Also discussed here: How Sweden cut traffic congestion (Brad Plumer, Washington Post Wonkblog, Dec.15, 2011)
An excellent analysis of the social, economic and political aspects of the Stockholm congestion charges is the focus of today’s review. The report explains why the public which was against the charges initially come to support it, after they saw it worked- and traffic was permanently reduced by just under 20%. Also, the revenue generated was directed to improved public transit, already supported in Stockholm to a higher degree than in the USA or Canada with the exception of New York City, making it easier for commuters to make the switch from cars to transit. This factor, also seen in Sweden, no doubt led to the local New Yorker’s support for the proposed congestion charge scheme which was stopped in the end, not at the municipal but at the state level. Probably the most important lesson learned is the understanding and acceptance of pricing the value of a public good or service after following the approach taken by the Swedes, whether it is transportation and congestion, or by extension of the concept, to other municipal services such as waste, water or electric power.
(average number of passages across the cordon per weekday (6 am to 7 pm) for each month from January 2005 through September 2010)
Key Quotes:
“The Stockholm congestion charging system consists of a simple toll cordon around the inner city, thereby reducing traffic through the bottlenecks located at the arterials leading into the inner city”
“About 20 percent of the drop in Stockholm came about because Swedes shifted to public transit. Meanwhile, commercial traffic into the city — deliveries and freight — dropped by about 15 percent as companies adjusted to the new charges by switching routes or combining trips”
“The trial: Immediate reaction, slightly diminishing over time.. 24 % of commuting trips across the cordon disappeared; nearly all of these switched to transit – only 1 % switched route to avoid the cordon”
“The in-between period: Traffic increased, but some effects of charging remained.. between the end of the trial and the reintroduction of the charges, traffic volumes remained 5-10 %6 lower than in 2005”
“Permanent charges: Immediate effects, successive volume increase due to external factors…In the end of 2008, the relative difference compared to the 2005 level was -17 %”
“The share of exempt vehicles has remained constant, but applied to more cost-sensitive traffic in 2009 than in 2006. Passages with taxis, which were exempt from congestion charge during the trial, were no longer exempt in 2009”
“people in many cases do not like prices as an allocation mechanism...But once familiar with the concept that road space is in principle a scarce good that can be priced – much like parking space or telecommunication capacity – this reluctance may tend to decrease”
“The standard analysis of congestion charges underestimates the number of “winners” and the total benefit of congestion charging. This is because the standard “textbook” analysis neglects three things: dynamics, network effects and user heterogeneity”
“Perceived “system” effects also affect acceptability. In other words, it is not just perceived individual costs and benefits that determine acceptability. Hence, the “branding” of the charges matters – how they are marketed, explained and perceived”
Related articles
- Does Canada's Largest City Want Congestion Charges? (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- Direct Bikes Review Congestion Charge in London (prweb.com)
- How Sweden cut traffic congestion (theneteconomy.wordpress.com)
- Danish Plans for Road Pricing and Congestion Charging (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- Introducing Congestion Charging in China (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- What does Traffic Congestion Cost us? (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- How to Cure Congestion: more roads, more public transit, or congestion pricing? (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- Economic Response to Cordon Congestion Pricing (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
- Traffic Accidents and Optimum Congestion Charges (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment