ROAD PRICING IN LONDON, STOCKHOLM AND SINGAPORE A WAY FORWARD FOR NEW YORK CITY INTRODUCTION

Image: Matthias Rhomberg/Flickr, 2007

Congestion Relief Pricing: A Key district (CBD) below 60th Street, tolls on the four Part of a Comprehensive Urban East River bridges (the Manhattan, Brooklyn, Transportation Strategy Williamsburg, and Queensboro bridges), and for-hire-vehicle surcharges. Now with endemic gridlock both at street level and below ground, The debate over congestion pricing in New congestion pricing is back on the political York City has been decades in the making. agenda—this time with support from Governor Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced an Cuomo, who earlier this year called congestion implementation plan for congestion pricing pricing “an idea whose time has come” and in his on Earth Day in 2007, but the concept has 2018 State of the State (SOtS) address referenced been well known for many years, with Tri-State “an exclusive zone in Manhattan where additional Transportation Campaign (TSTC) analyzing charges could be paid.” Now, as we await the work and advocating for congestion pricing as early of the “Fix NYC” advisory panel, whose mission as 1993 in its Citizens Action Plan. However, is to find solutions to public transit funding despite gaining wide support from leading shortfalls and crippling congestion in Manhattan’s transportation and environmental groups, CBD, we can look to other cities to assess the Mayor Bloomberg’s plan failed in the legislature success of their congestion pricing schemes. in 2008. Since then, the MoveNY coalition has developed and fought for a proposal to establish Currently, some drivers—those traveling over Port a congestion pricing system, including tolling Authority and MTA bridges and tunnels—already travel into the Manhattan central business pay tolls to enter the CBD. Last year, MTA bridges

2 and tunnels were converted to open road tolling, light on those cities’ congestion pricing systems, which would help facilitate congestion pricing. In and outline lessons from which state and local the SOtS, Cuomo encouraged the Port Authority decision-makers can learn. to convert its bridges and tunnels to open road We examine congestion pricing programs in three tolling as well. Nevertheless, nearly three-quarters cities around the world: London, Stockholm, of drivers entering the Manhattan core—those and Singapore. In each, several patterns crossing over the four City-owned bridges on have emerged that hold lessons for New York the East River and those crossing 60th Street City as state and local governments consider southbound—enjoy a free ride. Meanwhile, transit congestion pricing. In these cities, pricing has users, whether via subway, bus, commuter rail, rationalized the cost of entering the tolled ferry, or CitiBike, pay fares and fees for the cost area and fairly charged drivers for some of the of their travel. In total, 96% of people entering negative externalities of their decision to travel the CBD on a daily basis pay some fare or fee by car into the zone. This has encouraged more (excepting those arriving on foot or personal efficient travel decisions, sped up traffic flow, bicycle); a mere 4%, those using cars or trucks, improved journey time reliability, and—of special do not. importance for New York—raised annual revenue The Manhattan CBD south of 60th Street is streams of over one hundred million dollars. the most transit-rich area of the city, and most Each city also employed auxiliary improvements commuters into the CBD do not do so via a motor complementary to congestion pricing that vehicle. However, those who drive or take for- enabled alternate transit modes to handle the hire vehicles into this area increase congestion overflow from the roads. and impose severe delays on other street-level Each city’s scheme was established and has travel. In particular, the failure to toll the East evolved based on localized problems, goals, River bridges and auto travel across 60th Street social norms and innovative solutions, and New encourages bridge shopping and the resulting York would be no different. However, in all three excess vehicle miles traveled. This incentivizes cases, city officials knew road pricing would congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, enable them to avoid the traditional approach especially in gridlocked zones near the entrances of highway widening to increase road capacity, and exits to the bridges. which is significantly more costly and has been The recent rise in congestion in New York City shown to be ineffective at reducing congestion. has multiple causes: repeated subway failures, The matrix on the following pages summarizes unregulated app-based for-hire vehicles, each city’s population, congestion pricing population growth, increased freight movement, scheme, operation, payment system, as well as construction activity, and increased tourism and costs and revenues. Case studies of London, pedestrian volumes. All of these have put growing Stockholm, and Singapore follow the matrix. demands on the transportation system’s capacity, This report concludes with a discussion of key and it is past time to implement solutions. To lessons for a future New York City congestion do so, we should look globally. A number of relief pricing scheme. While congestion pricing international cities have successfully implemented by itself won’t solve every transportation congestion pricing as a part of a larger challenge our city faces, it is an integral part of transportation strategy. This report aims to shed a holistic strategy to make urban transportation more efficient, sustainable and equitable. 3 ROAD PRICING MATRIX

Metropolitan Population Pricing Scheme

Year Scheme % Change In 2016 Description Primary Goals Launched Since Launch

• Reduce congestion • Improve air The cordon pricing scheme uses automatic quality and public number plate recognition in an 8 mi2 area health 7.3 million 8.7 million 19% (21 km2 zone). Vehicles are registered London • Improve journey in 2003 automatically by cameras that photograph time reliability the number plates. The system consists of for car users Transport overhead gantries, cameras at all entrance • Create a long- for London points, pavement markings, and street term funding signage. source for public transit improvements

The cordon congestion tax scheme uses • Reduce automatic number plate recognition, in a congestion 13 mi2 area (35 km2 zone). Vehicles are • Improve air Stockholm 1.9 million 2.1 million 10% registered automatically by cameras that quality and public in 2007 photograph the number plates. The system health Swedish consists of overhead gantries, cameras at • Improve journey Transport all entrance points, pavement markings, time reliability Administration and street signage. The scheme was for car users launched in 2007 after a successful trial in • 2006.

The electronic road pricing (ERP) scheme is fully automatic on specific routes, times of day, and directions, with variable pricing designed to respond to congestion in real-time. Vehicles are required to have • Reduce an in-vehicle unit on the dashboard and a congestion Singapore 3.9 million 5.6 million 44% smart card with fare stored on it. Overhead • Improve journey in 1998 gantries detect the type of vehicle, the time reliability Land congestion of the route at specific times, for car users Transport and deduct the variable fee from the smart Authority card. The ERP scheme was launched in 1998, replacing a cordon pricing scheme that was first implemented in 1975.

4 Pricing Scheme Payments, Costs and Revenues

Ancillary Transportation & Policy Initial Annual Annual Payment Hours Improvements Investment Operating Cost Net Revenue

7:00am- 6:00pm • 300 new buses Monday-Friday • Updated bus routes Flat daily fee of £11.50 (US $15.21) There is no charge • Improved frequency £161.7 £130 £137 on weekends, Bank of buses Payments can be made by million million million/year Holidays, or the days • 8,500 park-and-ride telephone, text message, (USD $214 (USD $172 (USD $182 between spaces online, by post, or via million) million) million) Christmas Day and • Bike/pedestrian registering for auto pay. infrastructure New Year’s Day, nor during nights (6:00pm to 6:59am).

Variable pricing based on 6:30am- 6:30pm • 197 new buses time of day. Highest peak Monday-Friday • 16 new bus routes period cost per passage is • 2,800 new regional There is no charge 35 krona (US $4.14). 2 100 1.3 billion park-and-ride spaces on weekends, public billion krona million krona krona/year • Bike/pedestrian The owner of the car is holidays or the (USD $236.7 (USD $11.8 (USD $155 infrastructure sent a monthly invoice for day before public million) million) million) • Taxis and for-hire the total charge incurred. holidays, nor during Vehicles, such as Payments can be made by nights (6:30pm – Uber, also pay the tax mail, online or by direct 06:29am), nor during debit from a bank account. the month of July.

• Parking fees inside the $0 -$4.00 (US $0 - $3.00) restriction zone were are collected on a per-pass doubled basis at over 50 points 7:00am-8:00pm • Buses and bus within and surrounding the Monday-Saturday S $200 S $25 S $150 central business district. frequency increased There is no charge million million million/year Rates vary for different • HOV+4 lanes were on Sundays, public (USD $110 (USD $18.5 (USD $100 roads and time periods established holidays, or after 1pm million) million) million) depending on local traffic • 15,000 park-and- the day before a public conditions. ride spaces were holiday. established outside of The in-vehicle unit costs the restriction zone $150.00 (US $111.00).

