The Stockholm Trials -

Congestion charge in Stockholm

Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD

Congestion charging in Stockholm

• On 2 June 2003 the Stockholm City Council adopted a majority proposal to introduce congestioncharging on a trial basis

• On 16 June 2004 the Swedish Parliament adopted The Congestion Charge Act

3 parts

Referendum 17 september 2006

Public transport22 August 2005 –31 December 2006

Congestion charges3 January – 31 July 2006

Objectives• Reduce traffic volumes by

10-15% on the most congested roads

• Increase the average speed• Reduce emissions of

pollutants harmful to human health and of carbon dioxide

• Improve the urban environment as perceived by Stockholm residents

18 control pointsa charge was made when entering/exiting the centre of Stockholm

E4/E20 bypass free of charge

County 6500 km2

Charging zone 47 km2

City of Stockholm 770 000 inhab.

Charging zone 280 000 inhab.

County 1.9 millions inhab.

No barriers, no stops, no roadside payments

• Amount due for payment shown at the control point

• Automatic identification. License plates were photographed

• A limited part of the car was shown on photograph

Laser

Camera

Antenna

Congestion charges and times

PEAK PERIODS

7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20 EUR 2 SEMI PEAK PERIODS7.-7.30 a.m., 8.30-9 a.m.3.30-4 p.m., 5.30-6 p.m. SEK 15 EUR 1.5

MEDIUM-VOLUME PERIODS6.30-7 a.m., 9 a.m.-3.30 p.m.6-6.30 p.m. SEK 10 EUR 1

MAXIMUM CHARGE: SEK 60/day EUR 6

Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays: NO CHARGE

Improved Public Transport

• 12 new express bus lines• 18 bus lines with

extended service• Improvements of rail-bound lines• 1800 new park- and-ride places

Evaluation tasks• Car Traffic• Public transport• Stockholm county travel survey• Business and economic impacts

– Retail sales, contractors, taxi, transport services etc• Environment and Health effects• Other studied effects

– Traffic safety, attitude surveys, events affecting the evaluation programme

• Cost benefit analysis• Effects on regional economy

-22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone

Passages in/out of congestion charging zone 06:00 – 19:00

End of trial

Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000Innerstadssnittet

Tidpunkt

Flö

de

(fo

rdo

n/h

)

April 2005

April 2006

Time

Vehicles/h

30-50% less time spent in queues

Kötid, morgonrusning

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

inreinfartIN inreinfartUT innerstadsgata innerstadsledN innerstadsledS

fm 2005 fm 2006

Public transport 2006 compared with 2005

• Extended public transport itself did not increase amount of passengers

• Increase of passengers 6 % (4.5 % due to congestion charging)

• Accessibility increased

• Small increase of congestion in underground

Which car trips have ”disappeared”?

Work/school -22%business -30%

shopping/services -27%

leisure -23%

other -33%

Where did the they go?

Work/School:

•To public transport

•Change of route

Leisure, shopping/services, business and other:

•Not public transport

•Instead:

•Change of destination

•Change of route

•Less trips

Traffic safety

•Less traffic – fewer accidents•Higher travel speed – worse injuries (small effect)

•Time period too limited to observe accident rates

•Estimated reduction of personal injury accidents of 5 - 10 % within the congestion charging zone

Environment and health effects

•Climate effects large for a single measure•Emissons were reduced in the ”right” area

Inner City9-14 % reduction

County 2-3 % reduction

Retail

•Minor effects on the retail trade•Department stores, malls and shopping centres trade increased

7 % in city (+ 7 % in nation)•Small-scale shops sales -6 % (trend)

Cost benefit analysis•Costs of the trial EUR 340 millions (revenue EUR 75 millions)

•Congestion tax as permanent feature– EUR 76.5 millions/year – considerable values in social

benefit– Payback time 4 years

•Expansion of bus traffic as permanent feature– Benefits EUR 18 millions/year– Operating costs EUR 52 millions/year

The objectives were fulfilled

• Reduce traffic volumes by 10-15% on the most congested roads

– Reduction of 20-25%

• Increase the average speed– Travel times reduced 30-50%, except of E4/E20

• Reduce emissions of pollutants harmful to human health and of carbon dioxide

– 14% reduction in city centre, 2.5% Stockholm County

• Improve the urban environment as perceived by Stockholm residents

– Difficult to measure

Was it a good idea to carry out the congestion charge trial?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Bra idé

Dålig idé

Good idea

Bad idea

Yes No

Stockholm 51.3 % 45.5 %

County (14 Municipalities) 39.8 % 60.2 %

Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006

Lessons learned• Better public transport cannot reduce

road congestion on its own

• If congestion charge is made permanent– Simple zone structure seems to work OK– Charge levels and time periods can be

fine-tuned– Continue simplification of payment and

administration– Consider seasonal traffic variation– Charge on E4/E20?

• Change of opinion when people get real experience

The process efter the referendum

• Conservative Liberals have decided to introduce congestion charges in August 2007

• The revenue should be used to invest in new roads in the Stockholm County

• No extended public transport • Small changes of system

Thank you!

Muriel Beser Hugossonmuriel@trivector.se

Information on the web

www.trivector.se

www.stockholmsforsoket.se