected the high levels of congestion. From a safety perspective, 361 people were severely injured and 18 died in 2006 alone. In addition to the safety, environmental impact is also noteworthy as there is considerable measure of atmospheric and noise pollution. 10-100 cases of cancer are reported to be caused due to atmospheric pollution. Close to 50,000 inhabitants are exposed to more 65 decibels of noise. [19]

London:The concept of a congestion charge was introduced in the early seventies but was not thought to

be successful mainly due to a lack of public transportation. Facing rapid growth of the population and an increased concern about traffic congestion, the city-dwellers showed more interest over the year to the transportation issue. More than 40 percent of the Londoners surveyed in 1999 admitted to trust the congestion charge to provide a good solution for both congestion issue and funding issue for transit.

Milan: High reliance on car use in Milan combined with “adverse geoclimatic conditions” (i.e.

characterized by very little wind) of the region result in high pollution levels. These conditions will typically worsen in the winter, and the high concentration of air pollutants requires a partial traffic ban every Sunday. Historically, from 2002-2007 the 50 µg/m3 PM10 concentration limit set by the EU environmental regulation was exceeded throughout 125 days. In 2002, it was estimated that 55% of PM10

pollutants are a result of emissions from vehicular traffic. Average daily levels of NO2 and 03 were about 60 and 30 µg/m3 and continued to increase in that time span. In order to satisfy the national legislation that requires that mayors attempt to reduce pollution and to improve the quality of the urban environment, particularly within the city center the possibility of a congestion pricing scheme was contemplated.

I.2. Existing congestion Pricing Schemes in various cities:Singapore:

Two major schemes were introduced by Singapore starting from 1975. They were the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS), which over the years underwent several modifications and eventually paved the way for the more efficient and globally popular Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). The details of the two schemes in brief are as follows:

Area licensing scheme (ALS) Traffic congestion became a very serious issue in Singapore in 1975 as vehicles moved at very

slow speed of 12 mph (19 kph) during the peak hours in the central business district (CBD). In order to

Page 6 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

reduce the number of vehicles entering the CBD during the peak hours, Singapore introduced the world famous ALS. It defined a restricted zone of about 2 square miles within the CBD. It had around 22 entry points in the initial stage. Except for the vehicles in the exemption category, all others had to have a special sticker on the vehicle costing the owner $3 per day in order to enter the restricted zone during the restricted times from 7:30 am to 9:30 am on all days except Sunday. ALS had undergone so many changes over the years. In 1997 the timings for ALS changed from 7:30 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays and 7:30 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays. Whole day and part day ALS licenses were also introduced in 1997. [26]

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP):The ALS schemes had high rates leading to underutilized roads and unnecessary complications as

it had around 16 different type of licenses. The fact that aggravated the issue was that the whole scheme relied solely on manual labor thereby affecting the efficiency of the system. Taking all this into consideration government decided to come up with the ERP scheme. The transition to ERP was complete by September 1998. The technology involves combination of radio frequency, optical detection, and imaging and smart card technologies. Transponders called in-vehicle units (IUs) are fixed permanently on the windscreens of all the vehicles. IU is unique to each vehicle. IUs can be purchased or rented from service outlets. Motorists have to swipe the smart cash debit cards in the IU’s for making ERP payment. The charges were lower when compared to ALS at between 0.5 and 2.5 dollars depending on the time of the day and the Passenger Car Unit rating of the vehicle. Unlike ALS, each ERP entry into the CBD would be charged. Rate adjustments are done every quarter. In the event of violation the image of the rear license plate will be transmitted to the authorities and the driver is fined 10 dollars plus the ERP charge. ERP charges for the vehicles vary according to their Passenger Car Unit ratings.

How price is chosen?The ERP system makes it possible to vary charges by location, time of day and vehicle type, so

that they can be related to the actual level of congestion caused. A method known by the name shoulder pricing is used. It involves increasing the rate in steps every half an hour before the peak and decreasing it after the peak. To make the link between road pricing and congestion better the rates for different types of vehicles are set to be approximately proportional to their passenger car equivalent (PCE) values. Traffic in Singapore is quite sensitive to the ERP even though the charges are relatively low. The maximum rate for cars is S$3.00 on expressways and S$2.50 to enter the RZ, which is comparable to a 1-h parking fee in the city. Traffic speeds are monitored by the Land Transport Authority and the rates are revised every 3 months to maintain the speeds within desirable bands. [19]

How the area is chosen?In Singapore, Electronic Road Pricing are gantries located at all the roads that link to the central

business district, as well as along expressways and arterial roads with heavy traffic. New gantries are implemented wherever congestion is severe. This system does not form a cordon as seen in Stockholm or London. Misconception states that congestion charging systems must be shaped as cordons.

Page 7 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 1: The Congestion Pricing System Setup in Singapore

Stockholm:Congestion pricing system

The objectives of the congestion pricing trial in Stockholm were to reduce congestion by around 10-15%, increase accessibility and to improve the environment. Stockholm’s congestion pricing was the third major development in implementation of congestion pricing after Singapore and London. The methodology adopted is similar to that of the one used in Singapore [19]

Design of the congestion pricing scheme:The area of the toll zone is 30 square kilometers around the inner city of Stockholm. Charges

were time differentiated over the day and over the week as shown in the table below.

Figure 2: Charges by time interval for Stockholm

The fee for passing a control point is 1.1 or 1.6 or 2.2 Euros depending on the time of the day. No fees were charged in the nights, weekends, public holidays or the day before such a holiday. The total daily payment of a vehicle was limited to 6 euros. The congestion charge in Stockholm is maintained as a tax by the government. Any change has to be approved by parliamentary action. [23]

As a supplement to the congestion pricing scheme, 16 new bus lines were provided. The train lines also enhanced their capacity. In total the capacity of the public transit service was increased by 7%. New park-and-ride facilities were also built in the region.

The technology used for enforcement: Cameras capture the number plates of the vehicles and payments are made directly using the debit

accounts of vehicle owners. Unlike the Singapore ERP system where drivers have to swipe their debit

Page 8 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

cards before entering the CBD, the drivers in Stockholm are automatically charged against their accounts once the cameras detect the vehicle. The technology used for detection is called Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and the fee structure is based on time of day (i.e. pricing changes with respect to timing) [19]. The charging happens automatically when the vehicle passes through any of the 18 entry points to the demarked cordon [23] [24]

How price is chosen?The intended target of fixing the rates was the congestion levels at major bottlenecks, measured

as travel time increases relative to free-flow travel times (i.e. 0% is free-flow). The aim was to increase travel speeds to a level where bottlenecks close to the cordon (where the most significant bottlenecks are located) had at most 70% relative travel time increases, while bottlenecks farther from the cordon (with typically lower traffic volumes) had relative travel time increases of at most 100%.

How the area is chosen?A cordon scheme was introduced for the Stockholm city center areas. Time-differentiated tolls

are charged when entering or exiting the 35 km2 charging area. Traffic growth within the area ended around 1990 due to reaching roadway capacity in the town center [19]. The toll rate was set in order to reach the goal of reducing car traffic across the cordon. The area’s boundary consists of 18 charging points at main bottlenecks on the arterials leading into and out from the inner city [20]. The 18 points for the cordon, and the shape is just a consequence of the topology of the city, not as a design constraint.

