Road Pricing in London, Stockholm and Singapore a Way Forward for New York City Introduction

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

to enter the CBD. Nevertheless, nearly three- We examine congestion pricing programs quarters of drivers entering the Manhattan in three cities around the world: London, core—those crossing over the four City-owned Stockholm, and Singapore. In each, several bridges on the East River and those crossing patterns have emerged that hold lessons for 60th Street southbound—enjoy a free ride. New York City as state and local governments Meanwhile, transit users, whether via subway, consider congestion pricing. In these cities, bus, commuter rail, ferry, or CitiBike, pay fares pricing has rationalized the cost of entering the and fees for the cost of their travel. In total, 96% tolled area and fairly charged drivers for some of people entering the CBD on a daily basis pay of the negative externalities of their decision to some fare or fee (excepting those arriving on foot travel by car into the zone. This has encouraged or personal bicycle); a mere 4%, those using more efficient travel decisions, sped up traffic cars or trucks, do not. flow, improved journey time reliability, and— of special importance for New York—raised The Manhattan CBD south of 60th Street is annual revenue streams of over one hundred the most transit-rich area of the city, and most million dollars. Each city also employed auxiliary commuters into the CBD do not do so via a improvements complementary to congestion motor vehicle. However, those who drive or pricing that enabled alternate transit modes to take for-hire vehicles into this area increase handle the overflow from the roads. congestion and impose severe delays on other street-level travel. In particular, the failure to toll Each city’s scheme was established and has Image: Matthias Rhomberg/Flickr, 2007 the East River bridges and auto travel across evolved based on localized problems, goals, 60th Street encourages bridge shopping and social norms and innovative solutions, and New Congestion Relief Pricing: A Key the Manhattan central business district (CBD) the resulting excess vehicle miles traveled. This York would be no different. However, in all three Part of a Comprehensive Urban below 60th Street, tolls on the four East River incentivizes congestion and greenhouse gas cases, city officials knew road pricing would Transportation Strategy bridges (the Manhattan, Brooklyn, Williamsburg, emissions, especially in gridlocked zones near enable them to avoid the traditional approach and Queensboro bridges), and for-hire-vehicle the entrances and exits to the bridges. of highway widening to increase road capacity, surcharges. Now with endemic gridlock both at which is significantly more costly and has been The debate over congestion pricing in New The recent rise in congestion in New York City street level and below ground, congestion pricing shown to be ineffective at reducing congestion. York City has been decades in the making. has multiple causes: repeated subway failures, is back on the political agenda—this time with Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced an unregulated app-based for-hire vehicles, The matrix on the following pages summarizes support from Governor Cuomo, who earlier this implementation plan for congestion pricing population growth, increased freight movement, each city’s population, congestion pricing year called congestion pricing “an idea whose on Earth Day in 2007, but the concept has construction activity, and increased tourism scheme, operation, payment system, as well as time has come” and in his 2018 State of the been well known for many years, with Tri-State and pedestrian volumes. All of these have put costs and revenues. Case studies of London, State address referenced “an exclusive zone in Transportation Campaign (TSTC) analyzing growing demands on the transportation system’s Stockholm, and Singapore follow the matrix. Manhattan where additional charges could be and advocating for congestion pricing as capacity, and it is past time to implement This report concludes with a discussion of key paid.” Now, as we await the work of the “Fix early as 1993 in its Citizens Action Plan. solutions. To do so, we should look globally. A lessons for a future New York City congestion NYC” advisory panel, whose mission is to find However, despite gaining wide support from number of international cities have successfully relief pricing scheme. While congestion pricing solutions to public transit funding shortfalls and leading transportation and environmental implemented congestion pricing as a part of a by itself won’t solve every transportation crippling congestion in Manhattan’s CBD, we can groups, Mayor Bloomberg’s plan failed in larger transportation strategy. This report aims challenge our city faces, it is an integral part of look to other cities to assess the success of their the legislature in 2008. Since then, the to shed light on those cities’ congestion pricing a holistic strategy to make urban transportation congestion pricing schemes. MoveNY coalition has developed and fought systems, and outline lessons from which state more efficient, sustainable and equitable. for a proposal to establish a congestion Currently, some drivers—those traveling via Port and local decision-makers can learn. pricing system, including tolling travel into Authority and MTA tunnels—already pay tolls

2 3 ROAD PRICING MATRIX

Metropolitan Population Pricing Scheme Payments, Costs and Revenues

Year Scheme % Change Ancillary Transportation & Policy Initial Annual Annual In 2016 Description Primary Goals Payment Hours Launched Since Launch Improvements Investment Operating Cost Net Revenue

