The Stockholm Trial:Congestion charging and improved public
transport aimed at reducing traffic jams and creating a better environment
Gunnar Söderholm, director head of environment-and health department
• 15 Sep 2002 General election• 2 June 2003 Proposal from city
parliament• 16 June 2004 New law• 1 July 2004 Procurment to NRA• 9 July 2004 IBM gets contract• 30 march 2005 Final court decision
• Improved public transport 22 Aug 2005
• Congestion charging3 Jan-31 July 2006
• Referendum 17 Sept2006
• Restarted 1 Aug 2007
Primary objectives of congestioncharging
• Reduced congestion
• Increased accessibility
• Better environment
18 control pointsa charge is made when entering/exiting the centre of Stockholm
Congestion-charging zone
Congestion charges and timesPEAK PERIODS7.30-8.30 a.m., 4-5.30 p.m SEK 20 € 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 € 1,5
MEDIUM-VOLUME PERIODS6.30-7 a.m., 9 a.m.-3.30 p.m.6-6.30 p.m. SEK 10 € 1
MAXIMUM CHARGE: SEK 60/day € 6
Evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays: NO CHARGE
Charging principles• Charge for every passage over
charging-zone cordon• Charge for traffic both entering and
departing the charging zone• One tax decision per day• Car owner is responsible for paying
the tax• No demand or other notice to car
owners that they must pay the tax –or how much
• If payment is not made within 14 days (5 days until 30 May 2006) a penalty of SEK 70 (€ 7) is charged. Proposal for monthly payment by invoice from 1 July 2008
• If payment is not made within 4 weeks a penalty of SEK 200 (€ 20) is charged. Maximum € 200/month.
• Direct debit from bank account 77 %
These traffic categories are exempt about 30 % of passages
• Emergency vehicles• Vehicles with disability permits
• Foreign vehicles• Transport services forthe disabled
• Taxis• Motorcycles • Buses over 14 tons• Vehicles using alternative fuel (5 years)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Liding
öpas
sage
r*
Taxi
"Miljö
bilar"
Buss,
> 14 t
onPark
ering
stills
tånd
Utländ
ska f
ordon
Diplom
atbil
Utryck
nings
fordo
nFärd
tjäns
t
JanuariFebruariMarsAprilMajJuniJuli
No discount for residents inside the cordon
Passages entering/departing the congestion-charging zone 06:00 – 19:00
-
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
jan feb mar apr maj jun jul aug sep okt nov dec
2005 2006 2007 2008
= month with congestion tax
Dygnsfördelning, inkommande + utgående passager
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
00:0
000
:45
01:3
002
:15
03:0
003
:45
04:3
005
:15
06:0
006
:45
07:3
008
:15
09:0
009
:45
10:3
011
:15
12:0
012
:45
13:3
014
:15
15:0
015
:45
16:3
017
:15
18:0
018
:45
19:3
020
:15
21:0
021
:45
22:3
023
:15
Flöd
e/tim
me Tot-april-2005
Tot-oktober-2005
Tot-april-2006
Tot-oktober-2006
Tot-oktober-2007
Traffic in to and out from the inner city
Dygnsfördelning-passager ut från innerstaden
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
00:0
000
:45
01:3
002
:15
03:0
003
:45
04:3
005
:15
06:0
006
:45
07:3
008
:15
09:0
009
:45
10:3
011
:15
12:0
012
:45
13:3
014
:15
15:0
015
:45
16:3
017
:15
18:0
018
:45
19:3
020
:15
21:0
021
:45
22:3
023
:15
Flöd
e/tim
me Ut-april-2005
Ut-oktober-2005
Ut-april-2006
Ut-oktober-2006
Ut-oktober-2007
Dygnsfördelning-passager in mot innerstaden
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
00:0
000
:45
01:3
002
:15
03:0
003
:45
04:3
005
:15
06:0
006
:45
07:3
008
:15
09:0
009
:45
10:3
011
:15
12:0
012
:45
13:3
014
:15
15:0
015
:45
16:3
017
:15
18:0
018
:45
19:3
020
:15
21:0
021
:45
22:3
023
:15
Flöd
e/tim
me In-april-2005
In-oktober-2005
In-april-2006
In-oktober-2006
In-oktober-2007
In
Out
2007: Travel time improvements once again – but partlyoffset by roadworks
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
innerstad inreinfartIN inreinfartUT
200520062007
Congestion index (PM) September-October
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
innerstad inreinfartIN inreinfartUT
200520062007
AM peak PM peak
Travelling time morning rush hour
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
FMR okt 05
FMR, K1-06
FMR K1-07
FMR K1-08
Travelling time afternoon rush hour
Goals essentially reached• 10 - 15 % less traffic to/from
inner city– Was 20-25%
• Increased accessibility– Queue times down 30-50% in/near
the inner city – Essingeleden about the same
• Decreased emissions – 10-14% less in inner city; 2-3% in
total county
• Inhabitants should perceive an improved urban environment– Unclear – difficult to define and
measure
Trains, tubes and trams in Stockholm
Public transport 2005 - 2007SL-resandet totalt
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
2 200
2 400
2 600
2 800
jan feb mar apr maj jun jul aug sep okt nov dec
Påst
igan
de p
er v
arda
gsdy
gn, 1
000-
tal
År 2005År 2006År 2007År 2008
Public transit statistics 2007 a day
531 000123 000Local train
40750242 000Commutertrains
192425 000975 000Buses
1051 9501 094 000Metro
NumberDeparturesBoarding
How many are ffected of the congestion tax?