4 5 A A L H B R G Y A R O A D C ROV N R Y O A B R D O E E S E D DALSTON N V D L I W R LONDON

E L E E A L R E R O CHALK T R O A D

BRONDESBURY O R

G B O T A F O R E S

E

N D

E A A N U R

C EN D O V E

R A FARM OA D F

E D

E ON R M K

S ET RD A

C FO T . OF S . U C D CH A E P A Q S R L OV K R Y D P N G N D . F E H P D A U R

X G O A O D D R A D R A R I D I M H A N A A E O A D L L W G M L O A E R A E G F Y A B O L R A R O R D R O T . F R O . R R O R U O R

R E C D Y G EN I O RE R A D R E R U K R X O R ID D I A O R R R Y

E N A A L S C BARNSBURY F E A R S O O D E O E V I A O S D S H S A N E A U R S R GROV A HIL E T MIDD Y D LETO B D E L E A N ROA D P RD. R W N T L L D I T E O F E A E R R O A B N O A T R S R D W D R E

O I V E T N D G A E R H

Y D N M E D O Y A R A E S H L S T U O D H I T W A e . T N L G A SOUTH T E S PRIMROSE T Y A F O R C g C E B R O U D O W N H A M D BEY N R O G e A D E A R G D A SHRUBLAND RO . O SW E n N R t M N A E HAMPSTEAD L HILL K s O S N Z E C I E I E CAMDEN ENU I V L AV S O OND R E L G C E RICHM T K E M L C N Y B E a H D U L R E P n A E N E D A TOWNC A a ISLINGTON B G H HOXTON O Y T O A L A N l .

’ S L A S ALBERT A E R R T M C E O A

PARK I

TERR. Y T O W K L R V T Y D R

RO H D R E E Basin O A A A A D D

D E E M E R

W A E E O R A

U V S Kingsland R D O K N E T O A M S N S O

D R V R T P X R

G E PRI T THEBERTON ST. M I

N A O O C G D B KILBURN N E R E T OAD

A R P W ALL

A COPENHAGEN ST. N I Re POWN

L O U I g U BE S E CO A S R en H

E R S N S E A P t’

L S O

N ’ T T E A s . T T N Ca Y E B n N R T R H R W al E OA D S R A .

E R D EL E G T P

D O A N E Y E E E S U C N R R E

A R L

O Q A E T O R S I

S O EN R D T O N O R O A D D T TO N T R . O . P S

A A I G D V A E H C L Y A A W L D

D A R Regent’s Canal W H DE U D OY ID O B E D L L R S A E GDNS. E G R QUEENS D D N I C G O P D R R Y T A R ’ N B A C N H I B H S

PARK N E P W O N W Y . R

C O O

E A E T E M D O R S D R O

V S X N RO

A P R D R O

M E A N C . R T W D E T A R K C L H O T H T A

LE R T S A . E MA C D C E F L O K G B O AR O PE e D H Y i H O

P D A I

C W H Y S A C t K

R N KENSAL R N G A H y n O ST. E D S INTERN GR M R O I L A l N L L A S H o R S H S E N A R W C

L L O A C S c T W H T N O I M E

E R L V I o W D T T k RISE T A R R R A C ST. R O O LION P S G ITE Y H A H I W a A R ST. E A G PEARSON

E E E

K T H D L G A O T E D H U N d B E E

A W Y E N N

Y R S

O I D R S L A R E T R R S B O T

ANE E a E

L T

T L A R E L R W N N E S D T

M S T F R

R S S E T U D B E

T

S U L S s O

O E COLEBROOKE N I A C I N B T R

D V C E I E R IL I L H T a i C D CK E A F H . D n O A A K L R I R L OA . E L C . R N

R F H A A N N T E R

R T I R LE s K ES E L D A A L R E W D T O N VA C O VI O L O G i E Congestion Charging zone N N O T L L C T O T n R A N T REGENT’S PARK Y L O O PEN A VE T S O I W R E O S D R E ROA D G S D N N T O ILLE D A V R A A O ST. JOHN’S N H S TON Y P H RO R L N St. Pancras PEN O RRA A N U C U G H C M O R R R D A A E O T A I M BU B L King’s Cross T R I N W P T L R A P E I I D

S Y N

R R K E K R L O A R O S O D LKI M G R M M R R T FA WOOD R I R T A

A A S S A A A .

A R O E O E T FINSBURY I D N R O C Y W K D S L T A A T N ’ E O O EE K B E P R V S I V T W D T A S R N R K E T C L P R R S E D IN R O M U R H E S E I E U A U E L S H S N I E D S N R A E S D L L D L G T T A C A N N T R O KENSAL M E T T O E D A P DIN R O T A E T R R G E C E A S R T. V T C R T E R S . V O O O R S O O T E G N C A U N A A O N D T R . R T A T S T N Y E E SHOREDITCH S R IN B GREEN A

. K R ET N W T E L Y D S . S N S

U N O O L I . E G S H D E C WEST D D P S N . T I B R A T ET T E T N T S J H R A T S E Y K L O O TR N G T R X T . S C I O U L R R U T O G I U C ’ A B A F L H R E A A S . K K L L T M S I B H A P KILBURN L O

A D R NORTH R O S V H E Euston K A F R L J IR H O E C T O IC

R N A E S E L I O U W O O L R N Kensal Green A U R H A NS T . N T O

D N A D W U E

A W K N R T D R D C

D A E E O G S E T A E N D E B R L U R T

O S S R V D S V T E Cemetery D S GOWER ST. N D E S ER

R A ’ C I D A R

E D T A R E T L E O O N I N O L R . A

A E S R D VE O ST V. D R MAIDA D R E N R L H N L A . U S L S TO OA

D N P L C C T L ING R V T O E E I C I T R

J I R I R . Y N T G l G H L C . N N E R S H R a L S N ST. PANCRAS T F I E E MAIDA . E O E R E E n A T ’ S E I S A HILL T A a T S R P A S R V E T C S O S G E T G V U T E P R R

E R

N E O R A T E n E P I H G E A r o T L a H VALE T O U nd U ni A N R EUSTON E R N S

N E G A

R U D D E O T C G G A T

R E A E I N H E O T E O H B O L S D TREET R

G R S W I E LEONARD S H W D T D H A A N E O P N R U T . K L O C E U R E N T E ST Y M G O N N O R U S N A R N STRE S B S E G A I C W L A V O S B T B E A W H R NAL OA A V C N C Y T I M L R . U . H A L S E T D R ES E E D Q CLERKENWELL I Y H D S E Y R L H C R R N R R D N A U A S L I A S S N O D O C N E H N . L

O E I O O W E T L C A G R D R T . N R S L A T D E K T R N U B E A R R E ON O R T D E E W UST O G T P B O E S A E R T D R I T N A R D . F E

R D G E E Marylebone R A EN O R L E R N V E A E A L A P N O B L P . R R O A R B O D A U R L R T O C

A W S A G S A G V O N T O W W C O D W E O

L D N E R A P A S D S M NE Y A N O S P . T E R A K V R O T K D E ST O R R T P A R E F A O M

LA A L L H O D A F O K R I L R I O E O C U O E D E E L . R R R G R WOR R T. D L D SH S L G HA IP ER A M H W A D S R T U S QUAK R T C A H A T. TR H C O S L S A L E R S A R U A D C E EE I R I T R T L D A . E O C N HI S A T T S S W S R D U S E R . O O N N O L A A N E R . L D T K W T B O E S E G E E V X E R S M U E V E D C S L E L L BARBICAN FINSB T S R E . I E L C