• Reduce congestion 7:00am- 6:00pm • Improve air • 300 new buses The cordon pricing scheme uses automatic Monday-Friday quality and public • Updated bus routes Flat daily fee of £11.50 number plate recognition in an 8 mi2 area health • Improved frequency (US $15.21) There is no charge 7.3 million 8.7 million 19% (21 km2 zone). Vehicles are registered £161.7 £130 £137 London • Improve journey of buses on weekends, Bank in 2003 automatically by cameras that photograph Payments can be made by million million million/year time reliability • 8,500 park-and-ride Holidays, or the days the number plates. The system consists of telephone, text message, (USD $214 (USD $172 (USD $182 for car users spaces between Transport overhead gantries, cameras at all entrance online, by post, or via million) million) million) • Create a long- • Bike/pedestrian Christmas Day and for London points, pavement markings, and street registering for auto pay. term funding infrastructure New Year’s Day, signage. source for nor during nights public transit (6:00pm to 6:59am). improvements

The cordon congestion tax scheme uses • Reduce Variable pricing based on 6:30am- 6:30pm • 197 new buses automatic number plate recognition, in a congestion time of day. Highest peak Monday-Friday 2 2 • 16 new bus routes period cost per passage is 13 mi area (35 km zone). Vehicles are • Improve air There is no charge Stockholm 1.9 million 2.1 million 10% • 2,800 new regional 35 krona (US $4.14). registered automatically by cameras that quality and public on weekends, public 2 100 1.3 billion in 2007 park-and-ride spaces photograph the number plates. The system health billion krona million krona krona/year • Bike/pedestrian The owner of the car is holidays or the consists of overhead gantries, cameras at • Improve journey (USD $236.7 (USD $11.8 (USD $155 Swedish infrastructure sent a monthly invoice for day before public all entrance points, pavement markings, time reliability million) million) million) Transport • Taxis and for-hire the total charge incurred. holidays, nor during Administration and street signage. The scheme was for car users Vehicles, such as Payments can be made by nights (6:30pm – launched in 2007 after a successful trial in • Uber, also pay the tax mail, online or by direct 06:29am), nor during 2006. debit from a bank account. the month of July.

The electronic road pricing (ERP) scheme is fully automatic on specific routes, • Parking fees inside the $0 -$4.00 (US $0 - $3.00) times of day, and directions, with variable restriction zone were are collected on a per-pass pricing designed to respond to congestion doubled basis at over 50 points 7:00am-8:00pm in real-time. Vehicles are required to have • Reduce • Buses and bus within and surrounding the Monday-Saturday S $200 S $25 S $150 central business district. an in-vehicle unit on the dashboard and a congestion frequency increased There is no charge million million million/year Singapore 3.9 million Rates vary for different 5.6 million 44% smart card with fare stored on it. Overhead • Improve journey • HOV+4 lanes were on Sundays, public (USD $110 (USD $18.5 (USD $100 in 1998 roads and time periods gantries detect the type of vehicle, the time reliability established holidays, or after 1pm million) million) million) depending on local traffic Land congestion of the route at specific times, for car users • 15,000 park-and- the day before a public conditions. Transport and deduct the variable fee from the smart ride spaces were holiday. Authority card. The ERP scheme was launched in established outside of The in-vehicle unit costs 1998, replacing a cordon pricing scheme the restriction zone $150.00 (US $111.00). that was first implemented in 1975.

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

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 RISE D T T k A R R T 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 D The goals of London’s congestion pricing pricing scheme is a fully automatic fee payment T H 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

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 scheme include reducing gridlock, improving bus system, through automatic number plate 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 KILBURN B H A P O L

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 R H A S T . service, improving journey time reliability for car recognition, in an area of 21 square kilometers U N 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 n i N R EUSTON R d U n A E 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 N trips, and making the distribution of goods and (8 square miles). Vehicles are registered A 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 4 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 D L E E I services more efficient. According to Transport automatically by cameras that photograph R S A R U A C E E 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 L R B E A AD R M R M A M RO YO T G A I R T. K for London, in 2002 average traffic speeds in the the number plates. The system consists of 4 W R S 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 G R G N T inner city were slower than 12 km per hour (7.5 overhead gantries, cameras at all entrance

O E S T T N S 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 E E H S S mph), and it was estimated that the economic points, pavement markings, and street signage. N O R 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 impact was between £2 million and £4 million Transport for London (TfL) operates the system, 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

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 E R R Y A ES ST D I V K L (USD $3 million- $6 million) every week in terms which is an agency that holds similar authority T A I 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 5 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 . SOUTHWARK TOWER of time lost due to congestion. to our MTA and New York City Department of P R 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 Transportation. 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 E F A T S R London’s Congestion Pricing Cordon Scheme S 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 Payments can be made by telephone, text 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 N A A S E E T C O S Mayor Livingstone led the initiative and was A E T R 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 S message, online, and by post, or drivers can R K B T E E R 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 E D A successful at gaining public support for the E O C 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 R N C L A O register for auto-pay. If payment is not received W 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 ROA E R O A V N T E R cordon pricing scheme that was launched P N N 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 M D K by Transport for London by midnight on the day I P 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 S P T A W R N R T R B . B I I R W E T A P WALWORTH E R P N E T E I T O Y CO I A R E in February 2003. Two primary reasons for R E G 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 TH R GD E R N E R R R ’ T N O after travel, drivers will be fined £130. There is R S E R R L 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 G London’s achievement of public acceptability R T 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 E T O P a flat daily fee of £11.50 (USD $15.21) from U S I 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 include the fact that 90% of London residents 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 7:00am- 6:00pm from Monday to Friday. There H O E L R Uncharged roadsT L S N A O E Y I O A BROMPTON D H E K R 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 N E N D believed there was too much traffic and were U E N VAUXHALL L L I E PARK © Transport for London I S A L L D N K S I E T N O January 2011 L N is no charge on weekends, bank holidays, the 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 D LY A W L I concerned about travel times and air pollution, 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 DORSE days between Christmas Day and New Year’s A A T 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 AL and, importantly, the decision to implement L W D R CI 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 R A . Day, nor during nights (6:00pm to 6:59am). B R 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 E D E O O R I A C WN A congestion pricing was up to the Mayor, who W I N E 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 pricing in centralA London would improve traffic E Impacts of Congestion Pricing N had a strong commitment to the campaign W D S T T 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 6 D T city across economic. sectors, entertainment and the environment while raising revenues. and no sustained opposition. Formal and and tourism, London is comparable to New York A more detailed study followed with the same informal public consultations were conducted The goals of London’s congestion pricing City in population size and cultural diversity, conclusion in 1973, but at that time politics throughout the development of the scheme, with scheme include reducing congestion, improving with a population of 8.8 million as of 2016. Like favored a greater investment in public transit feedback reports subsequently made public. bus service, improving journey time reliability New York, London has a robust transportation and rejected the concept of congestion pricing. 2 Media campaigns explained the operation and for car trips, and to make the distribution of 7 network, including the Underground and In 1995, yet another study concluded that city’s implications of the scheme. When the system goods and services more efficient. An important Overground rail, commuter rail, an extensive bus economy would benefit from congestion pricing.3 was launched, the population in London was part of London’s comprehensive transportation network, ferries along the Thames River, a large In addition to increasing gridlock, London at 7.3 million residents, and by 2016 the strategy is that by law, all revenue raised bicycle and pedestrian network, and a sprawling endured its own cycle of subway disinvestment population has grown 19% to 8.7 million must be reinvested into London’s transport road network. However, London’s streets are in the 1980s and 1990s which contributed to residents. infrastructure. characterized by an organic, disconnected layout public and political acceptance of congestion Congestion pricing was planned as part of a that twists and turns in various directions, in charging. The congestion pricing cordon zone includes more comprehensive transportation strategy, contrast to New York City’s famous planned grid. the area inside London’s Inner Ring Road, which In 1999, national legislation enabled the charges is a 19 kilometers (12 mi) route comprising including public transit improvements and Partly as a result of the complexity of its to be introduced, and in 2000, the newly elected main roads encircling the inner city. The cordon increased enforcement of parking and traffic 8 streets, London has been suffering from its Mayor Ken Livingstone made implementing regulations. On the launch date of the original 4 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- own success for decades, with traffic worsening congestion pricing one of his primary objectives. pacts Monitoring. Sixth Annual Report. 2008. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driv- zone, 300 new buses were introduced. New ing/congestion-charge/discounts-and-exemptions?intcmp=2133 over the decades prior to congestion pricing’s 1 Smeed, R.J. Road Pricing: the economic and technical possibili- 5 Transport for London website, “Congestion Charging” (2007). 7 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- implementation. In 1964, a feasibility study ties. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1964. Available from www.cclondon.com/whatis.shtml (accessed 16 November pacts Monitoring. Second Annual Report. 2004. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ 2 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 2011). impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf of area-wide congestion pricing, known as tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. 6 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 8 “Report to the Mayor of London” (PDF). The Greater London 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. (Central Zone): Congestion Charging Order 2001. Transport for London. the Smeed Report, concluded that congestion fhwahop08047/02summ.htm 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ February 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 February 2008. 3 Ibid. fhwahop08047/02summ.htm Retrieved 24 January 2008.