Figure 3: Cordon setup for Stockholm

London:The congestion pricing system:

The objectives for congestion pricing in London was to improve travel times for buses, reduce traffic, and generate revenues for public transit and to improve the quality of life in central London. The London congestion charge is a daily fee applied to the drivers who entered a defined area in Central London called Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) between 7.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. on weekdays. The area delimited by the CCZ is one of the biggest charging zones worldwide. Even if it covers a small area of only eight square miles, the zone includes the corporate centers (e.g. the “City”), most governmental offices and the main touristic attractions. Therefore it quite expectedly became the heart of the issue of congestion. Its aims were to reduce the traffic flow and to find a new way of investment for the public transportation.

Page 9 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

The flat daily charge was set at 5 pounds which was then raised to 8 pounds in 2005. There is a 90% discount for residents within the zone.

The technology used for enforcement:Video cameras were placed at every entry points and mobile patrol units using CCTV detect the

license plates within the area. The technology used is Automatic number plate recognition [ANPR]. Even if the systems show a 70-80 percent success rate for a single pass, a vehicle has an average detection rate of 85-90 percent, as it is more likely that it passes multiple points. Flat daily rate of £8 is charged for each vehicle [13]. The penalty policy is believed to be strong enough to persuade the users to pay the £11.5 charge. The fine goes from £65 in early payment to £130.

How price is chosen?The impact of using charges of the magnitude £2.50, £5.00 and £10.00 were evaluated. The

estimates presented in the report indicated that impact on traffic levels and net revenues increased proportionally with the charge, estimated net benefits did not. Although there was considerable uncertainty regarding the level of net benefits, the point estimates suggested that a £5.00 might yield net benefits almost 40 percent higher than a charge of £2.50 but a £10.00 charge wouldn’t yield much more additional benefit than a £5.00. These considerations turned the decision in favor of a £5.00 charge

How the area is chosen?In London, the charge area is selected to reduce the heavy congestion levels in the area within the

London Inner Ring Road. This area includes the city of London, the main financial district, and the West End (primary commercial and entertainment center). This area contains many of London’s major roads such as Tower Bridge Road and Euston Road. Unlike the one used for Milan, London’s scheme acts as a cordon.

Figure 4: London's congestion charging zone

Milan (2008 – 2011)The congestion pricing system: Ecopass

Unlike London, Stockholm, Singapore the primary target for Milan is to reduce air pollution rather than reduce congestion, since air pollution levels are higher in Milan are alarmingly high. The Ecopass scheme is applicable to vehicles entering the 8 km2 wide demarked area in Milan between 7:30

Page 10 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

and 19:30 Fee/charge is smaller than London and Stockholm, comparable to Singapore. As the goal is to reduce air pollution the charge is set according to the five Euro emission standard classes. Classes I and II are allowed free admission while Classes III, IV, and V must pay 2, 5, and 10 euros respectively. Charges does not differ according to access time, since mainly a pollution charge rather than congestion charge. Maximum charge in Milan is €10 (for a particular vehicle class) as against the €11 in London. Discounts are available for drivers who enter the Ecopass area, with 50% rebate for the first 50 entries, and 40% for the remaining 50 until reaching 100, after which no further discounts were received. Residents in the area also received discounts. Motorcycles, scooters, public transport vehicles, state and local, and emergency vehicles were exempt from paying any fees at all.

AREA C (2011 - Present)Various doubts were raised against the effectiveness of Ecopass. A comprehensive strategy to

double pedestrian areas by 2012, 300 km bike lanes by 2015, introduction of neighborhood bus service, extension of car sharing and bike service implementation of subways services at night and improvement of taxi services was framed. A referenda was held in 2011 and this resulted in the formulation of the Area C scheme the successor of Ecopass. The main difference is the reduction in number of exempted vehicles. The exemptions ae limited to vehicles running on alternative fuels. Vehicles running on Euro 0 petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles running on Euro 1, 2, and 3 are exempted from entering the zone. Other vehicles are charged a 5 Euro ticket. This increased the number of charged vehicles to 92% from 12% [22]. The charging zone was still the same though it could be changed in the future. Area C helped in a further reduction of 34% traffic into the area.

Technology and Enforcement:Video cameras had already been in place in the Ecopass area. These cameras had already been

used for pre-existing traffic control measures. An automatic-number-plate- recognition (ANPR) technology was used. A noticeably large number of fines were given out after the Ecopass policy was implemented, though the exact numbers or pricing are made available in any literature

How price is chosen?A crucial decision was made to set the charge according to the 5 Euro emission standard classes

Figure 5: Toll classes based on Euro emission standards for Ecopass

In contrast with theoretical prescriptions, no differentiation is made according to access time to the charging area, within the charging window (7:30–19:30). This is because the charge is mainly conceived and communicated as a pollution charge and not as a congestion charge.

Page 11 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

How the area is chosen?Perhaps the simplest of the charging schemes, Milan’s Ecopass charge zone was simply

designated to be the city center. The initial zone was planned to be 60 km2 or approximately 1/3 of the total area of the city. Political opposition, however, would cause that area to be reduced to only 8 km 2. Since the goal of the Ecopass policy was to reduce pollution levels in the city in order to improve the quality of the downtown area, little thought went into congestion reduction since this was only an afterthought in the planning process. When the Area C scheme replaced Ecopass in 2011, the same area was maintained while only the pricing policy changed from emissions based to a system that dynamically depended on congestion and time of day.

Figure 6: Ecopass charging area

II. IMPACTS AND SHORTCOMINGS:II.1. Impact on the trafficSingapore:Reduction in congestion

Traffic volume during peak hours decreased by close to 45% [27]. With the implementation of the ERP the amount of traffic entering the CBD fell by 10-15 percent when compared to the ALS as the latter allowed multiple entries with the same pass. Along with rate adjustments speed reviews are also conducted quarterly to ensure that speed is in the range of 45-65 kph for expressways. This range was set with the consideration that a minimum Level of service of E should be there on the road network. The fines for vehicles without a transponder is 70 Singapore dollars [26]. Speed and Delay:

In ERP along with rate adjustments speed reviews are also conducted quarterly to ensure that speed is in the range of 45-65 kph for expressways [26].

Change in travel pattern and other impacts:In the pre-ALS period the share of public transit was 33 percent whereas post ALS/RPS

implementation the share went up to as high as 69 percent. Post ALS30.2% of the automobile commuters travel with four or more commuters whereas before ALS implementation it was a meagre 12.7%. Some of

Page 12 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

the commuters change their daily travel schedule to avoid ALS fee. Indirectly it results in better allocation of resources [25]. There was a decrease of 6.2% in the percentage of people travelling by private taxis.