O T C S U L W U A N E N H Y B S N R Y G E O O K A R . R P G L R K E S T

S R R T R A T E E E G N C A L T R O L T A S H C N E S O R V H T Q A

B T

A M R E M . Y D R RD A V R . S L R D T E E R E E SPITALFIELDS E L A R A S D C U L H L G T N L . O A . R A O E A E E L GATE ST E L L R O U T M R A FO R U S R T D E B T U B A B U N A G ET O R E T O V L O E ET O R G L D U R SQUARE P RE B B P L Q D R T T F ST K O T E S URY A A N P E P H A S B U O AMB ST. NB A S G P S M A L B A C W E O H H ’ O E E R A R S T T R Y N C O D E E N O T E N S T . D E C R O W R W Y E B W R T. N F H ’ E S A . S S S S O T A P C O S I I D L O L E Y T A G R K L D O D R D S T C NORTH G T A T T I L K E O . A R E O D L S G R B E A AD R M M A M L O O R G I R . K 4 W R Y T R A ST N E HARRO M S N . S 0 E L U U P B R W LD O L O BLOOMSBURY E A O FIE T P H D MARYLEBONE E L O N Liverpool US M E L N D S R R T O A R . E B A N H PL L N T E U L N E KENSINGTON O IS T D WEST O S O W D H E O L E AY A40 R A T B O N S T U N E T T H E E L O D . B E S T V R N E T D R R D Y L . R Street P A . Q R OA B CA A N W N A U W R E O D E T R IN N O N RO C L T TI O HAR L G W D M O . NSB N T A C R I . N R A E E S T . A F U C L E Y U E N A R N A M S R Y E V T D B A E S R R E Y H I N NU E K T A R L A C Moorgate G L H S O E O S I A T S C D A N L . C V C S E W ER E P E R R T O B S W T I P I NE O . T Y N HOLB R O L M M T S R O W . H O S U R LBO RN S CU L R E T A U O O S R E L S R R U H S E H R D S A H T E R B G R . M H . D PADDINGTON T L E E N T D Y S HI O T W R E S C E R G H LO OR A U NDON WALL I N E H E O H R M W O P E A . O L T D L D T M T L O H Y O P

G R E T P E EA B S N T E S M - E R I L R O O D E D T E E E S . G N E S M L S R S O R

O G E R S G T T N N ST D E N T E L E N I K E B L H O R . T R R T S T N S R ET K W T E W T . B D A H T E V A R

O O S ’ A E E O R C O IA L R L A S T A N S M S S R I L H S R D A P O T O D E E D T A A C R D U T RD I H F U O E

G T R P O E C E D E F G E D E X N A T S X Paddington S N D G E W B G O A U

D R R G A G R R T G R E E .

E O N D L W P F I O G E L R N T X D R T N N T S

R N E O G S T

W U N O U T B E . S U R D N O X A B HOLBORN R H

O L R S R D L C E D T G ’ R E P N . Y S I B E E N F I . S E S P L P N A T I A H D P F S E O E N T O C E D A L E D E L . S D H L O S R H N B A R . E R T T R O E S V I R T E T L . A G O E I W L U A E S R W W CITY E T T P E R I B B K R V A W P C T A H U Y E S S E D C S D I H D N O E T E C E R G H S C H C O I A B P A U O E R F R N CA R S O H A E H L E X O ANE A T R E M O Y M O IT

C B T C N S DU E R IG H B L ’ O S R W W Y N I A D E O S D B W N Y R . A H A V N U S L E L K T L O R A D S C R E G C N B NON W O S E R A S . S N C G A L T O D L N E E O R H S S G Y N M R O D T E E 0 L E T D R R COVENT E O A T L 4 . D A A A U R . A T E C P E . AN

V ST E N U S . E ST G E R O . I N R C T T D R I H D D IE I T B E STR H E N LU A M L D

E T E T DG S E N A L E W E GA G U T R TE E A N Q R E U E S S H A P R EM . L R A W IL O H A S E L U T T W U R N D S T T A E Y 0 A S A4 R N E C O R G L A N R GARDEN T W S E TB T A O O E T E RY A S S C I S O R U X E A F F E E W G E G E . N Y BAYSWATER EET W C X V K

D E E D O L CORNHIL LEADENHALL STR N R A R U O N T A L EE D T R E A R F T

C R R B H E I T L

O L S Q H S . E E A C N A O H S

R D L R O ET S S S S B

K I E E I T TR A G A . D N U V N S T T R E T H L

R V H R E N N E S R RC C C E . S T I A U Y H L I V I D R A R

O T E LE . . T W E . E N E T D N N B

W G N E T AR E E G W S C E S O N E I V T. O G M R S S T A O I S

L R S C S E C N D TUD O R R CO R P A L S D E S T S E T N E

S R O L S R E I M

E D U T L U P R L C A . S C N T R L . Q Y I R A T UE I H D Y A E A T U M TE R N RI A H FE C O

L N A S N VICTO NCHUR W A E R O S C S . L E O G SOHO R . B O R M D E T M C A

L G E B N A L A K S U O D S R L R S ER L T R E E I T M R N E D G E B N E A M D S T T E A

S A C E T

O A M S E T C W G E W R S N Fenchurch D A B N S N R E A P I I

Y R E T T E Y N O A T G R

R B G S

R T S E R . E F G D H . B G T. C

B T D S E T L A O P E T E A Street SWAL T C I ROS K S S R STCHE C N W R H T EA A I O K A R T EN E P . N BANKM M R O S EM R G ROYA R S R R E N L E O G R A K D O RIA EA T A U S E T O B O O T T T C R MAYFAIR I . IC D T A Blackfriars O T U V I W T FR C T ER S R S . O A R E T. L A E D H R IL

D T H S O E O A T. B Cannon Street OWER H S N C R S S G

B H D B

G

R L T D U A OR E OWER T N L P T A N TH E O NOTTING HILL D D R N D AM RE

S E R R Y A ES ST D I E T V A K I L A G A A S I E

’ A O K E M E R W I S R E S S E T R R A R U G F R A Y R Q L A T R R S B B R H T O D U E F A T T R E K K S W B S I H

R A Y M V M K T L E O O N R R W

O E E P E T M N A E E C h

I H P Y D Y G U A A R B L T N E A A

E L T E T GA e E I L E

O L T T L N D L R O St. Katharine’s S

U A L D HI A K D T R N K B N N G Charing Cross E D TIN A T S E L U O D

NO L N C Dock O L O A S N T O S M o E C N F R . I O T Y O C E T S G O E . E n P O L R M R T R T G E L N U K HYDE PARK M

A S U E A . A R R L E E N g L E T E T S H B E O M N M E N E E . P R SOUTHWARK TOWER O A R L CHARING T I L R P S

L N A E T U N A S S AV P W R N S P I D T BRIDGE

B ’ R . S D D D O T S N F S

SHEPHERD’S BUSH K a E O CROSS G O . R E Z M V U London Bridge I R A A t T N U E I N C W T UX P e H BRIDG L L S W E B L A G r L RO D R A A D E R D KENSINGTON A H K N R I S V T M A H H Y A S L O I T R E T L E L O E R I S L S E R T T O P E L O A N L ST. T H L Round T I N E I A . N E T L GARDENS D P R T D HO H R O A H M A Pond A D C JAMES’S T A T S M S A S O H U R C WATERLOO E O A X A I D E C L H BR . S E E S O L T I P D RE E D B L D ET S Y T S T GE H he L R T H A L N P W S R NIO A RO B er A U R QUE A pe R T EN H A n E B E M D D U tin O E S L O A M K T IZ

E H W S E T A E A

R B R S R H T R R ET L R O I BOROUGH E H D O C O A S EN S H K Y M E TR ’ RE L L E T R T EE S G A B H T L H E M O D H L T E F S R S A D U S G G BU A R A N U KENSINGTON K U D I N T GREEN PARK R D Kensington ST. I I N R F S D D D L H I R C F R R H D Y O O A S AD S B O L O E Palace E C O N A L A S E V RIV S T JAMES’S O K E R O UT D E I T Waterloo D D SO H C G U T A Y R E ARRIAGE I O L I I D N A L N R H S K O T S B H I L L K T W L H T G O B G R HA S A A R K N I G PARK R E D HOLLAND ROAD R R S U S E L N S O KE TON R A D NG K T T T GO E E NS KENSI W A L WES O R O D L A IN O TMINSTER E R AN

D G R T N R S R T W E E PARK A E R R D O E S E S T O A H O N A G I H E Q X A G A O ROAD D D C D B T A V R S EE P I L T T TR M H A B WESTMINSTER B

S R ID . U G J A E D E E O T A V Y U G A N E I O N D D L D E B M O R E A R L

L O O R D W A R R O A O O E R S T I LGRA N I I A E B A S T KNIGHTSBRIDGE R S E G C E S O N A A P D A T D I . B ANCE T AD A Y D C FR M RO Y A O R A H T R E O A S N O I GH A B L AD G U G U T A N O L I E S R D N N Y BO N H T P P S W A I R T T E A NSO E E R TE E