6 7 bus routes were introduced and existing routes Traffic volume reductions have been sustained increased frequency or were extended through over time as a result of congestion pricing, the zone. Over 8,500 park-and-ride spaces have with 9.9% less volume in 2015 compared with been established. In anticipation of increased 2000, despite nearly 20% population growth in bicycle and pedestrian travel, additional London. However, traffic congestion has begun infrastructure was put in place for improved to increase in recent years. Transport for London safety. cites its focus on managing road capacity for growing transit ridership as well as growing The initial investment in infrastructure pedestrian and bicycle levels for the moderate and operations for congestion pricing was increases in congestion: according to TfL’s most £161.7 million (USD $214 million). The annual recent Travel in London report, the diverging operating costs are roughly £130 million (USD trends of congestion increasing despite traffic $172 million), and the annual net revenue is volumes falling reflects the removal of road roughly £137 million (USD $182.1 million). Image: Mariordo59/Flickr, 2013 capacity for general vehicle traffic as a result of Since the launch of the program, the rate has new policies of safety improvement; pedestrian, increased over time from £5 in 2003 to £8 in Compared to pre-congestion pricing congestion bus and cycle priority; and traffic calming 2005, £10 in 2011 and £11.50 in 2014. The measures.15 annual operating costs in London soak up almost levels, Transport for London reported a 30% half of the annual gross revenue, which is not reduction in traffic congestion, an increase An appraisal published in late 2017 by transport the case in Stockholm or Singapore, which use in average speed by 30%, and significant expert Charles Komanoff found that from 2002, 10 7% and 16% of their gross revenue respectively increases in travel time reliability in 2004. the last year before the start of the charging Traffic entering the zone during charging hours on operating costs. According to the Move NY scheme, to 2015, the last year with available Image: Mariordo59/Flickr, 2013 Fair Plan, New York City’s annual operating costs has declined by 18%, and traffic circulating data, the number of people entering London’s 11 would be roughly $160 million, with total net within the zone has declined by 15% . Bus center each day grew by 23 percent even as the service increased by 23%, and reliability and oxide (NO ) emissions declined by 13.5%, revenue of $1.5 billion; thus, expected operating number of vehicles entering fell 44 percent. X and particulate matter (PM10) declined by costs would be roughly 10%.9 journey time improved as well. As a result, bus Komanoff constructed a “counterfactual” in 12 15.5%.17 As a result of these reduced vehicle ridership has increased by 38%. The shift in which London tried to accommodate the influx emissions, there is a reduced risk of serious Since implementation, London has reduced mode from car to bus was significantly more of new residents and commuters without illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, and heart congestion, improved air quality and public than the shift to cars outside the inner city onto charging a vehicle entry fee, and concluded attacks. According to a recent study, 1,888 health, and created a long-term funding source the ring road. Of the thousands of car trips no that “If not for congestion charging, central extra years of life have been saved among for future transportation improvements. During longer made to the cordon zone, 50% shifted London travel speeds would now be at least London’s more than eight million residents the first ten years since the introduction of to public transit, roughly 25% were diverted one-fifth and perhaps one-third less than actual. who are now breathing cleaner air.18 Protecting the scheme, gross revenue reached about outside the cordon area, and the rest can be The combination of congestion charging, the environment and improving public health £2.6 billion (USD $3.9 billion) up to the end of attributed to carpooling, walking or biking, or reconfigured road space and transit expansion,” continues to be a major priority for Transport December 2013. From 2003 to 2013, about 46% traveling outside the hours of congestion pricing Komanoff found, “is enabling London to absorb 13 for London. The congestion pricing scheme or £1.2 billion (USD $1.8 billion) of net revenue operation. Further, these mobility benefits more than a 20 percent increase in central- has included discounts for low emissions and has been invested in public transport, road and have been largely maintained over time, despite London commuting, without skipping a beat.”16 bridge improvement, and walking and cycling population growth. By 2011, bus ridership electric vehicles, which has evolved into a schemes. Of this, a total of £960 million (USD had reached a 50-year high, and bike trips had London has also experienced environmental and recent toxicity charge for older cars and those $ 1.44 billion) was invested on improvements increased 79% since 2001.14 public health benefits as a result of less traffic in with higher emissions. 10 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing Im- to the bus network. To reiterate, all revenues pacts Monitoring. Second Annual Report. 2004. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ the inner city. From 2002-2003, carbon dioxide must be reinvested into London’s transportation impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf (CO ) emissions declined by 16%, nitrogen 11 Ibid. 2 17 Transport for London. Central London Congestion Pricing 12 Ibid. Impacts Monitoring. Fourth Annual Report. 2006. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ infrastructure by law. 15 Transport for London. Travel in London, Report 9. 2016. Pages 13 Ibid. fourthannualreportfinal.pdf 155-167. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-9.pdf 14 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 18 Tonne et al. Air pollution and mortality benefits of the London 16 Charles Komanoff and Joshua Murray, “London Traffic Would Be 9 Move NY Campaign. The Move NY Fair Plan. 2015. Pages 20-22. tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. Congestion Charge: spatial and socioeconomic inequalities. Occupational At Least 20 Percent Slower Without Congestion Pricing,” Dec. 2017. http:// http://iheartmoveny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Move-NY-Fair-Plan- 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ and Environmental Medicine.2008. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ www.komanoff.net/cars_II/London-Traffic.pdf 150217v1.pdf fhwahop08047/02summ.htm download?doi=10.1.1.1032.2321&rep=rep1&type=pdf