Shortcomings:Some studies since the implementation of ALS/RPS showed that in order to avoid the ALS/RPS

fees many drivers chose to drive before and after the restricted hours. Multiple trips could be made using the same ALS pass. All these caused congestion during those periods of time and also in the peripheral ring roads. The drivers who do so to avoid the ALS/RPS fees also incur some obvious inconveniences as they have rescheduled their travel. It also adversely affects the people who usually travel during those times. In addition to this the ALS /RPS schemes have become more complicated over the years as it has around 16 typed of manually operated license schemes. Since the ALS rates were high some people were adversely affected as the capacity of the buses were not appropriately increased [25]. Correspondingly public transport was not increased. This caused a lot of problems for the public as existing buses had to make more stops a frequent intervals to accommodate the demand. This reduced the speed of the buses even though the congestion levels went down.

Stockholm:Reduction in Congestion:

The morning peak reduced by around 18%, afternoon peak by 23% and the midday traffic reduced by 22%. Since traffic entirely inside the cordon was not charged the volume in the inner city streets didn’t reduce much [19]. Overall there’s a 20% reduction in traffic within the cordon [23].

Speed and Delay:Travel time reliability improved considerably as travelers could be more optimistic about the

duration of their trip. Travel times declined by 1/3 during morning peak and by around ½ during the evening peak periods. Since inner city buses didn’t reschedule their timings I accordance with the increased accessibility due to the reduced congestion travel times in those areas haven’t improved considerably. [19]

Milan:Reduction in Congestion:

In 2007, one year before the implementation of Ecopass, the number of vehicles entering the charging area was 90,580. This number reduced in 2008 once Ecopass was implemented to a number of 71,729 [16].

London:Reduction in Congestion:Initial reports:

The first impact studies on the congestion charge on traffic (Leape, 2006) [11] showed a drop of cars from 2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent which were even better than expected. According to TfL, over half of the changed behaviors corresponded to a substitution to public transportation, around one quarter of them was a change in their routes, using uncharged roads, and the remains were equally divided into private transportation (i.e. taxis and bicycles mainly) and users who decided to shifted their trip into uncharged hours.

Page 13 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

The number of vans and trucks have also diminished while the number of taxis, buses and bicycles have increased. After a first year in exercise, the overall decrease of 12 percent of the vehicles demonstrated very optimistic outlooks.

Table 1- Impact of the congestion charge on traffic in the congestion charging zone (in thousands of vehicle-kilometers and percent) - Source: http://www.tf.lgov.uk

Current Scenario:After ten years of operation, TFL reported a 10 percent reduction in traffic level compared to the

baseline conditions. It believes that the London Congestion Charge has played a significant role in shifting people away from using cars.

Delay and traffic speed:Despite a reduction of traffic volume within London, traffic speeds have been getting

progressively slower over the past decade. Conversely, although a reduction of 30% in traffic delay per kilometer was observed in 2004, only a reduction of 8% compared to the baseline conditions was observed in 2006. Since, the traffic speeds have stayed stable.

Transport for London explains that this decrease is likely due to urban worksites which paved the way to a more sustainable transportation, for example by improving road safety, creating dedicated bus lanes or developing pedestrian and cycle traffic. In fact, a consequent part of the revenues from tolling is reinvested in these works. In addition, roads have reduced their capacity in order to offer more space for more eco-friendly transportation means. Overall, TFL supports the effectiveness of the congestion charge in its attempts to reduce the traffic flow, by pointing out that situation would have been worse otherwise [9].

II.2. Modal shiftThe congestion charge has immediate effects on the number of trips within the charged zone.

Some of them decide to change their routes by using the roads around, other choose to change to report their trip to a non-charged period, and the last group resolve to give up the cars and shift to alternatives means. In this section, three possibilities are studied: public transportation, bicycles and new driving behaviors.

Buses and subways/ Public transportation:To make acceptable a congestion charge policy, a good public transportation has to be available

to offer the users the possibilities to leave their cars. That is why London adapted its buses right after the

Page 14 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

implementation. They were more buses (+4%), more frequent and their itineraries were adapted to better deserve the park-and-ride.

And results are consistent. In every city, the public transportation has increased. In England, the number of passengers of buses increased from 90,000 pre-charge in 2003 to 116,000 in 2007 (+30%). Also in Sweden, close to 92,000 trips were reduced as a result of the pricing system per year. Of these, 45,000 (almost half) were had work or school related trips. Almost all these (close to 43,000) trips changed their mode to public transportation. And finally in Singapore, the share of public transit started from 33 percent pre-charge and went up to as high as 69 percent after implementation.

These increases, are sometimes higher than expected, are described by Small (2005) [12] as a “virtuous circle”. It could be summarize by saying that the more drivers substitute their cars for public transportation, the more efficient the transportation system will be.

Page 15 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 7- Virtuous of circle of Small

But Transport for London reported in 2007, that the use of the Tube has only increased by 1 percent compared to the pre-charge levels and has even dropped substantially in 2003/2004. A extended cease of the activity of an arterial lane, the Central Line, a downturn in the local economy, a drop-off in tourism are believed to be the real factors of a weak progress in the rail sector rather than the congestion charge.

Bicycles:The scheme of the London Congestion Charge has helped in reducing congestions but also has

improved in parallel the use of bikes. Right after the set-up of the toll, an increase of 30% of cyclists could be observed. (Weaver, 2013) [10] This number has reached an overall increase of 80% since 2000.

Page 16 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Nevertheless, congestion levels went back to its pre-charged level and in addition to the significant users of bicycles, conflicts for road space appeared, including the demand of dedicated cycling lanes.

New driving behavior:Though the congestion charge is a dissuasive policy, some users still continue to drive but decide

to change their driving behavior. For example, the Singaporeans favor the carpooling to share the fees. Thus, nowadays, 30.2% of the automobile commuters travel with four or more commuters whereas before ALS implementation it was a meagre 12.7%. [26]

In Milan, although the Ecopass policy was able to decrease the number of vehicles entering the charging area from 90,580 in 2007 to 71,729 in 2008 (-26%), the numbers only began to increase from thereon after. This may be attributed to the growing number of drivers purchasing vehicles that would be exempt from paying any charges, i.e. low emission cars. The number of exempt vehicles increased from 52,501 in 2007 to 64,545 in 2010 (+23%) and they even went on to exceed the number of paying freight vehicles.

Therefore, the composition of vehicles entering daily had changed drastically between 2007 and 2010. In 2007, 38,079 vehicles would enter the area belonging to the class with the most emissions. This number dropped to 11,569 by the first half of 2010. Freight vehicles have not dropped quite as much as passenger cars have in terms of numbers, however this may be a result of freight vehicles not being as easy to substitute.

OVERVIEWTo conclude, the congestion charge policy has succeed in creating a modal shift towards greener way

of transportation. Even if the congestion issued is not yet tackled, the change in drivers’ behaviors is a great achievement to move to a more sustainable use of the car on a long term scale.

II.3. Safety resultsMilan:

The Ecopass policy increased safety by reducing the number of vehicles in the charging area as well as the reorganization of traffic flows. In 2007, a year before the implementation of Ecopass, the total number of accidents was 1,345 where 853 resulted in injuries. In 2008, this number was reduced to 1,164 with 750 resulting in injuries. In 2009, the number of accidents increased to 1,204 however the number of crashes resulting in injuries continued to drop to 738. For the first six months in 2010, only 518 accidents occurred 298 of which resulted in injuries.