D H CO O P L T R

D CE . R AD S R T

N R E G I T E H R E B RO G P L E E O N T L R A P E RID E . U D E STR D S G S D O O NEWINGTON D L I O E D P I E R A H A EY N S A OA B C B B S L O T A R QUAR R M G S T H N A A C A N A S E E T E T R O S S G T M E D D RU . L A I D P M D S S C B A T U N N T G V I R B T E E E M W D R O B E T R A A O N R O R R S R H L R BERMONDSEY B L A B E E O R L A R M O B NSI E L N B G I L S ’ G V ES A T R E R C Y E A E S R R E S I A R K B T E E R S A S G T N LK T L L A G GE WA K D N O I P T R H O T R L O V D T . R N R A L I O E A . C E E E I C G O H N D E K E A R D G T P N A S G O L W O S R V E T E R O E L A O A E H E D T W R L R A . P U R A U B R P S U E M D N R D S L T G O O O . O D Q N E O . ’ A R D R R G A E ’ E T S A S A U R

O M W T T EY . D N E D C L R B R C N O P AT N A L D O C A A S O O A T S A R I D A R R T M R D E H K N F W D A E O CE S E A A W H A I O H C L T G A O L H K T P BROMPTON BELGRAVIA M E G W E D R O B D T G E T N A C M P A E A I E W W

N C L A O W R R E R N D AD O N L T L K E D E L O N A E R O L O LAM A T R O I

AR N R E O S BET N D ELL U T I RO A D H BR. D L S A W L Z S R N B H H E S L H O CROM T A T Y R A W R O TER F E R R O P R Central London A T O O LAMBETH O S B N K

S E S E I E R WEST C W K E S R C O W Q E D L

O T R S

E C R O T . R K R H IV E O PARK RD. U D A E E GLENTHOR B H A Victoria E D U RK N L E A

E A O T R M C G HW OAD B E D A L C T A M W O KENSINGTON D L L R OC R D P S E T A A R E . A E R O E I Congestion Charging zone – T A S O R A E N ST N D T A A N N D L R R A OA E R O V E R R P N A N N T W T E K D N E A D A O O G O C L O O H R GT DR E B D F E YG D A A L RIN O A E T R U E A E N N I T L L H AR Y . Y R R H R R M D E ’ H N S CO AC X D EY D R S . S A . S LO T L M B E D L R W E S L S O W L T M K . M M N L A P E E Y H W . AD A I M P D K A A O W NG H N M G residents’O 90%N discount applies M A LG A A S Y O ON W E A W K S O N D GT V W L H R L T R O N TR R C N D E T E A L N EE CR A R I Y V R D O T R E R A S N T G N R O O O R U E E . A E V R D H O Q A O P A . SOUTH E R N T R T T E U V L B

T R . C I K E A B E P N . E . S N S R R Y C R R B L A N

I N S K I O T A L T . H E H W V T A W A I B C T L

W D U L C R D D IP L K C K H S U YNT I O R A N E O A G HE N ON

L KENSINGTON L B R D D U S L R T D RO R O Additional residents’ 90% A A T W E M S O S AD E O S B T S R B . I P T WALWORTH A W R N R N B I R W E T A P E R P O E T R E I T O Y C E G E I A R E R E AT W E S T FLYOVE C E M D E LI B R N M N Y G P N G R O A ERSMITH A K A D M E PIMLICO L O E C T D HAMM W O S I U O G H N R C D R N A P R R R A E E O . Y B T Y O I N D EARL’S H S O . G A D N O T TA OA N N OLD discount E area B E V J R E LGA H R GD E R N E R RT R R ’S E T R N R OL O P D Y . T OAD E A T LS E AD C K P S E R O A R D H S R S L E RO

N D D P G COURT D O U O V S A C AD F A E T T HAMMERSMITH R E

S A A A C A S O D Y R CHELSEA S L T I A N L A I U D H V D C E A D T ’ M O S TURPENT E RO . G P E S R R O E B FT ST O S I R E R U T L G A N T B R M T L V L N T A X I B R L H N H A R A I L N S R H . R S D U E A H Congestion Charging zone B A A O T A S R H K A D A X N N S T ’ G E S R T T R A G E N I N F E L T E E H A A

A T I R . O E T I E C L N

M TA N D U I D S S T A N M E D

M R R T G R S

I L S O L S Y E Z

S N B C F T E P G . S L E O D N U L A E U L E P A Q R

R D R O L E S E U T N K O

D T L O BARONS I E S N E R F N boundary O V U B A L R T . O E D T O F R E R R L . P S CH F H . A

M S U E ST O I P L O R G D INGTON A A S R N M G G O A L N N S COURT L A T E G E K A L D H D U O U E E E K T E ROA D A D N O ’ N H A D R N R D P S V R N O Y N T U S E C S E C YHO Brompton A C O U HUR O D L C E E RE H HILL AD R G R GARDENS RO G T R T RO Main roads within chargingT zone S Cemetery R R A O D E A I A T H . R D C D A T E G A D R S L S RO . R ALE R C H K E H E SVEN L A D O I O L T T C T O E S A D L E N C R YFORD O N V IF A R M KENNINGTON D A E R R S B O A D I F C K H OA L A O WEST Y E N D O T A E O F E B R R R . D E . M E K I G E D 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Mile D N S T RD. N E A I LS R R R N A C U G E D E H O E L R Uncharged roadsT L S N A O E Y I O A BROMPTON D R H E K E D C G A P O R L E R E L E O G L R R EE LK K I N WA E A N N ’ T L S IM T R S R R T S N O R H O E T H O YN M IN LO 0 1 Kilometre A A HE L G A D C E G N R D TO I KENNINGTON O M N R E OVAL N A Y E N D U N E L L I N VAUXHALL E PARK © Transport for London I S A L L D N K S I E T N O January 2011 L N E R R B NINE ELMS D . RO A T O S T S A A B T C O A R E M A T D D Image: Transport forR London, 2011 E I E U B C R D S E T G E R S T W A E A E I M H L W S F LY D A W L I U E D L U S LHAM B D R FU ROA A BATTERSEA PARK OA N L L N O D O O A D WA R R EW H B S Y K W A R DOR A A SET A T P H L L R R T B D E A S D A A O O OA M ’ . T E AD A M R R R G A D E S T D HA B D L R R M D W E R H YN A N O O H E E R O I R C R T T W O K T R T S B O . R R O S U S A S H B D D B A E O P R O C E FULHAM R L T Y K A D D R A A S Y D A OO A S S E I OA W ’ A R O T S D T H R L L W D R CIA S P O O G E L R A G O O A E AL ME R R L W D S M IN H A D T B E R AS O C K S T V C D I D O E B A R A D A D B R R A A . M I A O A D O T D O

S R R W D A O R R G E R H D IV N S O O R A O O L A E DR HI T O O R T C D A U S A E R E O O L F L L K D A A D V A R W D N W I LA S E M E F N P G O O SD M N N ER I D CE OW O W I A N NE A A R A R RI W T O L T D P AY H L G BARNES A A S D P X A R E D E I N OA A A N D D O R CAMBERWELL R W D L E S R D OA STOCKWELL C B W R A . D D D K O A O A R K N E R O R OA S R A R R G M I N T BATTERSEA W K H The capital city of England, andAP a majorO globalH A E pricing in central London would improve traffic W D S T T N NE B R R A E S R T T O U E A N I B N W D S IO M E D N R

G O N E N

E A A U ROAD W W D R Q O 1 D T city across economic. sectors, entertainment and the environment while raising revenues. and tourism, London is comparable to New York A more detailed study followed with the same City in population size and cultural diversity, conclusion in 1973, but at that time politics with a population of 8.8 million as of 2016. Like favored a greater investment in public transit New York, London has a robust transportation and rejected the concept of congestion pricing. 2 network, including the Underground and In 1995, yet another study concluded that city’s Overground rail, commuter rail, an extensive bus economy would benefit from congestion pricing.3 network, ferries along the Thames River, a large In addition to increasing gridlock, London bicycle and pedestrian network, and a sprawling endured its own cycle of subway disinvestment road network. However, London’s streets are in the 1980s and 1990s which contributed to characterized by an organic, disconnected layout public and political acceptance of congestion that twists and turns in various directions, in charging. contrast to New York City’s famous planned grid. In 1999, national legislation enabled the charges Partly as a result of the complexity of its to be introduced, and in 2000, the newly elected streets, London has been suffering from its Mayor Ken Livingstone made implementing own success for decades, with traffic worsening congestion pricing one of his primary objectives.

over the decades prior to congestion pricing’s 1 Smeed, R.J. Road Pricing: the economic and technical possibili- implementation. In 1964, a feasibility study ties. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1964. 2 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- of area-wide congestion pricing, known as tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ the Smeed Report, concluded that congestion fhwahop08047/02summ.htm 3 Ibid.