• Many pays now and then –few pays often– During two weeks pays 50 % of
the car owners in greaterStockholm sometime…
– …but less than 5 % pays morethan 100 SEK/2 weeks
• A small groupe pays a big part– 5 % pays more than 1/3 of the
taxes from private owned cars
Industry & commerce• Well-functioning road
transport important– Time gains valuable, but
administration cumbersome
• Marginal influence on land use, real estate prices and regional economy compared to otherfactors
• No identifiable effects on retail at aggregate level
• Influence on householdspurchasing power negligible
Is the Stockholm trial a good idea
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Septem
ber 0
5Okto
ber 0
5Nove
mber 0
5Dece
mber 0
6Ja
nuari 0
6Feb
ruari 0
6Mars
06Apri
l 06
Maj 06
Juni
06Good ideaBad idea
The result of the referendum
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
City of Stockholm County of Stockholm Together
YesNo
Growing support for the scheme
From 75 % against
To 67 % for
Did you change opinion during the trial?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
No change More positive More negative
Public opinion nov – dec 2007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Positive Neither Negative
Why did you get more positive?Varför blev du mer positiv
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Rinkeby
-Kist
a
Spång
a-Tens
ta
Hässe
lby-V
älling
by
Bromma
Kungs
holm
enNorrmalmÖste
rmalmSöd
ermalm
Enske
de- Å
rsta-V
antörSka
rpnäc
k
Farsta
Älvsjö
Hägers
ten- L
iljeho
lmenSkä
rholm
enHela st
aden
...miljön blev bättre än väntat...framkomligheten blev bättre än väntat...resekostnaderna blev bättre än väntat...kollektivtrafiken blev bättre än väntat...annat
...vet ej/minns inte
Whay did you get more negativ?Varför blev du mer negativ?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Rinke
by-K
ista
Spång
a-Ten
sta
Hässe
lby-V
älling
byBrom
maKun
gsho
lmenNorr
malmÖsterm
almSöderm
alm
Enske
de- Å
rsta-V
antörSka
rpnäc
kFars
taÄlvs
jö
Hägers
ten- L
iljeho
lmenSkä
rholm
enHela st
aden
...miljön blev sämre än väntat...framkomligheten blev sämre än väntat...resekostnaderna blev sämre än väntat...kollektivtrafiken blev sämre än väntat...annat
...vet ej/minns inte
Opinion by city district
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Rinkeby-K
istaSpånga-Tensta
Hässelby-Vällingby
BrommaKungsholmenNorrmalmÖstermalmSödermalm
Enskede- Årsta
-VantörSkarpnäckFarstaÄlvs
jö
Hägersten-LiljeholmenSkärholmenHela staden
Mycket positivGanska positivGanska negativMycket negativ
Do you think that the congestion tax gives
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Less cogentionin/out from the
inner city
Less congestionin the inner city
Better air in theinner city
Less noice Better road safety Better publictransit
The demonstrated sucess of roadpricing.
Other major cities around the world, including London and Stockholmmost recently have reducedcongestion and improved throughputalmost immediately through the im-plementation of congestion pricingstrategies
Vote Yes!
Why was the trial a success?
• It worked technically verywell
• People have known what to do
• The traffic effects haveexceeded the expectations
• People have seen the benefits by themselves
• Continously mesuring didn’tgive room for rumours
• People have been preparedto change their minds
Information on the web:
www.Stockholmsforsoket.sewww.vv.se
Top Related