London:The Congestion Charge is expected to reduce the congestion by decreasing the number of cars,

and therefore the number of accidents. Unfortunately, Shefer and Rietveld (1997) [6] argued that this decrease of the traffic flow might result to faster cars which could lead to more severe crashes. This safety perspective is fundamental in the Center of London where cars, cyclists and pedestrians coexist. Early results (Li et al., 2012) [7] show that whereas the car crashes have reduced compared to the pre-charged period, the bicycle one has raised, most likely due to the increase of users.

As the LCC is applied only to a particular class of vehicles (taxis, buses or motorcycles are exempt) at a specific space of London (center of London) and specific times of the week (work hours

Page 17 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

during weekdays), Green et al. (2014) [5] investigated substitution means of travel to see whether these accidents are reported elsewhere due to substitution. They also studied the accident externality to know whether a dropped in car accidents is simply related to a decrease of cars or due to a change in drivers’ behaviors. An accident externality is related to the risks a driver imposes to others and is generally unconsidered. One way to measure this concept is to use the accident rate (accidents per million miles driven) as an indicator.

As a result, not only the number of accident dropped but also the accident rate, which could be interpreted as a lower probability to get involved in a car injuries (from 12.4 accident per million miles driven to 9.8). Moreover, the results are valid for the London center zone but also, to the surrounding areas by comparing with the twenty biggest cities in the United Kingdom. Additionally, although the number of bikes accidents has increased, the rate has dropped which involves a safer environment for the cyclists.Stockholm:

Accident rates have decreased as a result of the pricing scheme used in Stockholm. This is attributed to the reduced traffic volume, particularly during the peak hours and around bottleneck areas. Singapore:In heavily populated city like Singapore the congestion pricing schemes like ALS and ERP have reduced the number of accidents by reducing the congestion particularly by reducing the traffic volume during the peak hours as most of the accidents occur during peak hours.

II.4. Economic impactSingapore:

From an economic perspective the congestion pricing scheme in Singapore was definitely a success. Capital costs associated with the original ALS in 1975 was close to 6.6 million dollars. The revised ALS in 1989 had a total cost of around 17 million US dollars. But the revenue from the sale of ALS licenses alone was 47 million dollars in the fiscal year 1993. In the case of ERP the initial cost of the ERP was $200 million. But Singapore government is getting a revenue of 40 million euros per year [25]. So the fact that the schemes were efficiently executed and managed was undeniable.

Stockholm :Like Singapore Stockholm had a pleasing picture to portray when we talk about the income and

expenditure from the congestion pricing system. It is estimated to contribute a net social surplus evaluated at 65 million euros per year after deducting the operating costs. The yearly operational cost is 22 million Euros. Initial startup cost was 190 million Euros. Including indirect taxes and other correction factors this turns out to be close to 290 million euros. So it can be seen the Initial cost can be wiped off in 4 years’ time. The increased bus traffic turned out to be unprofitable. The total operating cost was 34 million euros but the income was just 18 million euros.[19] Researchers feared that the local businesses would be adversely affected. But in reality the businesses have been able to stay the same way as it was before the implementation of the pricing scheme.

London:Economically speaking, the congestion charge in London is a complete success. The gross

revenues from the ten first years in exercise was a cumulative sum of 2.6 billion pounds. It includes 1.2

Page 18 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

billion (46%) reinvested in public transportation, road and bridge improvement, bicycle and pedestrian schemes but mostly in bus network improvements (960 million pounds, i.e. 80% of the reinvested amount)

In London, concerns were raised about the local economy impacts. A survey (Litman, 2006) [13] showed that the majority of the businesses investigated (more than 90 percent) felt no impact.

Milan:A majority of social cost savings from Milan’s Ecopass were a result of a reduction in accidents.

In 2008 alone. Savings were estimated to be around 8.4 M€. The savings value is calculated by multiplying the number of personal injury accidents in the Ecopass area by the costs per accident used in London (85,000€). Social cost savings from accident reduction were even greater than the environmental benefits received, which interestingly enough was the intended target of the implemented policy. The gains in travel time and reliability savings relative to the year 2007 are stable at M€11.4 – M€11.6, because congestion is substantially decreased in 2008 and remained constant in the following years.

OVERVIEWIn general all four cities generate a lot of revenue from the congestion pricing system. All of them

are economically viable. In the case of Stockholm the rates collected is actually a congestion tax which is given back by the government to the region to improve the public transportation facilities. In all other cases the funds are directly managed by the authorities in charge of the rate collection and management. Like Stockholm the rates are mostly used to improve the public transportation facilities so that people have an alternative mode to choose from thereby reducing the congestion and overall vehicle emissions further. Some of the fears were whether people would get used to the fact that congestion pricing is normal and would start using the cordons again as before. But those fears didn’t become an issue as all cities have a provision to adjust the rates based on the inflation rates and other economic factors to be considered. In all cases retailers were feared to be affected but reality shows that retail business are unaffected. In short one could easily say that congestion pricing if implemented would be a huge success from an economic perspective as it generates additional revenue which if properly utilized can be used to improve the public transportation systems which can act as the obvious and economic alternative mode choice for the general public.

As can be understood, the major hurdle to cross when implementing the congestion pricing scheme is public and political acceptance. General human psychology is driven is to oppose any decision that translates to extra payment. However, the study of the four cities London, Singapore, Stockholm and Milan shows that once the public gets accustomed to the nature of the pricing system and get a feel of the benefits in the long term they tend to support the scheme if implemented with clarity and efficiency.

II.5. Environmental impactWhen planning to introduce a new transportation system into an urban environment, it is

important to understand the environmental impacts that the system will have on the location. Physical environmental impacts may be seen by changes in the air and water quality, for example. Generally, focus is placed on one aspect of the environment and the relationship between it and transportation is examined. For this study, the aspect of focus will be air quality and how it is affected by vehicular emissions.

Page 19 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

With the exception of Milan’s Ecopass, most congestion charging schemes will focus primarily on reducing the levels of traffic through an area, with environmental improvements being secondary. Studies will focus on determining how schemes will affect levels of pollutants such as CO, NO x, and Particulate Matter (PMx). Milan

Historically, from 2002-2007 the 50 µg/m3 PM10 concentration limit set by the EU environmental regulation was exceeded throughout 125 days. In 2002, it was estimated that 55% of PM10 pollutants are a result of emissions from vehicular traffic. Average daily levels of NO2 and 03 were about 60 and 30 µg/m3

and continued to increase in that time span. Ecopass came about in order to satisfy the national legislation that requires that mayors attempt to

reduce pollution and to improve the quality of the urban environment, particularly within the city center. It was predicted that there would be a notable improvement in air quality, with an estimated 30% reduction in concentrations of PM10. In a study performed in 2011, this predicted reduction had not yet been found, with little differences in PM10 levels being noticed when comparing the Ecopass zone and the area outside. This caused doubts on the effectiveness of the Ecopass restrictions. The overall traffic emissions had been anticipated to be reduced by 19%.

Although the number of days exceeding the PM10 level decreased over time once Europass was implemented, the levels are still much higher than what is recommended by regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said that Europass had reached satisfactory air quality by 2010.

A study conducted in 2011 determined that black carbon levels sharply declined in the Ecopass zone versus the non-restricted areas. Although the mean PM10 and PM2.5 values showed little difference, the ratio of black carbon to PM10 was shown to have decreased by 47% compared to the non-restricted areas [17]

London:Before the implementation of the toll, Transport for London was not expected air quality

improvements. Actually, even if the main greenhouse gas emissions have dropped since 2003, Kelly et al. (2011) [8] found that it is still difficult to evaluate the share of the Charged Zone. In fact, car emission developments have greatly contributed to a better air quality.

Stockholm:Air quality in Stockholm mainly measured by particle levels. Stockholm Trials led to reduced

emissions of CO and PM. Specifically, CO emissions effects dropped by 2-3% in the entire County and by 14% for the inner city. This drop is significant considering that CO emissions are the most difficult to reduce. Air-borne pollutants were reduced by about 10-14%. NOx levels dropped by 13%. Although some studies show that there has been a slight increase in NOx concentrations since the charge policy was implemented, this is attributed to higher traffic volumes due to the fact that each vehicle emits less emissions on average.

It is estimated that by 2006 particle levels had been reduced enough to avoid 25-30 early deaths in the metropolitan area, and 20-25 premature deaths were avoided in the inner city. Emissions reduction in the inner city resulting from congestion charge has had health effects that may be considered to be three times as large as the effects that would have resulted from simply raising petrol

Page 20 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

prices throughout the county. Emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide decreased by 1/3 between 2006 and 2008. PM10 concentrations are 15-20% lower with a congestion charge in place.Though inner city traffic has declined, traffic in the city as a whole has continued to increase since 2006. The congestion charge has led to an increase in the number of registered exempt vehicles (ratio of alternate fuel cars registered in Stockholm increased 5% in 2006 to 14% in 2008)

Figure 8: Changes in emission concentrations by location in Stockholm

Figure 9: Comparison of emission changes by location

III. PUBLIC AND POLITICAL ACCEPTANCERegardless how good a project is, if it has not the approval of the users, it will not be successful.

A famous example is the Diamond Lane in Santa Monica, California, which were way ahead of its time. A road lane was removed from traffic to become only dedicated to vehicles with at least three occupants. This High Occupancy Vehicle lane (HOV3) was built in attempt to solve the congestion issue. As a direct

Page 21 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

result, massive congestions appeared while this diamond lane seemed barely used. But by the time, conductors’ behavior tended to change and this urban planning began to win its spurs. Unfortunately, few weeks after the implementation of this road, general discontentment put an end on this project. This case illustrates that the public should not left behind.

The main issue with toll ways is that people believe that they have to pay for the dysfunctions of the network. Because they believe to be only the victims of the traffic jams, and not the contributors as they actually are, the users feel abused. Therefore, it is necessary to make the public realize the real role the users play, but also listen to their opinions and suggestions and try to result in a public acceptance.

III.1. Cases of public and political supportLondon: fight for congestion

For the Londoners, concerns about transportation are very high. An independent survey realized in 1999, highlighted that the two most crucial issues which need to be tackled were public transportation (46 percent) and congestion (33 percent) while crime enforcement only represented 20 percent of the city-dwellers. With the help of the public’s support and an 18-month period public consultation, the scheme was adopted in 2003 instead of parking levies, which would have not been as effective. Bhatt et al. (2008) [14] revealed that also in 1999, 41 percent of those surveyed believed that congestion charge is the best way to find investments for public transportation improvements in their city. The author also pointed out that the acceptance of the congestion charge increased to 50 percent, eight months after its implementation.

A related issue to the public acceptance, is the political acceptance. In fact, asking the citizens to pay more taxes, charges, or fees of any kind is never a popular decision. So politicians are less inclined to apply this sort of unpopular policy, in order to keep their votes. Therefore, even if projects like congestion charge could offer good solutions, generally in an intermediate or long term period; they are afraid of the possible risks of failure. In the case of London, Ken Livingston was elected mayor in 2000 with a comfortable majority which allowed him to take the risks of such a scheme. Thus, thanks to the good results of the project, which were even better than expected, he has not only paved the way for his second mandate as a mayor but also he has been listed as one of the top 50 “visionaries building a better world in 2003” by Scientific American. That is why, fortified by his previous experience, the mayor tried to introduce a Western Extension in February 2007 against the results of the public consultation who were not favorable. As a result, the plan was removed in January 2011 due to its unpopularity.

Milan: Fight for the environmentThe Ecopass policy did not receive support from all political parties in Milan. Polls in December

2007 indicated that the local population had been fairly divided on the Ecopass policy. However, most agreed that some action was necessary to reduce the city’s pollution levels. Additionally, by maintaining the stance that the policy was an attempt to address environmental issues, tax payers would be less reluctant to pay another charge.

After being implemented by the former Mayor Letizia Moratti, however, a large number of fines were handed out to drivers who did not pay their Ecopass ticket. Press reports indicate high values of fines levied (3000), though there is no official record of this. Do even if the drivers get credit to the project, they were typically either unwilling to pay the charge, were not well informed about the location of the system or were simply ignorant. This misguidance is attributed to drivers not being given enough time to become familiar with what was going to happen. In the time following implementation of

Page 22 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Ecopass, there was a high number of complaints, court trials, and levels of dissatisfaction began to increase. The latter was further fueled by the Ecopass website’s constant crashes. Since most drivers would pay the charge online, they did not remain content with having to deal with a payment interface that was proving itself to be unreliable. Citizens began to become vocal of how the policy could improve, with some suggesting that there needed to be more focus on improving environmental quality and transport sustainability than what currently existed [1]. Others suggested that the control zone would have been extended. However, no one wanted for charges to increase.

III.2. Cases where people finally approvedSingapore and Milan: accepted after an improvement of the project

The Area C program replaced Ecopass in 2011. The objective of this new program was to reduce the traffic levels which had increased in the previous years, to promote sustainable mobility and public transport, and to decrease existing smog levels. The complexity of the previous charge system, which depended on the car emissions level, led to this new project. In fact, 80 percent of the voters accepted not only to keep the congestion charge system but also to extend it to the entire downtown; yet it needed to be simplified. Now, all vehicles must pay 5 euros regardless of pollution level. Though, some polluting vehicles are still banned from entry.

Area C was met with criticism. Demonstrations were held protesting against the program. One disgruntled citizen went as far as to send a threatening hate letter containing a bullet case to the mayor [4]. Other opponents promoted a referendum in an attempt to stop the program, but failed to reach a minimum number of signatures to successfully propose it. In 2007, the program was temporarily suspended as a result of protests by parking owners who complained that the program had decreased their profits. After investigation of the claims, some modifications were made to the parking regulations and the system was reinstated.

The good results of the Area C in terms of congestion and environment were rewarded in 2014 for the “best realization in transportation” by the International Transport Forum, which is an intergovernmental organization which gathered transport ministers from 57 countries and acts as a think tank for transport policy.