6 The goals of London’s congestion pricing pricing scheme is a fully automatic fee payment scheme include reducing gridlock, improving bus system, through automatic number plate service, improving journey time reliability for car recognition, in an area of 21 square kilometers trips, and making the distribution of goods and (8 square miles). Vehicles are registered services more efficient.4 According to Transport automatically by cameras that photograph the for London, in 2002 average traffic speeds in the number plates. The system consists of overhead inner city were slower than 12 km per hour (7.5 gan- mph), and it was estimated that the economic impact was between £2 million and £4 million tries, cameras at all entrance points, pavement (USD $3 million- $6 million) every week in terms markings, and street signage. Transport for of time lost due to congestion.5 London (TfL) operates the system, which is an agency that holds similar authority to London’s Congestion Pricing Cordon Scheme our MTA and New York City Department of Transportation. Mayor Livingstone led the initiative and was successful at gaining public support for the Payments can be made by telephone, text cordon pricing scheme that was launched message, online, and by post, or drivers can in February 2003. Two primary reasons for register for auto-pay. If payment is not received London’s achievement of public acceptability by Transport for London by midnight on the day include the fact that 90% of London residents after travel, drivers will be fined £130. There is believed there was too much traffic and were a flat daily fee of £11.50 (USD $15.21) from concerned about travel times and air pollution, 7:00am- 6:00pm from Monday to Friday. There and, importantly, the decision to implement is no charge on weekends, bank holidays, the congestion pricing was up to the Mayor, who days between Christmas Day and New Year’s had a strong commitment to the campaign Day, nor during nights (6:00pm to 6:59am). and no sustained opposition.6 Formal and informal public consultations were conducted Impacts of Congestion Pricing throughout the development of the scheme, with The goals of London’s congestion pricing feedback reports subsequently made public. scheme include reducing congestion, improving Media campaigns explained the operation and bus service, improving journey time reliability implications of the scheme. When the system for car trips, and to make the distribution of was launched, the population in London was goods and services more efficient.7 An important at 7.3 million residents, and by 2016 the part of London’s comprehensive transportation population has grown 19% to 8.7 million strategy is that by law, all revenue raised residents. must be reinvested into London’s transport The congestion pricing cordon zone includes infrastructure. the area inside London’s Inner Ring Road, which Congestion pricing was planned as part of a is a 19 kilometers (12 mi) route comprising more comprehensive transportation strategy, main roads encircling the inner city. The cordon including public transit improvements and 4 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- increased enforcement of parking and traffic pacts Monitoring. Sixth Annual Report. 2008. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driv- 8 ing/congestion-charge/discounts-and-exemptions?intcmp=2133 regulations. On the launch date of the original 5 Transport for London website, “Congestion Charging” (2007). 7 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- Available from www.cclondon.com/whatis.shtml (accessed 16 November pacts Monitoring. Second Annual Report. 2004. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ 2011). impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf 6 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 8 “Report to the Mayor of London” (PDF). The Greater London tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. (Central Zone): Congestion Charging Order 2001. Transport for London. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ February 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 February 2008. fhwahop08047/02summ.htm Retrieved 24 January 2008.

7 zone, 300 new buses were introduced. New bus routes were introduced and existing routes increased frequency or were extended through the zone. Over 8,500 park-and-ride spaces have been established. In anticipation of increased bicycle and pedestrian travel, additional infrastructure was put in place for improved safety.

The initial investment in infrastructure and operations for congestion pricing was £161.7 million (USD $214 million). The annual operating costs are roughly £130 million (USD $172 million), and the annual net revenue is Image: Mariordo59/Flickr, 2013 roughly £137 million (USD $182.1 million). Since the launch of the program, the rate has increased over time from £5 in 2003 to £8 in Compared to pre-congestion pricing congestion 2005, £10 in 2011 and £11.50 in 2014. The levels, Transport for London reported a 30% annual operating costs in London soak up almost reduction in traffic congestion, an increase half of the annual gross revenue, which is not in average speed by 30%, and significant 10 the case in Stockholm or Singapore, which use increases in travel time reliability in 2004. 7% and 16% of their gross revenue respectively Traffic entering the zone during charging hours on operating costs. According to the Move NY has declined by 18%, and traffic circulating 11 Fair Plan, New York City’s annual operating costs within the zone has declined by 15% . Bus would be roughly $760 million, with total net service increased by 23%, and reliability and revenue of $1.5 billion; thus, expected operating journey time improved as well. As a result, bus 12 costs would be 34%.9 ridership has increased by 38%. The shift in mode from car to bus was significantly more Since implementation, London has reduced than the shift to cars outside the inner city onto congestion, improved air quality and public the ring road. Of the thousands of car trips no health, and created a long-term funding source longer made to the cordon zone, 50% shifted for future transportation improvements. During to public transit, roughly 25% were diverted the first ten years since the introduction of outside the cordon area, and the rest can be the scheme, gross revenue reached about attributed to carpooling, walking or biking, or £2.6 billion (USD $3.9 billion) up to the end of traveling outside the hours of congestion pricing December 2013. From 2003 to 2013, about 46% operation.13 Further, these mobility benefits or £1.2 billion (USD $1.8 billion) of net revenue have been largely maintained over time, despite has been invested in public transport, road and population growth. By 2011, bus ridership bridge improvement, and walking and cycling had reached a 50-year high, and bike trips had schemes. Of this, a total of £960 million (USD increased 79% since 2001.14 10 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- $ 1.44 billion) was invested on improvements pacts Monitoring. Second Annual Report. 2004. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ to the bus network. To reiterate, all revenues impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf 11 Ibid. must be reinvested into London’s transportation 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. infrastructure by law. 14 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 9 Move NY Campaign. The Move NY Fair Plan. 2015. Pages 20-22. tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. http://iheartmoveny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Move-NY-Fair-Plan- 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 150217v1.pdf fhwahop08047/02summ.htm

8 Traffic volume reductions have been sustained over time as a result of congestion pricing, with 9.9% less volume in 2015 compared with 2000, despite nearly 20% population growth in London. However, traffic congestion has begun to increase in recent years. Transport for London cites its focus on managing road capacity for growing transit ridership as well as growing pedestrian and bicycle levels for the moderate increases in congestion: according to TfL’s most recent Travel in London report, the diverging trends of congestion increasing despite traffic volumes falling reflects the removal of road capacity for general vehicle traffic as a result of new policies of safety improvement; pedestrian, bus and cycle priority; and traffic calming measures.15

London has also experienced environmental and public health benefits as a result of less traffic in the inner city. From 2002-2003, carbon dioxide

Image: Mariordo59/Flickr, 2013 (CO2) emissions declined by 16%, nitrogen

oxide (NOX) emissions declined by 13.5%, and particulate matter (PM10) declined by 15.5%.16 As a result of these reduced vehicle emissions, there is a reduced risk of serious illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, and heart attacks. According to a recent study, 1,888 extra years of life have been saved among London’s more than eight million residents who are now breathing cleaner air.17 Protecting the environment and improving public health continues to be a major priority for Transport for London. The congestion pricing scheme has included discounts for low emissions and electric vehicles, which has evolved into a recent toxicity charge for older cars and those with higher emissions.

