Transforming mobilities?

Comparing recentScandinavian experiences

with congestion tax policies

Karolina Isaksson, VTIAnne Jensen, Aarhus universitet

Tim Richardson, AalborgUniversity

A policy turn towards sustainable mobility

» Congestion charging and taxation often seen as a pragmatic policy measure to enact change of unsustainable mobility trends

» Climate change and targets of 50-80% CO2 reduction require dramatic and fundamental shifts in transport behaviour:

» A need for radical mobility transformations

Experience of congestion charging

» There is a growing experience and knowledge of congestion charging systems (Singapore, London, Stockholm…)

» Evaluations often focus on traffic system impacts and direct impacts for individuals, time costs/benefits, and economic costs.

» Important also to take a broader social science approach, seeing congestion charging not only as a traffic intervention but potentially a key intervention to achieve radical and rapid transitions in mobility

Our study

» Aims to examine congestion charging implementation within a Scandinavian ”sustainable urban development” context.

1. How has congestion charging been discussed (and implemented) in the two cases?

2. What are the main features of the congestion charging scheme in the two cities?

3. What sort of mobility and what long term mobility trends does congestion charging, in the two cases, support? Does it create incentives for any radical mobility transformations?

Stockholm and CopenhagenMany similiarities:» Similar size (Stockholm 2

million, Copenhagen 1,7 million)

» Growing city regions» Regional enlargement = many

commuters» Economic growth – increased

number of car owners and car drivers

» An overall trend of increasing traffic and congestion

» One difference between the two cities is the high share of bikes in Copenhagen: 30-35% of urban travels.

Initial findings:1a) The policy process in Stockholm» Election Sep 2002: government negotiations at

local and national levels led to the Stockholm congestion charging trial

» A highly challenged decision, not the least among citizens and municipalities in the greater Stockholm area

» A process characterized by political disagreements, time pressure, technical and legal challenges + a complex interplay between different governance levels

» When the trial started, it was soon percieved as a success(~22% congestion reduction at the cordon)

» Public resistance turned into public support (51,3% YES in the local referendum Sep 2006)

» After the national election 2006: The new government decided to introduce cong tax on a regular basis from 1 Aug 2007

1b) The policy process in Copenhagen» Congestion charging has been put on the agenda by 16

municipalities in the Greater Cph Area (the ”Municipal Forum”), spearheaded by Cph

» A planning unit has also been formed at Cph Municipality. » The Municipal Forum + the planning unit propesed a

congestion charging scheme in 2008.» Nothing is however settled formally yet - congestion

charging is still an open and contested issue» New legislation is required» An history of resistance from the national political level is

perhaps shifting? 2009 traffic agreement = proposal currently on stand-by

2a) The Sthlm congestion tax: main features

Formal Aim:» The trial: To decrease traffic and congestion,

enhance accessibility and improve the environment

» The regular tax: improving the environment, the accessibility and to contribute financially to new road investments in the Stockholm region

Stockholm – main features (cont)

» A cordon around the inner city (Essingeleden)

» Motor vehicles passing one of the 18 charging stations (along the cordon) must pay 10-20 SEK, depending on time of the day.

» Maximum fee: 60 SEK a day. Nights, weekends, holidays and days before holiday = free of charge.

» According to the legislation, revenues may be used for public transportation and new road infrastructure

2b) The Cph congestion tax: main features

» A cordon within the Municipality of Copenhagen

» Rates: between 0 and 25 DKK, depending on the time of the day

» Charged when wehicles pass the cordon

» Nights = free of charge. Daytime at weekends + holidays = reduced price

» Congestion tax + extra investments in public trp

Cph main features (cont)

Formal Criteria:» Must ensure 15-20% reduction

in car traffic within the toll ring» Must decrease the traffic work

in the city region» Must not induce a rise in traffic

on smaller roads» Must not hinder mobility» Must appear logical, fair and

easy to understand» Must be accompanied by an

extended public transport system of high quality and reliability

» Congestion charging = central in relation to the ambitions for a CO2-neutral city by 2025

» The overall rationale is still however to maintain and improve accessibility in the Greater Copenhagen area

» Revenue will be used to finance ”key projects” that will ensure ”an effective and more environmentally friendly decrease in traffic in the Greater Cph Area”

3) What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported?

Stockholm during the trial:» Congestion tax + extra investments in public

transport = Decreasing traffic and congestion while increasing accessibility by public trp

» Winners: inner city residents, public trp users, motorists who want (and can afford) to pay

» Losers: residents in districts where conditions in terms of congestion and pollution got worse

» An ambivalence about the place of the car in the city

What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported? (cont)

Stockholm since the regular tax:» The tax is clearly part of a large infrastructure plan including

investments in road and railway infrastructure and part of the long-term multi nodal plan for Stockholm

» Revenues earmarked for Bypass Stockholm» The tax is now deductible, fine for unpaid tax lower than during the

trial» Worth to note is that while congestion is reduced, traffic is still

increasing at large in the region – this seems to be seen as unavoidable

» Current and future drivers who want and can afford to pay are a stronger group of winners than before

What sort of mobility and mobility trends are supported? (cont)

Copenhagen:» Clear aims for reduced congestion in the inner city as well as in the

region» Clear aims to invest extra in public trp and biking» As in the Sthlm case, congestion reduction might support motorists

who can afford to pay - and lead to smoother mobility for them…» …but an ambition for overall reduction + extra investments for other

modes of transport is still an indication of a willingness to transform overall mobility trends

» Still unclear however what will actually be decided and implemented in practice

Discussion» One clear similarity is that the schemes in both cities

combine cong charging with overall increasing car-based mobility trends…

» Still an open question how upcoming new climate targets will influence the long-term transport planning in each city

» According to the proposal, the Copenhagen scheme seems to have more of a critical edge than the current Stockholm scheme

» The management of challenging issues is decisive for to what extent the scemes manage to confront car-based urban mobility

» Are initially radical ambitions being watered down?

Thank you

Karolina.isaksson@vti.se