8 9 STOCKHOLM

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 Image: Access Magazine, 2011 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 capital city of Sweden is made up of to growing traffic congestion that was chok- the trial and first year operations, was 2 billion publications celebrated its success. fourteen islands and fifty-seven bridges on the krona (USD $236 million).7 The management country’s largest archipelago. It is also Sweden’s ing the bridges and roadways into the inner of the congestion tax pilot program was shared After the trial significantly reduced traffic, 2 most populous city and its cultural, economic, city. In 2004, the Swedish Parliament passed between the Transport Administration, which Stockholm residents voted to make the system and political center. a congestion pricing pilot program, despite managed the design of the system, and the permanent in a referendum that determined the pilot being a politically divisive issue in Transportation Board, which handled the that the majority of Stockholm voters were The County of Stockholm’s population was Stockholm with low public support.3 Newspapers system payments. Those two agencies continue in favor of keeping the charges.12 The media 1.8 million in 2006. By 2016, the population published doomsday headlines about the to administer Stockholm’s current congestion interest for the charges faded after having been had grown to 2.1 million, a 10% change in concept and predicted its failure before a pricing program. It is a fully automatic fee in the headlines almost daily for four years. population over ten years. Around 66% of the congestion pricing trial was established for payment system through automatic number Rather than discussing the existence of the city’s inhabitants live within the toll cordon in Stockholm in 2006.4 By this time, the congestion plate recognition by cameras that photograph charges, Sweden’s political parties and other the inner city. The zone has close to 23,000 pricing cordon system had been running the number plates. The owner of the car is then 8 Eliasson, Jonas. Every Fourth Car Disappeared: Stockholm’s Con- workplaces employing approximately 318,000 successfully in London for three years. sent a monthly invoice for the total tax incurred gestion Pricing Success Story. Transit Center. 27 November 2017. persons, of which more than two-thirds are 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. 1 The trials consisted of three parts, including commuting from outside the zone. mail, electronically, or via direct debit from a Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(3), 240–250. expanding public transport, constructing 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. Stockholm’s Congestion Pricing Pilot additional park-and-ride facilities, and the transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf 2 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stockholm kilometers (13 square miles) and consists of 11 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stock- Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six Months. holm Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six In 2003, Stockholm’s City Council adopted a Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. http://web.mit. 5 Dr Muriel Beser Hugosson and Dr Jonas Eliasson. The Stockholm Months. Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. proposal to conduct congestion charge trials due edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%20Transport%20 Congestion Charging System –An Overview of the Effects After Six Months. http://web.mit.edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Eu- Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_cong1720.pdf Association for European Transport and Contributors. 2006. http://web.mit. rope%20Transport%20Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_ 3 Ibid. edu/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%20Transport%20 cong1720.pdf 1 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. 4 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. Conference/traffic_engineering_an/the_stockholm_cong1720.pdf 12 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www.transportportal. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www.transportportal. 6 Ibid. Overview. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. http://www. se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf 7 Eliasson, Jonas. Personal Interview. 5 December 2017. transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf

10 11 stakeholders gradually moved on to discussing Overall, the congestion pricing system in how the charges could be redesigned and how Stockholm provides several mobility benefits. the revenues should be used. The permanent Traffic to and from the inner city cordon was congestion pricing system officially launched reduced by 20%, and traffic delays decreased in January 2007, after the Parliament decided by 30-50%. Vehicle miles traveled decreased by that the fees would be levied as a tax. This new 14% in the cordon and decreased by 1% outside infrastructure tax would help to finance the the cordon. After the variable pricing system maintenance of the bridges as well as public was introduced in 2016, traffic congestion transit improvements. dropped an additional 5% during that period.