15 Transport for London. Travel in London, Report 9. 2016. Pages 155-167. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-9.pdf 16 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Impacts Monitoring. Fourth Annual Report. 2006. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ fourthannualreportfinal.pdf 17 Tonne et al. Air pollution and mortality benefits of the London Congestion Charge: spatial and socioeconomic inequalities. Occupational and Environmental Medicine.2008. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow nload?doi=10.1.1.1032.2321&rep=rep1&type=pdf

8 9 STOCKHOLM

Image: Access Magazine, 2011

The capital city of Sweden is made up of to growing traffic congestion that was chok- fourteen islands and fifty-seven bridges on the country’s largest archipelago. It is also Sweden’s ing the bridges and roadways into the inner 2 most populous city and its cultural, economic, city. In 2004, the Swedish Parliament passed and political center. a congestion pricing pilot program, despite the pilot being a politically divisive issue in The County of Stockholm’s population was Stockholm with low public support.3 Newspapers 1.8 million in 2006. By 2016, the population published doomsday headlines about the had grown to 2.1 million, a 10% change in concept and predicted its failure before a population over ten years. Around 66% of the congestion pricing trial was established for city’s inhabitants live within the toll cordon in Stockholm in 2006.4 By this time, the congestion the inner city. The zone has close to 23,000 pricing cordon system had been running workplaces employing approximately 318,000 successfully in London for three years. persons, of which more than two-thirds are commuting from outside the zone.1 The trials consisted of three parts, including expanding public transport, constructing Stockholm’s Congestion Pricing Pilot additional park-and-ride facilities, and the 2 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stockholm Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six Months. In 2003, Stockholm’s City Council adopted a Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. http://web.mit. proposal to conduct congestion charge trials due edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%20Transport%20 Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_cong1720.pdf 3 Ibid. 1 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. 4 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www.transportportal. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www.transportportal. se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf

10 congestion charge. The trial began in late 2005 overhead gantries, cameras at all entrance with extended public transit, including 197 new points, pavement markings, and street signage. buses and 16 new bus routes.5 Where possible, For six months in January 2006, the congestion existing bus, underground, and commuter pricing trial operated with automatic tolling at train lines were augmented with additional eighteen points located at the main bottlenecks departures. In addition, 2,800 new park-and-ride leading into the inner city, forming a cordon. facilities were also built in the region to provide The concept of congestion pricing had very transportation options for those who chose to low public support before the trial, with polls drive to the edge of the cordon and take transit showing roughly 80% resident opposition.8 from there.6 In addition to these transportation However, traffic across the cordon dropped improvements, Sweden also has a history immediately after the trial launched, which of investing in bicycle and pedestrian safety resulted in reduced travel delay and congestion improvements, with the world’s first Vision Zero throughout the city. After a few weeks, the policy adopted by the Swedish Parliament in decrease in traffic volumes across the cordon 1997, which set a goal of achieving zero annual during the trial period stabilized around pedestrian and bicycle and fatalities by 2020. 22% compared to 2005 levels, resulting in The congestion charge trial began in January congestion reductions around 30-50%.9. The 2006, and required vehicle owners to pay 20 reduced congestion also meant that travel krona per passage (USD $3.00) into or out of time reliability increased.10 Drivers switching the Stockholm inner city on weekdays between from car to public transport meant that the 6:30 a.m.-6:29 p.m. number of passengers in the transit system increased by around 4-5%.11 Public attitudes The initial investment in the system, including changed toward congestion pricing and media the trial and first year operations, was 2 billion publications celebrated its success. krona (USD $236 million).7 The management of the congestion tax pilot program was shared After the trial significantly reduced traffic, between the Transport Administration, which Stockholm residents voted to make the system managed the design of the system, and the permanent in a referendum that determined Transportation Board, which handled the that the majority of Stockholm voters were system payments. Those two agencies continue in favor of keeping the charges.12 The media to administer Stockholm’s current congestion interest for the charges faded after having been pricing program. It is a fully automatic fee in the headlines almost daily for four years. payment system through automatic number Rather than discussing the existence of the plate recognition by cameras that photograph charges, Sweden’s political parties and other the number plates. The owner of the car is then 8 Eliasson, Jonas. Every Fourth Car Disappeared: Stockholm’s Con- sent a monthly invoice for the total tax incurred gestion Pricing Success Story. Transit Center. 27 November 2017. 9 Eliasson, J., Hultkrantz, L., Nerhagen, L., & Rosqvist, L. S. during a month, which they can then pay by (2009). The Stockholm congestion-charging trial 2006: Overview of effects. mail, electronically, or via direct debit from a Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(3), 240–250. 10 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An bank account. The cordon area is 35 square Overview. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www. transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf kilometers (13 square miles) and consists of 11 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stock- holm Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six 5 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stockholm Months. Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six Months. http://web.mit.edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Eu- Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. http://web.mit. rope%20Transport%20Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_ edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%20Transport%20 cong1720.pdf Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_cong1720.pdf 12 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An 6 Ibid. Overview. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www. 7 Eliasson, Jonas. Personal Interview. 5 December 2017. transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf

11 stakeholders gradually moved on to discussing how the charges could be redesigned and how the revenues should be used. The permanent congestion pricing system officially launched in January 2007, after the Parliament decided that the fees would be levied as a tax. This new infrastructure tax would help to finance the maintenance of the bridges as well as public transit improvements.

Expansion of Congestion Pricing

As a result of permanently establishing the congestion tax, traffic reduction has remained remarkably stable over time within the cordon Image: Susanne Nilsson/Flickr, 2017 area.13 The Essingeleden highway, which carries regional through-traffic in Stockholm, was not originally included in the cordon area. In protection, so marketing the tax in part as response to increased traffic congestion, the an environmental charge to reduce vehicle- congestion tax system was expanded to include associated carbon emissions was important to the Essingeleden highway in 2016. At the same gaining public acceptability. In terms of cost- time, the pricing scheme was updated to a benefit of the system, the upfront cost was 14 graduated pricing system by time of day to recouped after four years. It was also estimated further mitigate congestion during the main that more conventional measures to reduce morning and evening peak periods. Under the traffic (e.g., ring roads to divert traffic away from new graduated pricing system, the highest peak the center) would require far greater investments 15 period cost per passage cost is 35 krona (USD to achieve comparable traffic reduction goals. $4.14), from 7:30 a.m. - 8:29 a.m. and from The annual operating costs have decreased over 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Outside of those periods ten years of operation from around 250 million between 6:30 a.m. and 6:29 p.m., the charge is krona/year (USD $29.7 million) to 100 million based on time periods, with tolls between 11- krona/year (USD $11.8 million), and the net 25 krona (USD $1.30-2.95). There is no charge revenues have increased since the variable fare on weekends, public holidays or the day before updates in 2016.16 Before 2016, the highest public holidays, nor during nights, nor during the peak charge per passage was 20 krona, while month of July. after 2016 the highest peak charge is now 35 The Impacts of Congestion Pricing in krona per passage. The net revenue from the Stockholm system used to be around 500 million krona before the charge was increased; after January Stockholm’s congestion pricing scheme was 2016, the net revenue is now around 1.3 billion 17 established to reduce traffic congestion, krona/year (USD $155 million/year). 14 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. improve journey time reliability for drivers, and Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www.transportportal. se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf improve air quality and public health. Voters in 15 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- Stockholm are concerned with environmental tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 13 Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M. B., & Brundell Freij, K. fhwahop08047/02summ.htm (2012). The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptabil- 16 Eliasson, Jonas. Personal Interview. 5 December 2017. ity and lessons learnt. Transport Policy, 20, 1–12. 17 Ibid.

12 Overall, the congestion pricing system in Stockholm provides several mobility benefits. Traffic to and from the inner city cordon was reduced by 20%, and traffic delays decreased by 30-50%. Vehicle miles traveled decreased by 14% in the cordon and decreased by 1% outside the cordon. After the variable pricing system was introduced in 2016, traffic congestion dropped an additional 5% during that period.

The reduction in traffic in the inner city meant the Parliament’s environmental goals were met, with post-pricing reductions of 14% in carbon 2 dioxide (CO ), 7% in nitrogen oxide (NOX) and 9% in particulate matter (PM10). Outside of Image: Tommie Hansen/Flickr, 2013 the cordon, greenhouse gases were reduced by roughly 2.5%.18 The use of air pollution modelling shows estimates that there will be 20-25 fewer premature deaths per year in Stockholm’s inner city and a total of 25-30 fewer premature deaths annually in the Stockholm metropolitan area.19

18 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. Pages 12-13. http://www. transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf 19 Forsberg, B., Burman, L., & Johansson, C. Stockholmsförsöket har folkhälsopotential. 2006. Läkartidningen, 50, 4043–5.