In the same way, Singapore decided to reform its congestion charge system into a more adequate one. The former ALS/RPS/OPCS schemes had high rates leading to underutilized roads, many complications and were labor intensive. To address this, the government of Singapore came up with ERP which quarterly reviews their rates after much research and analysis. With the implementation of the ERP the amount of traffic entering the CBD fell by a further 10-15 percent when compared to the ALS as the latter allowed multiple entries with the same pass. Rate adjustments are performed every month. Along with rate adjustments speed reviews are also conducted quarterly to ensure that speed is in the range of 45-65 kph for expressways. All these brought more clarity to the pricing system and attracted more appreciation from the public. In order to satisfy the car ownership aspirations of middle class Singaporeans government increased the motor vehicle licenses by 9-12%. This gave an impression to the public that the government’s sole target is not just restricting the congestion levels but also to improve the welfare of the public. This move from the government also worked towards the increase in public acceptance [27].

Stockholm: accepted after a full-scale experimentation period

Page 23 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

In Stockholm, after more than twenty years of reflection on the congestion charge, a seven-month period experiment has been led by the local Green Party from January to July 2006. Hårsman and Quigley (2010) [21] highlighted a social fracture in the acceptance of the project; whereas educated, working-age or living in the zone people tend more likely to support the charge, immigrants, unemployed or living outside the area do not. These results raise a question about the social cost of this sort of measure.

The trial run effected landslide change in opinion of general public in favor of the polls. Thus what started as a trial got implemented permanently in August 2007. The referendum received a 53 percent vote share in favor of it whereas 55 percent believed that it was a “very or rather bad decision” before the experiment [19].

III.3. Cases of failureNew-York City: Resistance of a marginal group

New York City is regularly described as one of the most congested cities in the United States, where the public transportation is believed not to be capable enough to respond to the demand predicted for 2030. Congestion and investment issues must be addressed soon.

According to a survey of March 2008, New York residents were revealed to be in favor of the congestion charge by 67%. Beyond that, the project had political support; the Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed in 2007 to create a congestion charge area around Manhattan. He succeeded in finding $354 million for the US Department of Transportation to invest in the project. However, the endeavor ultimately was not pursued. A car-depended civic group protested against the charge in the name of equity. They raised the issue of the availability of alternative possibilities for people living outside the congestion charge zone. Transportation network was said to be slow and not convenient enough to reach downtown and trust was not given in the terms of improving the public transportation with the future revenues. So, a marginal group succeed in blocking the progress, against the general will.

Manchester: refusal by referendumGreater Manchester had plans to have a weekday only, bi-directional, peak hour congestion

charging scheme from 2013 onwards. Faced with weak public and political support, strong disapproval led to a referendum in 2008. This is why the citizens of Manchester rejected the proposed congestion charging scheme at a large majority (79%). It was the unacceptability of the congestion charge to the residents of Manchester which stopped the policy from being implemented [3].

III.4. Factors influencing public acceptance In the previous examples, public acceptance has been shown to be a crucial component of the

success of a congestion charge project. Without strong public support, no politician would be willing to promote an unpopular project. However, investigations could be made to determine what the factors which influence the public acceptance are.

Personal cost and collective benefitsThe first factor which could be considered is the personal perception of the charge. If the charge

is felt as an attempt to one’s freedom, the measure would have great difficulties finding supporters. That is why the compensations have to be up to the concessions of the users. A way to achieve this goal is to promote equity, i.e. capable to bring benefits for the majority. Three examples of them have been studied earlier and could be cited: tackle the congestion, lower the polluting gases and finding funds for the public transportation. As pollution schemes concern more persons than congestion schemes, some studies

Page 24 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

revealed that the inhabitants are more inclined to support the congestion charge for the first cause. Recall the example of Manchester where 36 percent support the congestion charge in order to decrease congestion while two third agreed with it for environment concerns. It showed that the more philanthropic a project is the more people are eager to provide their support. Therefore, it is imperative to make it clear how the revenues of the charge are redistributed.

General understandingThen, it is essential that users understand more than the simple fact that they have to pay.

Comprehend the real challenges that the toll tries to tackle, the scheme itself and how it could improve the current situation are imperatives for success. In that way, public discussions and information sessions have to be hosted, and in where the different protagonists could exchange their opinions in order to result into the more adequate plan. In that purpose, London had an 18-monts period of public consultation prior the implementation.

Socio-demographicThe challenge of having people agree when they come from incompatible political parties and

disparate social classes is one of the biggest challenges of every project or policy. The congestion charge is sometimes described as a sorting between the richer drivers and the poorer ones. A reproach emitted is that the road would then be only accessible to the richest to the detriment of the other social classes. Another one is that most of the people who live downtown within the congestion zone are usually wealthy whereas the ones living outside are less well-off. Yet, the drivers who go downtown are usually well-off while the public transportation users are more modest. The solution of a congestion charge is a way to reach a social equity; the rich drivers pay for the congestion they cause, the pollution they produce and improve the mobility of the transit users.

Finally, the most penalized city-dwellers are the middle-class drivers who are car-dependent and will hardly afford the congestion charge. To treat this issue, it is primordial to offer alternatives possibilities to reach downtown.

Availability of alternative possibilitiesAs previously seen, it is necessary to create alternatives when an option is cut, i.e. free roads.

Making options readily available is needed to get public support so that user freedom is not infringed. A fundamental support is a strong, efficient and reliable public transportation network. As the concerns are about getting into the city, transportation has to succeed to serve the demand outside the congestion zone into the city.

A possible approach requires improving the transit services by increasing the number of buses or subways or adapt the bus routes to the new conditions. Another way to deal with the public transportation is to gather people around intermodal hubs. Hubs would not only be parking lots for cars and bicycles but also a station for bus and light rail. From there, heavy transit such as subways or regional trains would take those users downtown.

A trend has slowly appeared where people share their trip with others. It concerns not only cars with carpooling or car-sharing programs but also bicycles with bike sharing concepts. The latter consists in setting numerous spots (around 500) over the city where bicycles are available (around 9,000) for a low daily fee ($2 in Europe, $8 in the United States). Great results have been noticed in Paris, London and New York and are very encouraging for the modal shift from cars to more sustainable means.

Page 25 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

IV. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE CITY OF PARIS: Congestion pricing is definitely successful wherever it is implemented with determination. But

the approach has to be different for each city by understanding its own ground reality. In the case of Paris congestion pricing has already been considered but they rejected keeping in the mind the failure in New York where the public didn't have faith in the government regarding whether public transportation would be improved as it is the alternative for low income people when congestion pricing come into play. But the mayor of Paris is adamant in improving the transportation scenario of Paris as it is 5th most congested city in Europe and one of the most congested cities across the globe. The mayor wants to reduce the dependency on car and but doesn’t want to risk his agenda by using congestion pricing which he feels wouldn’t sell politically as it would affect the working class suburbs.

IV. 1. Background: Congestion:

Paris is the heart of France and contains 1/3 of the economy of the country. The city has a very dense population of 202 inhabitants/hectare (20,200 inhabitants / km2). Similarly, London is 8,500 and NYC is 10,400 inhabitants/km2. Employment-wise, job density in Paris four times that of London. 41 million trips per day in the whole city of Paris. There are 3.87 trips per day per person for around 11 million inhabitants. 2/3 of trips are motorized (2.5 trips per day per person). These factors contribute to Paris being the 5th most congested city in the world. The level of congestion seen in Paris is similar to that found in Los Angeles, California. A report evaluated the loss of time due to congestion in Paris and revealed that they lose on average 55 hours per year per person, and goes up to 77 hours per year per person in the most congested part (Southern part of the Ring Road). The mean time of daily commute is 1 hour and 34 minutes and average speed during peak hours is 15.5 (9.6 mph).