Expansion of Congestion Pricing The reduction in traffic in the inner city meant the Parliament’s environmental goals were met, As a result of permanently establishing the with post-pricing reductions of 14% in carbon congestion tax, traffic reduction has remained dioxide (CO2), 7% in nitrogen oxide (NO ) and remarkably stable over time within the cordon X Image: Susanne Nilsson/Flickr, 2017 9% in particulate matter (PM10). Outside of Image: Tommie Hansen/Flickr, 2013 13 area. The Essingeleden highway, which carries the cordon, greenhouse gases were reduced regional through-traffic in Stockholm, was by roughly 2.5%.18 The use of air pollution protection, so marketing the tax in part as not originally included in the cordon area. In modelling shows estimates that there will be an environmental charge to reduce vehicle- response to increased traffic congestion, the 20-25 fewer premature deaths per year in associated carbon emissions was important to congestion tax system was expanded to include Stockholm’s inner city and a total of 25-30 fewer gaining public acceptability. In terms of cost- the Essingeleden highway in 2016. At the same premature deaths annually in the Stockholm benefit of the system, the upfront cost was time, the pricing scheme was updated to a 19 14 metropolitan area. 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. 18 Eliasson, Jonas. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm. 2014. Pages 12-13. http://www. 13 Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M. B., & Brundell Freij, K. fhwahop08047/02summ.htm transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf (2012). The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptabil- 16 Eliasson, Jonas. Personal Interview. 5 December 2017. 19 Forsberg, B., Burman, L., & Johansson, C. Stockholmsförsöket ity and lessons learnt. Transport Policy, 20, 1–12. 17 Ibid. har folkhälsopotential. 2006. Läkartidningen, 50, 4043–5.

12 13 SINGAPORE

and 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.

Image: Land Transport Authority, 2017 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 The island nation-state of Singapore has a approach has been scientific and systematic, with variable pricing designed to respond to one during a trip, and thus pay more than one vibrant economy, high income levels and high and the system has evolved to be variable congestion in real time. Vehicles are required to variable congestion charge. All congestion charge car ownership. The island has two bridges and responsive to real-time traffic congestion. have an In-vehicle Unit (IU) on the dashboard prices vary based on the type of vehicle, the connecting it to Malaysia. There is a distinctly Singapore’s congestion pricing schemes have and a smart card with fare stored on it. The time of day, and level of real-time congestion on pragmatic political culture, and the power been entirely focused on reducing traffic and ERP gateways have been constructed to detect each route. The charges vary between $0-$4.00 structure is centralized. This may have made it improving trip reliability. the type of vehicle and the congestion of (USD $0-$3.00), and are collected on a per-pass easier for Singapore to be the first-ever country basis.11 The IU costs $150.00 (USD $111.00). With the ALS, drivers entering the cordon were the route at specific times; they then deduct to successfully establish road pricing. In 1974, The system runs from 7:00am-8:00pm from required to purchase a license in advance and the variable fee from the smart card. When a before it was launched, the government carried Monday-Saturday. There is no charge on display it on the windshield, which cost $3 per vehicle equipped with an IU passes under an out a year-long assessment and education Sundays, public holidays, or after 1:00 p.m. the 3 ERP gantry, a road usage charge is deducted program, and the system was modified based on day or $60 per month (USD $1 or $20). In from the smart card in the IU. Sensors installed day before a public holiday. public feedback. The government has continued 1975, Singapore’s population was 2.2 million and the number of vehicles entering the inner 5 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- to expand and update the program since its tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. There were many complementary measures put beginning to enhance public acceptability.1 city was 100,000 vehicles per day, with an 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 annual growth rate of 6%. After the ALS, the ERP scheme. Parking fees inside the restriction Singapore pioneered road pricing with the first 6 Watson, Peter and Edward Holland. Relieving traffic congestion: rate slowed to 4% annually.4 The initiative the Singapore area license scheme. 1978. World Bank Staff Working Paper zone increased, the number of buses and cordon scheme established in 1975, the Area Number 281. Washington, D.C. : The World Bank. http://documents.world- also included doubling the parking fees in bank.org/curated/en/883181468759586286/Relieving-traffic-congestion- bus frequency were increased, HOV+4 lanes License Scheme (ALS), which was launched the-Singapore-area-license-scheme the downtown area and increased parking were established, and over 15,000 park-and- as one part of a comprehensive congestion 7 Land Transport Authority. A World Class Land Transport Sys- Pricing: Experience & Lessons from Singapore. 2010. SIM-air Working Paper tem, White Paper. 1996. Republic of Singapore. https://www.lta.gov.sg/ ride spaces were established outside of the mitigation initiative.2 From the start, their Series: 33-2010. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore- content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/ReportNewsletter/ Lessons.pdf White-Paper.pdf 1 Federal Highway Administration. Lessons Learned From Interna- 3 Phang, Sock-Yong and Rex S. Toh. Road Congestion Pricing in 8 Land Transport Authority. Singapore Land Transport Statistics in 10 Prof. Gopinath Menon Dr. Sarath Guttikunda. Electronic Road tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. Singapore: 1975 to 2003. Transportation Journal, vol. 43, no. 2, 2004, pp. Brief 2015. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/Publication- Pricing: Experience & Lessons from Singapore. 2010. SIM-air Working Paper 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publica- 16–25. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20713563. sResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Statistics%20in%20Brief%202015%20 Series: 33-2010. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore- tions/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm 4 Cervero, Robert. The Transit Metropolis. 1998. Island Press, FINAL.pdf Lessons.pdf 2 Prof. Gopinath Menon Dr. Sarath Guttikunda. Electronic Road Washington, D.C., ISBN 1-55963-591-6. 9 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

14 15 restriction zone.12 car ownership to increase by 0.25% per year, but a new policy starting in February 2018 will Singapore’s goals for the ERP scheme are not allow any increase. From then on, drivers focused purely on reducing traffic congestion will have to bid for an existing certificate.18 and improving the reliability of journey times. Paired with the dynamic ERP system, these Their scheme has evolved over decades to be comprehensive transportation improvements automatically responsive to congestion in real and policies ensure transportation options, time. In this way, the ERP rates are set based reduced congestion and delay for drivers, and on real-time travel speeds and congestion. The improved reliability of roadway performance. 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 Image: Dickson Phua/Flickr, 2013 (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- 18 Shane, Daniel. CNN Money. Singapore slaps limit on the number tional Experience in Congestion Pricing. Publication #FHWA-HOP-08-047. frastructure, Policy and Development (2017) Volume 1 Issue 1, pp.112-128. of cars on its roads. http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/24/news/singapore- 2008. Accessed 11 November 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publica- 17 Ibid. car-numbers-limit/index.html tions/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm

16 17 LESSONS LEARNED FOR NYC

Four Lessons From London, Stockholm and buses and 16 new routes, constructed park- its congestion pricing system to incorporate Singapore and-ride facilities, and also expanded bicycle variable tolling depending on time of day in infrastructure; and Singapore increased its bus 2006, traffic congestion dropped an additional As Governor Cuomo’s “Fix NYC” panel explores fleet and frequency, raised parking fees in the 5%. Similarly, in Singapore, where traffic has how New York City should tackle its traffic congestion zone, established HOV+4 lanes, and dropped by 24%, its real-time dynamic system congestion and fund public transit, the clearest built park-and-ride stations outside the zone. shows dramatic results for traffic reduction, solution—and one the governor has expressly speeds, and trip time reliability. The results of raised—is a robust congestion pricing program For a congestion pricing program in New York to congestion pricing programs demonstrate that that charges drivers and for-hire vehicles be successful, our city will have to do the same. human behavior changes as a result of imposing entering midtown and lower Manhattan. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman a daily fee—and that that behavior is not simply Fortunately for New Yorkers, congestion Joe Lhota announced an $836 million “Subway limited to mode shift from cars to transit, but pricing is not a novel concept, and we can Action Plan” to make immediate repairs and that it also includes eliminated trips, more learn lessons from the results of other cities’ improvements to New York City’s ailing subway 1 efficient trips, and changes to travel time of congestion pricing programs. In particular, four system in June of 2017 . These improvements Image: WNYC New York Public Radio/Flickr, 2015 day. However, in order to encourage mode shift, principles underpin successful pricing programs: should be paired with investments in surface- the fee must be significant enough to change significant investment in transit before and level transit, including improvements to bus, developing new Overground lines and projects behavor, and, given the rapid growth of for-hire during the implementation of congestion ferry, and bicycle commuting. In particular, the like Crossrail and Crossrail 2 over the last several vehicles, should also include them as well. pricing; reinvestment of revenues generated MTA and the City of New York, which controls years. directly into public transit; dynamic tolling that the New York City Department of Transportation, In cities with congestion pricing, the reduction Additionally, research shows that the way changes commuter behavior; and information must invest in cost-effective improvements in traffic has been met with a parallel rise in revenues are distributed has a significant impact campaigns that generate broad public support to bus service: additional bus lanes into and the use of public transit: bus use in London is on equity2, and that spending revenues on for congestion pricing. throughout the congestion zone to speed up up 38%, and Transport for London calculates transit increases congestion pricing’s benefits to bus trips and separate buses from other traffic; that of the car trips that no longer take place working-class families3, which is a key concern Congestion Pricing Requires Transit Investment procurement of a new fleet of electric buses to because of congestion pricing, 50% of those that has been raised by Mayor Bill de Blasio and ensure frequent service while reducing pollution; Mobility and access to opportunity, regardless commuters shifted to transit. In Singapore, bus other congestion pricing skeptics. In particular, ensuring our new fare payment system allows of socioeconomic status, is one of the most and train ridership is up 15%. These behavioral where lower-income users are more likely to use all-door boarding; deploying transit signal fundamental conditions for a successful regional changes not only remove cars from the road, bus service rather than drive, they fare better priority on key routes throughout the congestion economy. The key lesson of congestion pricing is they raise additional revenues at the farebox under congestion pricing4. On the other hand, if zone; improved bus stop infrastructure, including that in order to get drivers of all socioeconomic for public transit and build public support for revenues are not redistributed in any way, road shelters and countdown clocks; and robust groups out of private or for-hire vehicles, improvements to transit. pricing generally results in gains for higher- enforcement of bus lanes to ensure lanes remain affordable, accessible transportation options income groups and losses for lower-income clear. For congestion pricing to work, New York Congestion Pricing Revenues Must Support are necessary. Notably, London, Stockholm, groups.5 In New York in particular, research by will have to not only improve the subways; it will Public Transit and Singapore all have four key elements that Community Service Society demonstrates that have to reverse its alarming year-on-year decline make mode-shift away from cars possible: an for every one low-income resident to will have to in bus ridership by improving bus service as In looking at the successes of London, efficient public transportation system, compact pay a toll, thirty-eight will benefit from improved well. Stockholm, and Singapore, a clear pattern development, walkability, and limitations on emerges: road pricing is most successful when transit service.6 the use of private vehicles. Currently, New York Fair Tolls Change Commuters’ Preferences the funds raised through tolling are devoted to Lastly, we should ensure that revenues raised lacks only the limitations on vehicle use that public transit. In other cities, this has formed a 2 May, A D and Sumalee, A, 2005. One step forwards, two steps encourage additional mode-shift. In too many cities, traffic is an assumed fact of positive feedback loop that encourages transit back? An overview of road pricing applications and research outside the US. life, but the reality is that traffic is merely the use over single-occupancy vehicles: in London, International perspectives on road pricing. Washington, TRB. London, Stockholm, and Singapore each 3 Cohen, Y., 1987. Commuter welfare under peak period congestion accumulated choices of thousands of drivers— for instance, all revenues raised from congestion tolls: Who gains and who loses? International Journal of Transport Econom- deliberately made investments in their transit ics, 14(3): 239-266. and that behavior is subject to change. In the pricing must be reinvested in transportation and transportation infrastructure before and 4 May, A.D., 1975. Supplementary licensing: an evaluation. Traffic weeks after Stockholm began charging drivers to infrastructure by law. The end result is a reliable Engineering and Control, 16(4). during the implementation of congestion pricing: 5 Cohen, Y., 1987. Commuter welfare under peak period congestion enter the city center, traffic congestion declined stream of funding for public transit, and it is tolls: Who gains and who loses? International Journal of Transport Econom- London purchased 300 new buses, overhauled ics, 14(3): 239-266. as much as 50%, and when the city switched no coincidence that London has been at the their bus network, and added significant bicycle 6 Community Service Society. Congestion Pricing: CSS Analysis. Ac- forefront of transit infrastructure, including cessed 16 December 2017. http://lghttp.58547.nexcesscdn.net/803F44A/ infrastructure; Stockholm added almost 200 new 1 The MTA now estimates the Subway Action Plan’s total operating images/nycss/images/uploads/press-pdfs/171024_congestion_pricing_re- cost at $1.5 billion over the life of the plan. lease_FINAL.docx 18 19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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 Primary Author: Emily Provonsha, Data & Policy Analyst In 2007, lack of support from the governor Secondary Author: Nickolas Sifuentes, Executive Director and state legislature doomed the Bloomberg Thank you to our partner organizations for their assistance in reviewing this report: congestion pricing plan. Had road pricing been Image: Ricardo Giaviti/Flickr, 2012 enacted ten years ago and the funding dedicated Jon Orcutt, TransitCenter to public transit, that increased revenue could pollution. Then-Mayor Livingstone argued that Charlie Komanoff, MoveNY have funded the preventative maintenance that congestion pricing would directly address those Thank you to our staff for their contributions: would have kept our transit system from falling concerns. While a later westward expansion of Janna Chernetz, New Jersey Policy Director into its current dire state. The lesson is clear: London’s congestion zone was canceled, the Dana Dobson, South Jersey Coordinator core congestion zone in London has remained while congestion pricing takes political will, the Vincent Pellechia, Associate Director 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. Front Cover Photo by Scott Shaw, 2017. fund public transit are far worse. Back Cover Photo by Tristan Loper, 2006. 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 21