13 SINGAPORE

Image: Land Transport Authority, 2017

The island nation-state of Singapore has a approach has been scientific and systematic, vibrant economy, high income levels and high and the system has evolved to be variable car ownership. The island has two bridges and responsive to real-time traffic congestion. connecting it to Malaysia. There is a distinctly Singapore’s congestion pricing schemes have pragmatic political culture, and the power been entirely focused on reducing traffic and structure is centralized. This may have made it improving trip reliability. easier for Singapore to be the first-ever country to successfully establish road pricing. In 1974, With the ALS, drivers entering the cordon were before it was launched, the government carried required to purchase a license in advance and out a year-long assessment and education display it on the windshield, which cost $3 per 3 program, and the system was modified based on day or $60 per month (USD $1 or $20). In public feedback. The government has continued 1975, Singapore’s population was 2.2 million to expand and update the program since its and the number of vehicles entering the inner beginning to enhance public acceptability.1 city was 100,000 vehicles per day, with an annual growth rate of 6%. After the ALS, the Singapore pioneered road pricing with the first rate slowed to 4% annually.4 The initiative cordon scheme established in 1975, the Area also included doubling the parking fees in the License Scheme (ALS), which was launched downtown area and increased parking and as one part of a comprehensive congestion Pricing: Experience & Lessons from Singapore. 2010. SIM-air Working Paper mitigation initiative.2 From the start, their Series: 33-2010. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore- Lessons.pdf 1 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 3 Phang, Sock-Yong and Rex S. Toh. Road Congestion Pricing in tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. Singapore: 1975 to 2003. Transportation Journal, vol. 43, no. 2, 2004, pp. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publica- 16–25. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20713563. tions/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm 4 Cervero, Robert. The Transit Metropolis. 1998. Island Press, 2 Prof. Gopinath Menon Dr. Sarath Guttikunda. Electronic Road Washington, D.C., ISBN 1-55963-591-6.

14 cordon license enforcement.5 It resulted in a reduction of almost 20% in congestion levels, its revenues were nine times the costs, and most importantly, citizens of Singapore supported the scheme.6 The ALS lasted until 1998, when Singapore replaced it with the first Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme.

Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing System

In 1998 when the ERP system was launched, Singapore had a population of 3.9 million residents and the number of vehicles entering the inner city was 235,000 per day. 7 By 2016, the population has grown over 44% to 5.6 Image: Tomoaki INABA/Flickr, 2011 million, but statistics from the Land Transport Authority show that by 2015, average daily traffic entering the inner city was only 300,400 on the gantries communicate with the IU via a vehicles. 8 In the same year, the average daily dedicated short-range communication system, ridership on public transportation was 2.7 and the deducted amount is displayed to the million trips.9 driver on the IU screen.

Singapore’s Land Transport Authority operates The ERP system started with 28 gantries, but the system. The ERP scheme is fully automatic there are now over 80 ERP gantries throughout 10 on specific routes, times of day, and directions, the inner city. A vehicle may pass more than with variable pricing designed to respond to one during a trip, and thus pay more than one congestion in real time. Vehicles are required to variable congestion charge. All congestion charge have an In-vehicle Unit (IU) on the dashboard prices vary based on the type of vehicle, the and a smart card with fare stored on it. The time of day, and level of real-time congestion on ERP gateways have been constructed to detect each route. The charges vary between $0-$4.00 the type of vehicle and the congestion of (USD $0-$3.00), and are collected on a per-pass 11 the route at specific times; they then deduct basis. The IU costs $150.00 (USD $111.00). the variable fee from the smart card. When a The system runs from 7:00am-8:00pm from vehicle equipped with an IU passes under an Monday-Saturday. There is no charge on ERP gantry, a road usage charge is deducted Sundays, public holidays, or after 1:00 p.m. the from the smart card in the IU. Sensors installed day before a public holiday.

5 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. There were many complementary measures put 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publica- in place to restrain car use in addition to the tions/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm 6 Watson, Peter and Edward Holland. Relieving traffic congestion: ERP scheme. Parking fees inside the restriction the Singapore area license scheme. 1978. World Bank Staff Working Paper Number 281. Washington, D.C. : The World Bank. http://documents.world- zone increased, the number of buses and bank.org/curated/en/883181468759586286/Relieving-traffic-congestion- bus frequency were increased, HOV+4 lanes the-Singapore-area-license-scheme 7 Land Transport Authority. A World Class Land Transport Sys- were established, and over 15,000 park-and- tem, White Paper. 1996. Republic of Singapore. https://www.lta.gov.sg/ content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/ReportNewsletter/ ride spaces were established outside of the White-Paper.pdf 8 Land Transport Authority. Singapore Land Transport Statistics in 10 Prof. Gopinath Menon Dr. Sarath Guttikunda. Electronic Road Brief 2015. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/Publication- Pricing: Experience & Lessons from Singapore. 2010. SIM-air Working Paper sResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Statistics%20in%20Brief%202015%20 Series: 33-2010. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore- FINAL.pdf Lessons.pdf 9 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

15 restriction zone.12

Singapore’s goals for the ERP scheme are focused purely on reducing traffic congestion and improving the reliability of journey times. Their scheme has evolved over decades to be automatically responsive to congestion in real time. In this way, the ERP rates are set based on real-time travel speeds and congestion. The initial investment is estimated to be around $200 million (US $110 million).13 Roughly half of this capital cost was purchase and installation of about 1.1 million IU units.14 The annual operating costs are roughly $25 million Image: Carlos Felipe Pardo/Flickr, 2008 (USD $18.5 million), and annual net revenue is $150 million (USD $100 million). have been reduced by 10-15% within the inner The Impacts of Congestion Pricing in Singapore city.16 In addition, revenues from ERP have supported public transit, street safety, and Singapore’s evolving congestion pricing system transit-oriented development. For example, has been well-designed and systematically Singapore has expanded the bus and rail monitored over decades to restrain car traffic system and constructed new intermodal transit and improve speeds and journey times. Despite hubs. In addition, a comprehensive bicycle and strong population growth, the ERP has reduced pedestrian network has been created with a traffic in the inner city by 24% and average focus on first-and-last mile connectivity projects. speeds have increased from 30-35 KPH to The Land Transport Master Plan of 2008 15 40-45 KPH (18-22 MPH to 24-28 MPH). In contained strategies to make public transport addition, there have been extensive public transit a choice mode, invest in transit-oriented improvements, and bus and train ridership has development, and improve pedestrian access increased by 15%. and cycling infrastructure for first- and last-mile trips.17 There have also been many other public improvements that support congestion Congestion pricing is one piece of a mitigation, which have social benefits including comprehensive traffic reduction strategy in better accessibility, connectivity, improved Singapore, with major investments in public public health, and support for economic transit, bicycling and walking networks, and development. The Land Transport Authority transit-oriented development. In addition, also reports that as a result of markedly less parking fees have increased over time, as well traffic since congestion pricing, that levels as the taxes and fees related to car ownership. 2 of CO and other greenhouse gas emissions Beyond that, additional measures taken by

12 Land Transport Authority. A World Class Land Transport Sys- Singapore’s government are among the most tem, White Paper. 1996. Republic of Singapore. https://www.lta.gov.sg/ stringent in the world: existing policies require content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/ReportNewsletter/ White-Paper.pdf drivers to purchase a certificate that can cost as 13 Phang, Sock-Yong, and Rex S. Toh. “Road Congestion Pricing in Singapore: 1975 to 2003.” Transportation Journal, vol. 43, no. 2, 2004, pp. much as $50,000 (USD $37,000), which lasts 16–25. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20713563. 10 years. Currently, the government only allows 14 Ibid. 16 Sreyus Palliyani and Der-Horng Lee. Sustainable transport 15 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- policy—An evaluation of Singapore’s past, present and future. Journal of In- tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. frastructure, Policy and Development (2017) Volume 1 Issue 1, pp.112-128. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publica- 17 Ibid. tions/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm

16 car ownership to increase by 0.25% per year, but a new policy starting in February 2018 will not allow any increase. From then on, drivers will have to bid for an existing certificate.18 Paired with the dynamic ERP system, these comprehensive transportation improvements and policies ensure transportation options, reduced congestion and delay for drivers, and improved reliability of roadway performance.