As a result of higher levels of congestion, the number of accidents that occur are quite high. The table below provides historical data related to safety, including the number of accidents and fatalities as a result of the accidents.

Accidents Seriously injured

Killed Pedestrianskilled

Motorized Two-wheels killed

Bicyclists killed

Bicyclists injured

2010 7181 707 43 5522011 7239 710 50 55% (27) 32% (16) 0 688

Table 2- Accident rate in Paris between 2010 and 2011 - Source: DREIA Ile de France

Page 26 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 10- Congestion level in Paris during evening peak hour (6.00 p.m) – Source: http://maps.google.com

Environmental:AirParif [18] is a website which monitors the air quality in the Paris metropolitan area. Our

investigation utilized this website in order to obtain information surrounding the concentrations of NO 2

and PM10 that were recorded between 2003 through 2011. NO2 and PM10 were selected because nearly all of the cities in the case study were consistent in recording levels for those two concentrations.

Figure 11: PM10 levels in Paris (2003-2011)

Page 27 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 12: NO2 levels in Paris (2003-2011)

Records indicate that PM10 levels greatly exceeded the regulation limit in 2003, reducing by 2005, but increased once again in 2007, slowly decreasing until 2011 though not back to 2005 levels. Meanwhile, NO2 levels remained very high until 2007, and remained stable until reducing again in 2011.In 2015, five out of ten different roadside stations report values of PM10 concentrations that exceed the legal limit imposed by European regulations. Three out of thirteen roadside stations report values of NO 2

that exceed regulation limits. The number of days where PM10 exceeded the standard limits was 65. The accepted limit is 30 days. For NO2, 74 days exceeded the standard limit of 18 days [18].

Environmental groups have pointed out that tax breaks for diesel cars resulted in a pollution rise. In 2014, 67% of motorists drove diesel cars. The pollution given off from such sources predominantly consistent of PM10 particles, which have been proven to contribute to asthma attacks and heart defects.

Public Transportation available and alternatives: In order to ensure that a congestion charge scheme will be successful, it is important to have an

established transportation system. In the following table and graph, the changes in use of public transportation vs passenger cars may be observed. It may be noted that until 2001 the number of new passenger cars being introduced to the roadway was increasing at a much greater rate with relation to public transportation. However by 2010, the trend had changed and the number of people beginning to use public transportation began to increase at a much higher rate than for passenger cars.

Passenger Car Public Transportation19762001 +58% +152010 +0.6% +21%

Table 3-Comparison between Public Transportation and Passenger Car use – Source: DREIA Ile de France

Page 28 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 20068090

100110120130140150160170180

100

115

139.15

100

158167.48

Evolution of the Parisian mobility

Passenger Car Public Transportation

Axis Title

Com

paris

on w

ith th

e ba

selin

e ye

ar 1

976

Figure 13- Evolution of the Parisian mobility compared to the baseline year 1976 by transportation mean (base 100) – Source: DREIA Ile de France

The current public transportation system consists of subways, trains, light rails, and buses. A majority of passengers using public transportation utilize the subway or train system, while light rail is the least used and contains the fewest number of lines. The table below provides summarized values for each mode.

Mean Passengers (million)

Number of lines Length (km) Stations

Subway 1350 16 217 303Train 1054 15 1525 508Light Rail 58 7 94 165Buses 350 64 597 1313

Table 4- Current transportation system (2004) – Source: http://www.ratp.fr

The biggest problem in Paris is the lack of an efficient way to move around the metropolitan area outside of the city itself. To move from one area to another using public transportation systems, a person will typically have to travel to the middle of the city and then back out to their destination. As a result, most will choose to utilize their personal vehicles to get from one place to another. To address this issue, the Great Paris project plans to expand the length of the subway and tramway systems. More details on the project are provided in the table and graph below.

Great Paris project by 2030 (30 billion euros invested)Mean Additional lane Daily additional expected

trafficLength (km)

Subway 4 600 000 189Tramway 2 100 000 20

Table 5- Great Paris project - Source: http://www.societedugrandparis.fr/

Page 29 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 14- Steps of the Great Paris project and investment (in billion dollars) – Source: http://www.societedugrandparis.fr/

Further alternatives proposed by the city of Paris include increasing the number of bicycles in use. From 2001 to 2010, the use of bicycles made up 2.2% of the total modal share. This was thanks in part to the Velib bike sharing system which consists of 25,100 bicycles for 1220 stations at a cost of 1.5 euros per day. Car sharing has also been promoted and there are plans to ban diesel fueled cars in Paris by 2021.

IV.2. Our Solution for Paris:Chosen area:

From observation of traffic maps, the selected area contains a substantial level of congestion and an extremely elevated level of pollutant concentration (PM10 and NO2). The area of the selected location is 35 km2 (14 mi2). This location is a mixed place with a lot of public amenities. It is used by many pedestrians and is home to many museums/tourist spots.

Page 30 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

Figure 15- Area chosen in regard of the morning peak hour (8 a.m.) - Source: http://maps.google.com

Figure 16- Area chosen with regard to the evening peak hour (6 p.m.) - Source: http://maps.google.com

There exist more heavily congested areas surrounding the city of Paris itself compared to what is seen within the city’s boundaries. Thus, the scheme proposed would be more environmentally oriented rather than focusing on congestion reduction.

Price System:Price ranges for the proposed environmental scheme will consist a combination of environmental

and congestion mitigation techniques. Based on the success of Stockholm and Milan in terms of congestion and emissions reductions, the following scheme was created for implementation in Paris.

Fare

“Green vehicles” & HOV 4+ Free

All others Based on Time of Day & Occupancy

Table 6- Price scheme for Paris

Cost benefit analysis must be first performed before setting the optimum fare fees. In order to ensure a successful implementation of the scheme, it is necessary to ensure that the public is aware of what is going on and how the policy will work. If the public remains unaware of what is going on, the likelihood of the project failing to take flight is much higher as seen in the case of Manchester and New

Page 31 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

York City. Paris had already thought of whether or not to implement congestion pricing as other European cities like Stockholm and London had done but they rejected the idea, having the case of New York still in mind. Stockholm has shown that a trial run can show the public the long term benefits of congestion pricing and a referendum can be taken after the trial run to measure the public acceptance.

CONCLUSION Traffic congestion is not an issue that is limited to only a few select places. It is a problem for

cities worldwide. Traffic engineers use various methods to alleviate congestion, and one such tool which has been successfully implemented is congestion pricing. Congestion charging schemes will often lead to motorists modifying their travel times, changing their mode of travel, or adopting methods such as carpooling. The results of these changes include a reduction in traffic volumes which in turn reduces the congestion levels. This in fact is the intention behind implementation of congestion pricing. An added benefit resulting from reduced traffic volumes is the decrease of accident rates. Another added benefit of congestion pricing is the reduction in pollution concentration levels i.e. air and noise pollution. The results from Milan show that congestion pricing is successful as a tool to reduce the pollution levels on account of the vehicle emissions. Another large benefit of congestion pricing is the income it generates. In almost all the cases the operating cost can be wiped off in a few years’ time. The net revenue is mostly used to improve the public transportation facilities so that the additional demand generated by the people who chose public transport as alternative mode to combat the monetary aspect of congestion pricing can be met.

The impacts of congestion pricing does provide some substantial benefits, but to even get to the point of implementation is a herculean task. Wherever congestion pricing was implemented it has faced a lot of resistance from the public. In fact public acceptance is the biggest hurdle to the implementation of congestion pricing. In the cities where it was successfully implemented public resistance was there but eventually they succeeded as they were able to familiarize the public about the long term benefits of the pricing system. In Stockholm they used a trial run to convince the public in their favor even though public resisted it initially. However, examples like Manchester and New York show that the plan to implement the pricing system had to be dropped as public resisted it strongly. Despite this turn of events, researchers show that the schemes of New York and Manchester particularly Manchester would be successful if implemented and can still be implemented in the future. In short, it is proven that if properly implemented by educating the public and political leaders congestion pricing can be huge success in every sense.

In order to see if we could validate the statement that congestion pricing can be successfully implemented we analyzed the current situation in Paris. We analyzed that Paris had both congestion and environmental problems, with environmental issues being dominant. It was found that there is public and political resistance. But, as with Stockholm, we can overcome that by educating the public through a trial run and holding a referendum before implementation. Regarding the price, a charge that concerns both environment and congestion can be implemented by considering both green vehicles and high occupancy vehicles. An exact charge can be fixed by conducting a cost-benefit analysis which could be in the scope for future research in this area.

Page 32 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

TABLE OF FIGURESFigure 1: The Congestion Pricing System Setup in Singapore......................................................................8Figure 2: Charges by time interval for Stockholm.........................................................................................9Figure 3: Cordon setup for Stockholm.........................................................................................................10Figure 4: London's congestion charging zone.............................................................................................11Figure 5: Toll classes based on Euro emission standards for Ecopass........................................................12Figure 6: Ecopass charging area..................................................................................................................13Figure 7- Virtuous of circle of Small...........................................................................................................16Figure 8: Changes in emission concentrations by location in Stockholm...................................................21Figure 9: Comparison of emission changes by location..............................................................................21Figure 10- Congestion level in Paris during evening peak hour (6.00 p.m) – Source: http://maps.google.com................................................................................................................................27Figure 11: PM10 levels in Paris (2003-2011)...............................................................................................27Figure 12: NO2 levels in Paris (2003-2011).................................................................................................28Figure 13- Evolution of the Parisian mobility compared to the baseline year 1976 by transportation mean (base 100) – Source: DREIA Ile de France.................................................................................................29Figure 14- Steps of the Great Paris project and investment (in billion dollars) – Source: http://www.societedugrandparis.fr/..............................................................................................................30Figure 15- Area chosen in regard of the morning peak hour (8 a.m.) - Source: http://maps.google.com...31Figure 16- Area chosen with regard to the evening peak hour (6 p.m.) - Source: http://maps.google.com 31

REFERENCES

[1] Federal Highway Administration "Road Pricing Defined." FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery: Revenue., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/>.[2] Van Amelsfort, Dirk, and Viktoria Swedish. "Introduction to Congestion Charging: A Guide for Practitioners in Developing Cities." (2015).

[3] GM Future Transport (2008). "Our Future Transport - A Great Move for Greater Manchester."  n. pag. Manchester against Road Tolls. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.notolls.org.uk/ourfutureleaflet.pdf>.[4] Confessore, Nicholas. "$8 Traffic Fee for Manhattan Gets Nowhere." The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Apr. 2008. Web. 3 Dec. 2015 <http://www.nytimes.com/>.[5] Green, C., Heywood, J., & Navarro Paniagua, M. (2014). Traffic accidents and the London congestion charge.

[6]Shefer, D., & Rietveld, P. (1997). Congestion and safety on highways: towards an analytical model. Urban Studies, 34(4), 679-692.

[7] Li, H., Graham, D. J., Majumdar, A. (2012). The effects of congestion charging on road traffic casualties: A causal analysis using difference-in-difference estimation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49, 366-377.

Page 33 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

[8] Kelly, F., Anderson, H. R., Armstrong, B., Atkinson, R., Barratt, B., Beevers, S., ... & Wilkinson, P. (2011). The impact of the congestion charging scheme on air quality in London. Part 1. Emissions modeling and analysis of air pollution measurements. Research report (Health Effects Institute), (155), 5-71.

[9]Transport for London (TfL) (2014). "Public and stakeholder consultation on a Variation Order to modify the Congestion Charging scheme Impact Assessment" (PDF). TfL. Retrieved 15 February 2015.See pp. 12: Traffic volume, speed and congestion.

[10] Weaver, K. (2013). London congestion charging: cycling impact, revolution and opportunities 10 years on. In Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management (AITPM) National Conference, 2013, Perth, Western Australia.

[11] Leape, J. (2006). The London congestion charge. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 157-176.

[12]Small, K. A. (2003). Road pricing and public transit. Theory and Practice of Road Pricing,” Elsevier, forthcoming.

[13]Litman, T. (2006). London congestion pricing: Implications for other cities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 10.

[14] Bhatt, K., Higgins, T., Berg, J.T., (2008). Lessons learned from international experience in congestion pricing. US Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration. Bonsall, P.W., Lythgoe, W.F., 2009[15] Zheng, Z., et al. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 70 (2014): 117-134.

[16] Rotaris, Lucia, et al. "The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost–benefit analysis assessment. "Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44.5 (2010): 359-375.[17] Invernizzi, Giovanni, et al. "Measurement of black carbon concentration as an indicator of air quality benefits of traffic restriction policies within the ecopass zone in Milan, Italy." Atmospheric Environment 45.21 (2011): 3522-3527. [18] "Airparif - Air Quality - Exceedances - Exceedances Monitoring." Airparif - Air Quality - Exceedances - Exceedances Monitoring. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. <http://www.airparif.asso.fr/ >.[19] Eliasson, J. (2014). The Stockholm congestion charges: an overview. No. 2014: 7. CTS-Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).[20] "Stockholm Congestion Charge." Road Traffic Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2015. <http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/>.[21] Hårsman, B., Quigley, J. M., "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self‐interest." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29.4 (2010): 854-874.

[22] Mattioli, G., Boffi, M., & Colleoni, M. (2012). Milan’s pollution charge: sustainable transport and the politics of evidence.[23] U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Reducing Congestion and funding transportation using Road pricing in Europe and Singapore FHWA –PL-10-030 [24] Eliasson, J. (2008). Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial. Transport Policy, 15(6), 395-404.

Page 34 of 36

CONGESTION PRICING

[25] Wilson, P. W. (1988). Welfare effects of congestion pricing in Singapore.Transportation, 15(3), 191-210.[26] Phang, S. Y., & Toh, R. S. (2004). Road congestion pricing in Singapore: 1975 to 2003. Transportation Journal, 16-25.

[27] Goh, M. (2002). Congestion management and electronic road pricing in Singapore. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(1), 29-38.

Page 35 of 36