THIS PRESENTATION

1

CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING

Drawing by Ruairi O Brien
2
topics

• Where are we now?
• Whats road user charging (RUC)?
• Why apply RUC? Economic theory
• What are we trying to achieve with RUC?
• How does RUC achieve it?
• Some examples Singapore, Trondheim, London,
  Stockholm, Italy, Znojmo
• How to implement RUC maximising the chances
• Generating RUC options for your own town/city

3
Where are we now?

• long delays due to congestion
• economic lost (time, energy)
• air pollution and noise cause health damage
• shortage of parking place
• unpleasant street environment-cities
• severance of social networks
• SO
• NO for increasing capacity by building new
  roads-due to induce traffic-long been out of
  transport policy agenda
• YES for balance-travel/traffic demand management

4
Whats RUC?

• Simply charging drivers for their road
  use/driving
• Arent they charged enough?
• purchase tax, road taxes, compulsory insurance,
  petrol tax, etc.
• NO
• Marginal cost of driving?
• Supermarket parallel!

5
Economic theory suggests

• the cost borne by the user of roads should
  reflects the sum of the marginal costs they
  impose on
• infrastructure provider
• cost for operation and road damage
• other road users
• cost for congestion, risk of accidents
• outside transport system
• cost for accident externalities and environmental
  damage
• RUC adds these marginal costs onto real cost of
  driving - drivers take more economically
  rational travel decisions - traffic volumes reduce

6
What do we achieve?

• reduced congestion-faster car and public
  transport journeys, safer cycling and
  walking,...
• reduced environmental pollution-breathable air,
  quieter streets, less green house effect,...
• revenue -provides frequent, reliable, comfortable
  public transport, better cycling/ walking
  environment, better roads, safety measures, ...

7
Acceptability

• Its a problem! - huge political sensitivity
• Novelty
• Not wanting to pay for whats been free before
• Equity issues
• Conventional measures - more popular
• But acceptability increases if cash spent on
  transport and environment

8
Has it been tried somewhere?

• Singapore Area Licence Scheme in 1975
• Bergen Cordon Crossing in 1986
• Oslo Cordon Crossing in 1990
• Trondheim Cordon Crossing in 1991
• Singapore Electronic Road Pricing -combination of
  cordon crossing and point crossing scheme in 1998
• London Area License Scheme 2003 (to be extended
  2006)
• Stockholm cordon crossing 2006
• Major Italian cities area licences

9
What is an RUC scheme like?

• Principles of charging
• Area licence
• Cordon
• Distance/speed based
• Charge and time of charging
• Who is charged and exemptions
• For what is revenue used?
• Administration/technology - how it is operated
• Charging and billing
• Enforcement

10
Singapore demand management
ALS (1975) Rush hour traffic reduced by
45 traffic speeds increased by 20 accidents
fell by 25
ERP (1998) Daily Traffic volumes reduced by
20-24 speeds from 40 to 45 kmh
11
Singapore- charging principles

• area CBD-restricted zone and some expressways
• time initially morning peak, later covered
  evening peak, thereafter included off-peak, EP
  operates during working hours including Saturday
  till 2 pm
• type initially Area Licensing then inbound
  Cordon Crossing
• level of charge 3 for a daily, 2 for off-peak
  licence, ERP - varies
• charging entity vehicles
• variations time of day, type of vehicle,
  location (ERP)
• Technology on-board meter and smartcard,
  debited when vehicle passes charging point
• Charges varied every 3 months to keep traffic
  level of service at same level
• Enforcement camera/ANPR

12
Trondheim infrastructure investments
New bypass Cycling paths environmental
measures improved public transport
Many new roads, such as new airport road, tunnels
13
Trondheim - charging principles

• Area built area including airport road
• time operates during working hours
• type inbound Cordon Crossing
• level of charge 3 for crossing
• charging entity vehicles
• variations time of day, type of vehicle,
  location (EP), maximum use per period

14
London scheme

• Plans for many years
• Legal basis - 1999 London Government Act and 2000
  Transport Act
• Area licence scheme for central area (21 km2),
  intro Feb 2003
• Up to 50,000 vehicles per hour into this area
• Planned to raise 130 million per year in fact
  70 million
• Revenues hypothecated for 10 years
• Exemptions - residents (90 discount)
• Many payment methods, ANPR and foot patrol
  enforcement

15
London Scheme area
16
London Scheme 2

• Congestion inside zone reduced by 30
• Traffic levels reduced by 18
• 30 reduction in number of cars and 65,000 fewer
  car movements
• 20 increase in movements by buses coaches and
  taxis
• Increase of 29,000 bus passengers entering zone
  during morning peak
• Bus reliability and journey times improved -
  additional time passengers wait at bus stops
  caused by service delays or missing buses cut by
  20 across all of London and by 30 in and around
  charging zone
• Some debate about retail impacts
• Little diversion of traffic around zone

17
Netherlands

• Urban cordons planned on major roads in Randstad
• 2.5 Euro charge would decrease peak traffic on
  motorways by 35
• First step towards kilometer-heffing
• Four Randstad cities very unkeen (economic
  development) but bribed by Dutch Ministry of
  Transport
• Then a dead leader was elected and it all went
  down the drain, for now

18
Implementing RUC

• To maximise chances of RUC scheme being
  implemented, need
• Agreement on objectives and that there is a
  problem to solve
• Political champion
• Resources people and money
• (Preferably) only one decision making body
• Single implementing agency
• Ability to improve alternatives (widely) before
  pricing implemented
• Straightforward and supportive enabling
  legislation
• Effective marketing/communication strategy, from
  the start

19
Conclusion

• Road pricing - can it ever be acceptable?
• Norway, Durham, London show it can be
• Key elements in success
• Perception of problem
• Business community support
• Political consensus OR champion (e.g. Ken)
• Simple scheme, at least to start with
• Hypothecation of revenues
• Obvious up-front investment in alternatives

20
Useful references

• http//www.europrice-network.org
• http//www.progress-project.org
• http//www.imprint-eu.org/seminars.htm
• Following papers by
• Begg (nice pictures)
• Chin (Singapore)
• Baker (acceptability)
• Can all be downloaded