Image: Dickson Phua/Flickr, 2013

18 Shane, Daniel. CNN Money. Singapore slaps limit on the number of cars on its roads. http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/24/news/singapore- car-numbers-limit/index.html

17 LESSONS LEARNED FOR NYC

Four Lessons From London, Stockholm and buses and 16 new routes, constructed park- Singapore and-ride facilities, and also expanded bicycle infrastructure; and Singapore increased its bus As Governor Cuomo’s “Fix NYC” panel explores fleet and frequency, raised parking fees in the how New York City should tackle its traffic congestion zone, established HOV+4 lanes, and congestion and fund public transit, the clearest built park-and-ride stations outside the zone. solution—and one the governor has expressly raised—is a robust congestion pricing program For a congestion pricing program in New York to that charges drivers and for-hire vehicles be successful, our city will have to do the same. entering midtown and lower Manhattan. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Fortunately for New Yorkers, congestion Joe Lhota announced an $836 million “Subway pricing is not a novel concept, and we can Action Plan” to make immediate repairs and learn lessons from the results of other cities’ improvements to New York City’s ailing subway congestion pricing programs. In particular, four system in June of 20171. These improvements principles underpin successful pricing programs: should be paired with investments in surface- significant investment in transit before and level transit, including improvements to bus, during the implementation of congestion ferry, and bicycle commuting. In particular, the pricing; reinvestment of revenues generated MTA and the City of New York, which controls directly into public transit; dynamic tolling that the New York City Department of Transportation, changes commuter behavior; and information must invest in cost-effective improvements campaigns that generate broad public support to bus service: additional bus lanes into and for congestion pricing. throughout the congestion zone to speed up bus trips and separate buses from other traffic; Congestion Pricing Requires Transit Investment procurement of a new fleet of electric buses to ensure frequent service while reducing pollution; Mobility and access to opportunity, regardless ensuring our new fare payment system allows of socioeconomic status, is one of the most all-door boarding; deploying transit signal fundamental conditions for a successful regional priority on key routes throughout the congestion economy. The key lesson of congestion pricing is zone; improved bus stop infrastructure, including that in order to get drivers of all socioeconomic shelters and countdown clocks; and robust groups out of private or for-hire vehicles, enforcement of bus lanes to ensure lanes remain affordable, accessible transportation options clear. For congestion pricing to work, New York are necessary. Notably, London, Stockholm, will have to not only improve the subways; it will and Singapore all have four key elements that have to reverse its alarming year-on-year decline make mode-shift away from cars possible: an in bus ridership by improving bus service as efficient public transportation system, compact well. development, walkability, and limitations on the use of private vehicles. Currently, New York Fair Tolls Change Commuters’ Preferences lacks only the limitations on vehicle use that encourage additional mode-shift. In too many cities, traffic is an assumed fact of life, but the reality is that traffic is merely the London, Stockholm, and Singapore each accumulated choices of thousands of drivers— deliberately made investments in their transit and that behavior is subject to change. In the and transportation infrastructure before and weeks after Stockholm began charging drivers to during the implementation of congestion pricing: enter the city center, traffic congestion declined London purchased 300 new buses, overhauled as much as 50%, and when the city switched their bus network, and added significant bicycle 1 The MTA now estimates the Subway Action Plan’s total operating infrastructure; Stockholm added almost 200 new cost at $1.5 billion over the life of the plan.

18 its congestion pricing system to incorporate variable tolling depending on time of day in 2006, traffic congestion dropped an additional 5%. Similarly, in Singapore, where traffic has dropped by 24%, its real-time dynamic system shows dramatic results for traffic reduction, speeds, and trip time reliability. The results of congestion pricing programs demonstrate that human behavior changes as a result of imposing a daily fee—and that that behavior is not simply limited to mode shift from cars to transit, but that it also includes eliminated trips, more efficient trips, and changes to travel time of Image: WNYC New York Public Radio/Flickr, 2015 day. However, in order to encourage mode shift, the fee must be significant enough to change developing new Overground lines and projects behavor, and, given the rapid growth of for-hire like Crossrail and Crossrail 2 over the last several vehicles, should also include them as well. years.

In cities with congestion pricing, the reduction Additionally, research shows that the way in traffic has been met with a parallel rise in revenues are distributed has a significant impact the use of public transit: bus use in London is on equity2, and that spending revenues on up 38%, and Transport for London calculates transit increases congestion pricing’s benefits to that of the car trips that no longer take place working-class families3, which is a key concern because of congestion pricing, 50% of those that has been raised by Mayor Bill de Blasio and commuters shifted to transit. In Singapore, bus other congestion pricing skeptics. In particular, and train ridership is up 15%. These behavioral where lower-income users are more likely to use changes not only remove cars from the road, bus service rather than drive, they fare better they raise additional revenues at the farebox under congestion pricing4. On the other hand, if for public transit and build public support for revenues are not redistributed in any way, road improvements to transit. pricing generally results in gains for higher- income groups and losses for lower-income Congestion Pricing Revenues Must Support groups.5 In New York in particular, research by Public Transit Community Service Society demonstrates that In looking at the successes of London, for every one low-income resident to will have to Stockholm, and Singapore, a clear pattern pay a toll, thirty-eight will benefit from improved emerges: road pricing is most successful when transit service.6 the funds raised through tolling are devoted to Lastly, we should ensure that revenues raised public transit. In other cities, this has formed a 2 May, A D and Sumalee, A, 2005. One step forwards, two steps positive feedback loop that encourages transit back? An overview of road pricing applications and research outside the US. International perspectives on road pricing. Washington, TRB. use over single-occupancy vehicles: in London, 3 Cohen, Y., 1987. Commuter welfare under peak period congestion for instance, all revenues raised from congestion tolls: Who gains and who loses? International Journal of Transport Econom- ics, 14(3): 239-266. pricing must be reinvested in transportation 4 May, A.D., 1975. Supplementary licensing: an evaluation. Traffic Engineering and Control, 16(4). infrastructure by law. The end result is a reliable 5 Cohen, Y., 1987. Commuter welfare under peak period congestion stream of funding for public transit, and it is tolls: Who gains and who loses? International Journal of Transport Econom- ics, 14(3): 239-266. no coincidence that London has been at the 6 Community Service Society. Congestion Pricing: CSS Analysis. Ac- cessed 16 December 2017. http://lghttp.58547.nexcesscdn.net/803F44A/ forefront of transit infrastructure, including images/nycss/images/uploads/press-pdfs/171024_congestion_pricing_re- lease_FINAL.docx 18 19 from for-hire vehicles are directed toward local transit improvements. While yellow and green cabs currently are subject to a surcharge dedicated to the MTA, app-based services like Uber and Lyft pay sales taxes, which are then remitted to Albany. We should ensure revenues raised from all for-hire vehicles in New York City contribute to funding public transit.

Voters Support Congestion Pricing

In 2007, lack of support from the governor and state legislature doomed the Bloomberg congestion pricing plan. Had road pricing been Image: Ricardo Giaviti/Flickr, 2012 enacted ten years ago and the funding dedicated to public transit, that increased revenue could pollution. Then-Mayor Livingstone argued that have funded the preventative maintenance that congestion pricing would directly address those would have kept our transit system from falling concerns. While a later westward expansion of into its current dire state. The lesson is clear: London’s congestion zone was canceled, the while congestion pricing takes political will, the core congestion zone in London has remained ramifications of elected officials’ failure to deal remarkably durable, and tolls have risen multiple with rising congestion in our urban core and fully times since its implementation. fund public transit are far worse. The lesson for policymakers in New York City By contrast, the congestion pricing programs is clear: congestion pricing not only works, in London, Stockholm, and Singapore enjoy but when it is employed, it also enjoys popular wide public support. Education programs support. It does, however, require political to build awareness among commuters were will—a political will our elected leaders lacked critical in London and Stockholm. In each city, in 2007. Now, with a deeping subway crisis that those programs framed congestion pricing costs New Yorkers as much as $389 million in the context of each city’s social norms: a year7 and gridlock that leaves city buses in Stockholm, which saw congestion pricing crawling, our representatives need to take bold disapproval rates as high as 80% before action. The lessons of London, Stockholm, and implementation, campaigns emphasized the Singapore offer a way forward for New York City. environmental benefits of the congestion pricing It’s time for us to follow their examples. trial. After the conclusion of the trial period, a majority of voters favored the road pricing scheme and even supported its expansion years later.

Meanwhile, In the 1980s and 1990s, London found itself in a similar position to New York City today: declining investment in public transit had led to an Underground network that was rife with delays and breakdowns. By the 2000s, polling showed that 90% of London residents believed there was too much traffic, and majorities 7 New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer. The Economic Cost of Subway Delays. Accessed December 16, 2017. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/ were concerned about travel times and air reports/the-economic-cost-of-subway-delays/ 20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Primary Author Emily Provonsha, Data & Policy Analyst

Secondary Author Nickolas Sifuentes, Executive Director

Thank you to our partners for their assistance in reviewing this report. Jon Orcutt, TransitCenter Charlie Komanoff, MoveNY

Thank you to TSTC staff for their contributions. Janna Chernetz, New Jersey Policy Director Dana Dobson, South Jersey Coordinator Vincent Pellechia, Associate Director

Front Cover Photo Scott Shaw, 2017

Back Cover Photo Tristan Loper, 2006

20