How Congestion Pricing Works

C ONGESTION CHARGING Does it Work? -C- Collating the Data on the Most Controversial Topic in Transport WHAT IS CONGESTION CHARGING? In traffic management, congestion charging, or congestion pricing, is the practice of charging motorists a fee in order to enter areas where congestion is a problem during certain times of the day. CONGESTION PRICING TYPICALLY AIMS FOR THREE GOALS: THE REDUCTION OF REDUCING THE CONGESTION Iin busy urban areas by encouraging motorists to reconsider their travel habits. AMOUNT OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION caused by high volumes of traffic and thus promoting public health. RAISING MONEY for the maintenance and improvement of transport infrastructures. Such pricing schemes are currently in place in a handful of major cities: STOCKHOLM - January 2006 February 2003 - LONDON MILAN - January 2008 June 1975 - SINGAPORE THE NUTS AND BOLTS SINGAPORE LONDON Congestion Charge Area License System / Electronic Road Pricing E10 • The world's first congestion charging scheme. E10 in 2011 increasing to E8 in 2005 • Charged S$3 per day for motorists entering the "Restricted Zone", E5 Began in 2003 as a E5 charge for entering central London • Was replaced in 1998 by "Electronic Road Pricing", the world's first digital congestion charging system. • Previously, vehicles emitting less than 100g/km of CO2 have been exempt. • TFL have proposed reducing the exemption threshold to 75mg/km. • In-vehicle Units (IUs) are installed in all cars which are charged when drivers pass into the restricted zone. 10.5 • The charge remains in effect between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. • Charges vary depending on the size of the vehicle and the time of day. • London's network of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras check a car's registration against a central database to establish whether the driver has paid the charge. STOCKHOLM Congestion Tax MILAN Ecopass / Area C • Began as a one-year trial in January 2008 and was then extended until • Was instituted on a trial basis between 3rd January and 31st July 2006. the end of 2009, then again until the end of 2011. • Initially, cars running on • Ecopass allowed free travel for vehicles meeting alternative fuel sources were exempt from paying the charge, but this was abolished in 2012. low-emissions standards. • Charged either €2, €5 or €1o, depending on the size and type of vehicle. • The charge is levied both on entering and exiting the city per day, up to a maximum of €6. In 2012 Ecopass was replaced with "Area C", which abolished exemptions AREA C only for all traditionally ENTRY fuelled vehicles. • The area also completely bans entrance for petrol vehicles not meeting at least Euro Emission Standard 1. Fees charged vary depending on the time of day, with 7:30-8:30am being the most expensive time of day. • The charge is in effect 7:30am to 7:30pm Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday and Friday, and 7:30am to 6pm on Thursdays. WHAT DID THE PUBLIC THINK? Congestion charging has proved an incredibly divisive and controversial measure, frequently becoming the subject of fierce debate. LONDON In 2000, three years before the introduction of the congestion charge, an Ipsos MORI poll found: 40% 55% OPPOSED SUPPORTED MILAN In Milan, prior to the introduction of the charge: 44% SUPPORTED 48% OPPOSED STOCKHOLM In Stockholm in 2005, just before the introduction of the congestion tax, only 36% of those surveyed approved of the measure. 36% SUPPORTED Media opinion also shifted after the start of the trial. The proportion of articles supporting the charge changed: from 3% to 42% WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS? Critics have voiced a number of concerns, such as: There is insufficient evidence that congestion charging will produce long-term benefits. The scheme would cost a large amount of public money to implement. Congestion charging could hurt businesses in the affected area. It would constitute an "unfair tax" on motorists. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? When congestion charging came into effect, the concerns of those critics seemed largely unfounded: LONDON On the first day of the charge 57,000 That's gross revenue of £285,000 from one day of charging. people paid the E5 charge. REPORT A 2004 Transport for London Report covering the first year of the scheme reported: down Particulate down matter and 12% nitrogen oxides: Congestion: 30% Journey times: 14% faster down Fuel consumed in the zone: 20% Total number of down vehicles entering 14% the zone: Estimated annual financial benefit: £50 million (US$83.6 million). all of which must be invested in 71,0001 infrastructure. Buses: more passengers In 2009/10, revenue from £148milion Congestion down related bus 40% delays: charging: (US$219.5 million) Traffic accidents down Traffic down related CO, 9% resulting in 16.3% injury: SINGAPORE A Report by Singapore's Land Transport Authority claims that: REPORT Traffic down When ALS was traffic down crossing 30% cordon: initially replaced by ERP: 10-15% By 1988 down 31% in comparison with pre-charging levels Money raised by S$159million ERP in 2010: (US$ 125 million) This is despite a 77% increase in vehicle ownership. STOCKHOLM Prior to the beginning of the trial, roughly 450,000 trips across the cordon were made. After the introduction of the trial: REPORT Traffic down across the cordon: 22% Impact on pollution between 2006 and 2008: NITROGEN OXIDES FOSSIL FUEL PM. RELATED CO, That's 99,00U fewer trips. Public up transport patronage: 7% -13% -8% -3% (58,000 more people) The initial Privately owned up from alternative fuel SEK399mllion seven-month trial raised: (US$55.3 million) vehicles: 5% to 14% Proportion of down from petrol-fuelled vehicles on 77% to63% the road: MILAN Before the beginning of the scheme, 90,580 vehicles entered the charging zone daily. Following its introduction: REPORT Vehicles down entering 20.8% the zone: Since the charge was introduced, the number of days per year on (71,729 in 2008) which PM10 exceeded the WHO target of 50 micrograms per cubic metre dropped from Vehicles belonging to the 57.1% toll-paying class: (21,757 fewer than pre-charging) down 132 to 86 I Between January 2008 and €19.5million Vehicles up belonging to the 5.5% non-toll paying class: (2,906 more) September 2009, the (USS 25.8 million) scheme raised: HAS BUSINESS BEEN IMPACTED? CONGESTION CHARGING ZONE LONDON Transport for London reports that there has been "no discernible impact on overall business performance" attributable to the congestion charge. However, a number of businesses have blamed the congestion charge for a loss of business: In 2004, the London Chamber The Freight Transport of Commerce claimed that: Association claimed that 79% 25% 69% of responding of respondents had laid off staff of responding companies reported no improvement in journey times. businesses were because of the reporting reduced takings. congestion charge. NO HARD EVIDENCE has yet been produced to demonstrate either a BMW claim that: parking and congestion charge fees cost their West End dealership El million in 2005. positive or negative impact of congestion charging on businesses in the area. WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN FACED? One of the main concerns surrounding congestion charging has been the long-term impact: 2003 2007 LONDON In London, by 2007 congestion levels had returned to pre-charging levels. CONGESTION LEVELS MILAN In Milan, after the initial By the first half of 2010 only 15% of vehicles in the restricted zone belonged to the taxable class. That means that revenues from the scheme sharp decrease in the number of cars on the road, congestion began to rise again starting in 2009. dropped and the benefits to congestion levels began to disappear. HOW DOES THE PUBLIC FEEL NOW? Public opinion on this topic has been mixed, but has generally shifted toward approval since introduction of congestion charging. LONDON 2005 34% of people across Britain support congestion charging. 2007 AA BBC poll reveals that only 24.8% thought congestion charging would work in their city. 2008 Whatcar.com reported that 61% of Londoners support congestion charging. 2013 The AA reports that: 45% In favour 41% against STOCKHOLM Inside the charging zone, In municipalities not subject to the congestion charge, only 39.8% approved while 60.8% voted against the charge. After the initial trial period, the people of Stockholm were asked to vote on whether the charge should become 53% voted yes 47% voted no permanent: MILAN The people of Milan were also asked to vote whether the charge Consequently, the Ecopass scheme was replaced by "Area C" in January 2012. 80% voted in favour only 20% against should become permanent: Thus the data suggests that those who have lived with congestion charging are more likely to support it than those who haven't. WILL IT CATCH ON?} Congestion charge plans have been rejected by a number of cities: A 2005 referendum in Edinburgh. Scotland found that 74.4% of voters opposed a congestion charging scheme. New York city planned to Introduce a charging scheme, but it was shelved in 2007. In a 2008 referendum. 79% of voters in the Manchester. England area opposed congestion charging. Hong Kong has considered road pricing modelled on that of Singapore since a trial between 1983 and 1985. In 1985 those plans were dropped due to public opposition. CONCLUSIONS The evidence seems to suggest that congestion charging can provide real benefits in terms of reducing traffic and pollution, at least in the short-term. But the issue is complicated and it's important to remember: A huge number of variables affect traffic levels, and attributing any effect to congestion charging alone is very difficult. Debate of the issue Trends toward is often very partisan. increasing traffic volume tend to continue until levels return to pre-charging levels. Published data is commonly produced by governments responsible for charging schemes or groups advocating against the charge. IS CONGESTION CHARGING ENOUGH? WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE BE DOING? RESOURCES http://web.worldbank.org/ http://milan.wantedineurope.com/ http://2tern.planaau.dk/ http://www.politics.co.uk/ https://www.comune.milano.it/ http://www2.unitsit/ http://www.transgulde.org/ http://www.ipsos-mori.com/ http://www.its-uk.org.uk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih gov http://www.scmp.com/ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/ http://www.hhhumn.edu http://www.transguide.org http://www.theaa.com/ http://www.ltagov.sg http://www.italymagazine.com/ http://www.transportenvironment.org/ http://bbc.co.uk http://www.standard.co.uk/ http://www.eltis.org/ http://www.tf.gov.uk http://www.dalymail.co.uk http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk http://www.whatcar.com/ http://www.imprint-eu.org http://www.econ.hku.hk http://stockholmsforsoket.se/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.tmleuven.be http://international.stockholm.se/ BY ND