Facts and Results from the Stockholm Trials Final Version – December 2006
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Facts and results from the Stockholm Trials Final version – December 2006 Document information Title Facts and Results from the Stockholm Trial – Final version – December 2006 Contact: Miljöavgiftskansliet/Congestion Charge Secretariat, City of Stockholm Muriel Beser Hugosson, Ann Sjöberg and Camilla Byström Document history: Version Date Change Distribution June 2006 20 Jun 06 MAK (the Secretariat) Updates (Cycling and Walking, Travel Pattern Study, August 2006 060815 MAK Distribution Effects, Inhabitants’ Attitudes) December 2006 Final version MAK I Brief summary of the conclusions drawn by the expert group Most of the goals of the Stockholm Trial have been achieved. This was clear in August when the expert group presented a collective picture of the effects of the trial. Most road-users have their own perception of how the trial works; this perception is based on how the trial affects them as individuals. The evaluation provides a supplementary collective picture of the overall effects of the trial in a number of areas. The three primary goals of the trial were reduced traffic, a better environment and perceived improvements to the city environment. The goal of traffic reduc- tion has been achieved, and thereby also the environmental goal. The degree of achievement of the city environment goal is more difficult to interpret. The trial cut traffic flows – even more than expected – and the reduction was surprisingly stable if normal seasonal variations are taken into account. In addi- tion, the effects were noticeable further away from the congestion-charge zone than we first anticipated. This also means that several of the feared “side ef- fects” did not materialise. Access increased, which had a major positive impact on travel times and also meant that you could be more certain that your journey would take a specific amount of time. The effects naturally varied for different times and routes. Traffic decreased on most major roads, but increased on others. In generally these increases are however significantly smaller and fewer in number than the large-scale de- creases. Traffic fell more in the afternoon than in the morning, and more across the actual charge zone cordon than within the inner city or further away, out- side the cordon. Traffic increased somewhat on the Essingeleden and Södra Länken bypasses. The Stockholm Trial reduced emissions of both carbon dioxide and particles. This reduction is substantial to have been achieved through one single meas- ure. Seen across the county as a whole however, it can only be regarded as one of several measures required to achieve national climate objectives, for exam- ple. As the reduction in traffic took place in densely populated areas, the reduc- tion – mainly of particles – brought a major health benefit to the county as a whole. The health benefit is about three times higher than the benefit that would have been gained had the reduction occurred through an increase in fuel prices. As expected and in general terms, the Stockholm Trial only had a mar- ginal impact on noise levels. The city environment is a complex and diffuse concept, without a given defini- tion. It is also difficult to measure. It is therefore risky to comment on the goal on a more general level. It is clear however that people perceive the city envi- ronment improved in those respects for which changes can be measured. The results show that there is perceived improvement of the factors that are linked to the reduction in traffic: traffic speed, air quality and access for motor vehi- cles. The vast majority of journeys to and from work or school that crossed the II charge cordon and that were no longer made by car due to the Stockholm Trial were made using public transport. A small proportion of motorists instead changed their routes to avoid the congestion tax, for example by choosing to travel via the Essingeleden bypass. There was no increase in telecommuting or use of car pools. A much smaller proportion of journeys that were made for other reasons and that crossed the charge cordon seemed to have switched to public transport during the trial. Instead, people changed their destinations or re-organised their travel in different ways, for example by making fewer jour- neys. A large proportion of motorists in the county paid congestion tax at least from time to time, but very few did so regularly to accumulate extremely high costs. Nevertheless, this small group accounted for a relatively large proportion of the congestion tax revenue. The groups who, on average, paid most congestion tax per person consisted of men, high-income earners, married/cohabiting couples with children, and resi- dents of the inner city and Lidingö. The expanded public transport during the trial did not reduce motor traffic to a demonstrable extent. Effective public transport is however necessary to cope with the larger number of public transport users. The regional economy was not affected to a greater extent, and it is not likely that it would have been in the long-term. In macro-economic terms, a conges- tion tax system becomes profitable after four years. Both the general public and business owners have gradually become more positive to the tax and the trial from their own experiences and when the bene- fits started to emerge. III Preface On 2 June 2003 Stockholm City Council decided to suggest a trial period for environmental charges/congestion tax – the Stockholm Trial. The Swedish Par- liament, the Riksdag, decided to pass the law on congestion tax (Swedish Code of Statutes SFS 2004:629) on 16 June 2004. The law enabled congestion tax to be charged in Stockholm until 31 July 2006 inclusive. On 28 April 2005, the government decided that the trial period for environmental charges/ congestion tax in Stockholm would start on 3 January 2006. The main players in the Stockholm Trial were the City of Stockholm, the Swedish Road Administration and SL – Stockholm Transport. The trial was funded by the government. The Stockholm Trial consisted of three parts: expanded public transport, envi- ronmental charges/congestion tax and additional park-and-ride sites in the city and in the rest of the county. The goals of the trial: - A 10-15 per cent reduction in the number of vehicles that cross the inner- city segment during morning and afternoon rush hours. - Improved access on the busiest roads in Stockholm traffic. - Reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particles in inner city air. - Better street-level environment perceived by people in the inner city. The Congestion Charge Secretariat is the project office of the City of Stock- holm. Its task, as commissioned by the government, is to plan, coordinate, in- form of and evaluate the trial. The Congestion Charge Secretariat has drawn up a comprehensive evaluation programme to assess the extent of goal achieve- ment and the effects of the Stockholm Trial. This programme has been drawn up together with the Swedish Road Administration, the County Office of Re- gional Planning and Urban Transportation, Stockholm Transport, various re- search institutes (including the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University and the Royal Institute of Technology), independent consulting companies (includ- ing Transek and Trivector) as well as some city administrations (the City of Stockholm Traffic Administration, the Stockholm Office of Research and Sta- tistics and the Environment and Health Administration). The measuring work, analyses and reports have been conducted and produced by government agen- cies and administrations as well as consulting companies that specialise in the different sub-areas of the evaluation programme. All evaluation reports are available on the trial’s website: www.stockholmsforsoket.se. This report contains conclusions on the effects of the Stockholm Trial as com- piled by an expert group as well as summaries from the surveys conducted. The first version of this report was published on 21 June; it has now been up- dated with additional results and conclusions. The initial project leader of the evaluation programme was Joanna Dickinson, MSc in Engineering. She was succeeded by Muriel Beser Hugosson, PhD in Technology (Feb. 2005) and Ann Sjöberg, Licentiate of Technology. In addi- tion to the project leaders, Camilla Byström (PhD in Technology), Annika Lindgren, Oscar Alarik, Litti le Clercq, David Drazdil, Malin Säker and Ann IV Ponton Klevstedt have worked on the evaluations. Stockholm, 15 August 2006 Gunnar Söderholm Head of the Congestion Charge Secretariat V Table of contents THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERT GROUP..............................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Presentation of the expert group........................................................................................1 Expected effects of congestion taxes in Stockholm ............................................................1 The basis for our summarising conclusions.......................................................................2 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................5 Motor traffic decreased more than expected .....................................................................5 Access improved ................................................................................................................9