ilmastotalkoot: muriel hugosson

Download Ilmastotalkoot: Muriel Hugosson

Post on 20-Jan-2015

503 views

Category:

Travel

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Tukholman ruuhkamaksujärjestelmä Muriel Hugossonin esittelemänä. Esitys Ilmastotlakoiden Älä hiilee liikenteessä -seminaarissa 15.9.2009 Finlandia-talossa.

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1. Congestion charging in StockholmMuriel Beser Hugosson, PhD Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

2. Background

  • Regional or local government not authorised to introduce a congestion fee
  • National decision
  • Regulated by law
  • Executive responsibility -the National Road Administration
  • Time limited full-scale trial
  • Referendum voted yes
  • Permanent system since Aug 2007

3. Objectives

  • Reduce traffic volumes by10-15% on the mostcongested roads
  • Increase the average speed
  • Reduce emissions ofpollutants harmful to humanhealth and of carbon dioxide
  • Improve the urban environment as perceived by Stockholm residents

4. County6500 km 2 County 1.9 millions inhab. County 754 000 cars and403 cars/1000 inhab City of Stockholm770 000 inhab. City of Stockholm279 000 cars and364 cars/1000 inhab Charging zone 47 km 2 Charging zone 280 000 inhab. 18 control points Charged when entering/ exitingthe centre of Stockholm E4/E20 bypass free of charge 5. No barriers, no stops,no roadside payments

  • Amount due for payment is shown at the control point
  • Automatic identification. License plates are photographed
  • A limited part of the car is shown on photograph

Laser Camera Antenna 6. Charging Point Process Sequences

  • Vehicle Enters first detection line
  • Laser Line 1 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position

7. Charging Point Process Sequences

  • Vehicle Enters Second detection line
  • Laser Line 2 Vehicle Entry message sent with vehicle position
  • Position based Front image capture triggered

8. Charging Point Process Sequences

  • Vehicle Leaves First detection line
  • Laser Line 1 Vehicle Exit message sent

9. Charging Point Process Sequences

  • Vehicle Leaves Second detection line
  • Laser Line 2 Vehicle Exit message sent with vehicle classification data
  • Position based Rear image capture triggered

10. Congestion charges and times PEAK PERIODS 7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20 EUR 2SEMI PEAK PERIODS 7.-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 PERIODS 6.30-7 a.m., 9 a.m.-3.30 p.m. 6-6.30 p.m. SEK 10 EUR 1 MAXIMUM CHARGE:SEK 60/dayEUR 6 Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays:NO CHARGE 11. Package 3 parts Public transport Congestion charges Park and ride facilities 12. Improved Public Transport and park and ride facilities

  • 14 new expressbus lines
  • 18 bus lines withextended service
  • 200 new busses
  • Improvements ofrail-bound lines
  • 2500 new park- and-ride places

13. Visible effects Last day without charges (low traffic - right after New Years Eve) First day with charges First normal working day with charges 14. Passages in/out ofcongestion charging zone 06:00 19:00 -22 % passages in/out of congestion charging zone End of trial before after 15. 1. All car drivers did not return 2. Reduction at same level as during the trial dashed line 2006-2007 between charging 16. Passages in/out of the congestion charging zone Time Vehicles/h before after 17. 30-50% less time in queue before after 18. Public transportafter compared with before

  • Extended public transport itself did not increase amount of passengers
  • Increase of passengers6 % (4.5 % due to congestion charging)
  • Accessibility increased
  • Small increase of congestion in underground

19. Environment and health effects

  • CO2- 14 percent
  • NOx- 7 percent
  • PM 10 - 9 percent
  • Emissons were reduced in the right area

Inner City 7-14 % reduction County 2-3 % reduction 20. 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)

21. Changed reporting in the media 22. Was it a good idea to carry out the congestion charge trial? Good idea Bad idea 23. Exempted passages Share of exempted vehicles trial after catogory 24. 2009 From environmental fee to revenues for infrastucture investments Month Tax decisions Amount,MEuro Januari 409 500 5,46 Februari 423 800 5,97 Mars 441 100 6,72 April 437 500 5,74 Maj 449200 5,71 Juni 479 500 6,17 25. Why a success story?

  • Technical system worked
  • Information people knew what to do
  • Visible congestion reductions
  • Comprehensive evaluation programme
  • Clear objectives achieved
  • The design was consistent with expressed purpose

26. Conclusions

  • Better public transport cannot reduce road congestion on its own
  • Change of opinion when people get real experience
  • Positive evironmental effects in decided areas
  • Sold clean vehicles increased rapidly

27. Muriel Beser Hugosson [email_address] www.stockholmsforsoket.se www.stockholm.se/trngselskatt Thank you! 28. 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

29. Which car trips have disappeared? Work/school -22% business -30% shopping/services -27% leisure -23% other -33% 30. 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

31. Avgifterna urholkas

  • Inflationen
  • Skatten avdragsgill
    • Fr fretag
    • Fr privatpersoners arbetsresor (knappt 40 %)
      • C:a 1/3 rknar med att gra bilavdrag
      • 10 kr blir drygt 4 kr
  • Ingr i frmnen fr frmnsbilar
    • Ingen kostnad fr frare med arbetsgivarbetald bil
    • 10 kr blir knappt 4 kr fr frare med s.k. bruttolnebil
  • Systemets legitimitet att skapa framkomlighet!

32. Yes No Stockholm51.3 % 45.5 % County39.8 % 60.2 % (14 Municipalities) Results of the referendum 17 Sept 2006 33. Avgifterna urholkas

  • Inflationen
  • Skatten avdragsgill
    • Fr fretag
    • Fr privatpersoners arbetsresor (knappt 40 %)
      • C:a 1/3 rknar med att gra bilavdrag
      • 10 kr blir drygt 4 kr
  • Ingr i frmnen fr frmnsbilar
    • Ingen kostnad fr frare med arbetsgivarbetald bil
    • 10 kr blir knappt 4 kr fr frare med s.k. bruttolnebil
  • Systemets legitimitet att skapa framkomlighet!

34. Slutsatser

  • Avgifterna har samma effekt som frr
  • men allt eftersom befolkning etc. kar s br de justeras
  • och det r politiskt svrt
  • Frmodligen tror mnga att avgiftseffekten nts av
  • Fyllsomgivandevgutrymme ut?
  • Stort std ca 2/3 av dem som har en uppfattning r positiva
  • Mindre kontroversiell frga nufrtiden

35. Market share of brand new passenger cars in Stockholm County SIDANTarget 2010* *(Stockholms Miljprogram 2008-2011) City ofStockholm 42.5 percent Jan-July 2009