Presentation by Maria Börjesson, Deputy Director Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Delivered on 5 March 2014 to an audience of postgraduate students at the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS), University of Leeds
www.its.leeds.ac.uk/courses/masters/externalseminars
Indexing Structures in Database Management system.pdf
Congestion pricing in Gothenburg
1. Gothenburg congestion charges
Maria Börjesson
Docent Transport systems analysis
Deputy Director Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of
Technology
3. Outline
• Gothenburg congestion charges – Stockholm paved the way
• Effects on flows
• Effects on travel times
• Effects on public transportation
• Single issue political party and GT newspaper referendum initiative
• Media attention and discussion
• Public Acceptance
4. Congestion charging in Stockholm paved the
way…
Jan-July 2006 Trial
Sep 2006 Referendum
August 2007 Permanent introduction
Cordon based
Time differentiated
1-2 € per passage
Delimited by water
18 entry points
sufficient
Bypass exempted from charging
5. A brief history of the Stockholm charges
• Discussed since early 1990’s, but no public or political support
• Idea floated before election 2002…
• … causing the Social democratic leader to promise ”no charges”
• Green party forces through charges anyway after the election
• Liberal/conservatives rejoice, charging supporters mistrust…
• Charges introduced January 2006, abolished August 2006,
referendum September
• Small majority in favour of charges!
• Charges reintroduced permanently August 2007
• Large majority in favour now (60-70%)
6. Factors for political support
Main reasons for previous political opposition:
• Who decides about scheme design?
• Who decides about revenue use?
• What happens with national infrastructure grants?
• In Stockholm solved through ”package approach”
• Gothernburg also wanted congestion charges
7. Non-financed wishinglist of investment:
• Västlänken - Rail tunnel under the city 2 billion €
• Marieholmstunneln - Road tunnel under the river 0.5 billion
€
• A broad coalition was formed from left to right supporting
congestion pricing
8. Objectives and constraints
• 80 million € net revenue in 2015.
• Congestion reduction (required by the law)
• Fit under the existing legislation
• Logical and easy to understand for users.
• ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology from
Stockholm
• Tax to be paid 06.00 am – 18.30 pm.
• Same fare for all non-exempted vehicles
9. ANPR
• Very effective
• No driver ”action”
necessary
• Invoice each month –
can pay either
manually or
automatically
11. • Working days (6:00 -18:29)
• Max 60 Kr per day
• One payment (the highest) when
passing multiple times within 60
min)
Gothenburg congestion charges
13. Traffic flows across the cordon
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
600,000
650,000
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
v
7
v
8
v
9
v
10
v
11
v
12
v
13
v
14
v
15
v
16
v
17
v
18
v
19
v
20
v
21
v
22
v
23
v
24
v
25
v
26
v
27
v
28
v
29
v
30
v
31
v
32
v
33
v
34
v
35
v
36
v
37
v
38
v
39
v
40
v
41
v
42
v
43
v
44
v
45
v
46
v
47
v
48
v
49
v
50
v
51
v
52
Volume accross the cordon weekdays charged hours
Charged hours 2012 Charged hours 2013
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
v
7
v
8
v
9
v
10
v
11
v
12
v
13
v
14
v
15
v
16
v
17
v
18
v
19
v
20
v
21
v
22
v
23
v
24
v
25
v
26
v
27
v
28
v
29
v
30
v
31
v
32
v
33
v
34
v
35
v
36
v
37
v
38
v
39
v
40
v
41
v
42
v
43
v
44
v
45
v
46
v
47
v
48
v
49
v
50
v
51
v
52
Volume accross the cordon weekdays morning peak 06.30-08.30
Morning peak 2012 Morning peak 2013
14. The model over predicted the effect
14
Cordon AM Peak Day
Traffic flow over cordon -20,4% -14,2%
21. Travel times
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
E6 Syd [Torrekulle - Tingstadstunneln]
2012 - Median 2013 - Median
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
E6 Norr [Kungälv-Tingstadstunneln]
2012 - Median 2013 - Median
On the most congested link
there is some effect ….
But on all other links the
effect is almost negligible...
22. What happened to disappearing traffic?
Trips
Work - to transit
Work - remaining
Professional traffic -
remaining
Discretionary - to
Ess.Discretionary -
"disappeared"
Professional traffic -
"disappeared"
Discretionary -
remaining
Public transport increase 5-
7% across the cordon
27. Achieving public support
• Initial support very low
• ”the most expensive and painful way to commit political suicide ever devised”
• Changed once effects were apparent: 53% in the referendum
• Increased further over time: now 65-70% support
”Charges heading for the
ditch”
”Bypass threatened by
chaos”
”Charging chaos
continues”
”Stockholm loves the
charges”
”Charges a success”
”Thumbs up for the
charges”
28. Vägvalet, Referendum autumn 2014
• Over 50 000 people have signed their
support to a referendum on congestion
charging. The highest number ever in
Sweden newspapers say.
• The arguments used:
• The issue was never taken up by
politicians in a realistic, normal way
• The revenues go largely to a tunnel
with a negative social benefit
• Other taxations are a cheaper to raise
revenue
• Scheme design is unfair to Hisingen
29. Customer service centre
• Most asked questions
• Why are the checkpoints placed there where they are placed
• Is the congestion tax, tax deductible
• Why isn’t there a free alternative like in Stockholm
31. • Identical survey in Stockholm, Lyon, Helsinki in spring 2011
• Questions about travel behaviour, socioeconomics, and attitudes
to transport pricing, fairness, and congestion pricing in particular
• In Gothenburg autumn 2012 and 2013
How is attitudes to congestion pricing formed?
What is the role of experience?
32. • Self-interest – winners/losers [political economists]
• Long-term attitudes to… [psychologists, sociologists]
• pricing as an allocation mechanism
• taxes and public interventions in general
• environmental problems
• Equity issues
• Socioeconomics
• Experience
Factors that may affect acceptability
35. ENV RIGHT PRICING RED
Considerably more resources should be
used to protect the nature.
+
Automated speed cameras is a good way
to save lives
+
Traffic congestion is one of the worst
problems in Gothenburg
+
Car traffic is one of the worst threats to
the nature.
+ -
It is too Expensive to own, drive and
park cars.
+
Taxes are too high. +
Airplane tickets should cost more. +
Charter operator raises its prices when
weather is bad.
+
Space on a ferry is allocated by pricing. + +
Space on a ferry is allocated by
assessed need.
+
The state should prioritize reducing
differences between rich and poor.
+ +
Low-income drivers get a discount on
congestion charges
+
Factor Analysis
37. • Create many winners, few losers
• Smart scheme design => large congestion relief
• Do not focus on taxing and revenues
• Pricing viewed as a ”natural” mechanism
• Play the environment card
• Many burn for the environment – few burn for ”efficient use of road space”
• The equity argument does not seem to be important
• Acceptability not on the normal right-left political spectrum
Achieving acceptability
38. • Congestion Pricing without congestion to finance new
infrastructure.
• Increase PT use (!)
• Volume reduction
• Small travel time reductions
• Non-work trips vanish (do not diver to other modes).
• Stable effect after 8 month
• But less accurate predictions than ins Stockholm
• More route choice effects?
• The 1 hour rule?
Summing up: