en | cz | de | es | fr | it | lt | pl | pt | si

Dear reader,
Congestion charging has been around for quite a while, since Singapore first introduced it in 1975. In the EU congestion is often locatedin and around urban areas and costs nearly 100 billion Euro, annually. The World Health Organization estimates 1.3 million deaths eachyear globally are related to air pollution, which to a large degree is caused by emissions from road traffic. Yet congestion charging did
not boom the way bike sharing and car sharing did. However, in recent years there seems to be a revived interest in this much debatedpricing scheme.
Have existing schemes proven to be successful? What are the barriers to introduce congestion charging? How can we increase public
acceptance? Discover the answers in this e-update!

Register for ECOMM 2015: 18 nationalities have already confirmed their attendance
Inspiring sessions and keynotes will show the present and future of mobility management
The European Conference on Mobility Management (ECOMM) will take place in Utrecht from 20-22nd May. Witness inspiring sessions
and leading keynote speakers such as the young and visionary Stephanie Akkaoui Hughes - on the ‘Essence of architecture interaction’,or the internationally renowned professor and designer Paul Mijksenaar - who will explain why proactive and comprehensive information
is paramount for an effective mobility.
Networking at ECOMM will be even better with our newly introduced ECOMM App, that simplifies making business appointments and tohave a meet and greet with your European colleagues. You will get an exclusive excursion program with a unique and close look at theGrand Départ - Tour de France. ECOMM is the meeting place for experts, policy makers and advisors in mobility management. Join
ECOMM 2015 and share your knowledge and insights: register here. For more information please visit www.ecomm2015.eu

Congestion charging in EuropeA congestion charge is a charge for driving a vehicle in an urban area, often limited toworking hours. It belongs to the category of road pricing measures, which also includes tolls,
distance- or time-based fees and charges for polluting vehicles. Road pricing is typically
implemented as a way of paying back the cost of a debt financed road, but congestioncharging aims to influence traffic demand and to discourage the use of congested roads atcongested times.
Several cities have looked into the option of congestion charging (for some examples see
this list), and several studies suggest that a congestion charge would be beneficial, forinstance for Graz and Vienna in Austria (VCÖ fact sheet), and for Helsinki in Finland (studies
in 2009 and 2011).
However, only a few European cities have actually implemented it:• Durham, UK: Small-scale congestion charge (2002)• London, UK: The Congestion Charge (2003)• Stockholm, Sweden: The Congestion Tax (2006)• Valletta, Malta (2007)• Milan, Italy: Area C (2012) evolved from the pollution tax scheme Ecopass (2008)• Gothenburg, Sweden (2013; continuation rejected in September 2014)• In Norway, there is no real congestion charging, however, some road tolling schemes incities have similarities to congestion charging

Different designs, different objectives
The main rationale behind congestion charging is the internalisation of external costs. TheBritish Department for Transport estimates that almost half of the kilometres driven in the UKhave marginal external costs under 5 pence, while driving in the most congested areas of theUK is associated with extremely high marginal external costs of almost £2.50 per kilometre.
General fuel and vehicle taxes fail to address these externalities (Institute for Fiscal Studies:
Fuel for Thought).
There is a wide range of scheme design options that allow congestion charging to serve awide range of other policy aims as well. We will now take a closer look at the most frequently
cited policy aims and the results that existing charging schemes have yielded in these fields.
The former pay booth at exit for the congestion
charge in Durham. The system now uses
Automatic number plate recognition.

Reducing congestion and optimising the transport system
In many European cities, congestion leads to wasted time and subsequent economic costs(see the TomTom Traffic Index Europe 2013 annual report). In London, the efficient
operation of the transport system was the main aim of the Congestion Charge: reduced
congestion, improved bus services, improved journey time reliability for car drivers and more
efficient city logistics.
European charging schemes have had the following impacts:• Decrease of congestion: 30% in London (ex-post evaluation 2007)

Entrance of the Congestion Charge zone inLondon. Photo by Mariordo / CC BY-SA 3.0• Decrease in the numbers of private vehicles entering the charging area: 21% in London,
28.5% in Milan, and 29% in Stockholm; decrease in traffic levels by 85% in Durham.
Valletta saw a 60% decrease in long car stays, but a 34% increase in short car visits.
• Increase in public transport speeds during peak hour: 7% for buses and 4% for trams inMilan;
In Gothenburg peak hour traffic dropped by 20% in the first month of the charge, but after 10months traffic levels were only 8% to 11% lower than before the charge. In London,congestion levels have risen back to almost the same level as before. A possible explanationis the general increase in transport demand, but also the increase in construction sites in thecity centre and perhaps the conversion of more road space into cycling and pedestrian
facilities (sources: TfL’s 6th annual impacts monitoring report and roadpricing blogspot). In
any case, congestion in London would have been far worse without the scheme.
Improving air quality and reducing pollution
In Milan reduction of pollution was the initial focus. They started out with ECOPASS, apollution charge that caused a switch to cleaner cars but did not affect congestion levels. In
2012 it was replaced by Area C, a combination of a congestion charge with a low-emission
zone that cannot be entered by the most polluting vehicles.
Studies of the environmental effects of congestion charging show mixed results, butnevertheless significant reductions in air pollutants were found in Milan (CO2 -35% andPM10 -18%), London (CO2 and PM10 -12%) and Stockholm (PM10 -18%). (Source:Rupprecht Consult, 2014)*. Implementing a congestion charge, prepared in support of thedevelopment of an EMAS Sectoral Reference Document on Best Environmental
Management Practice for the Public Administration sector)
Generate revenue and promote modal shift
Congestion charging can be used to generate revenue to invest in sustainable transportmodes. Similarly, the four largest cities in Norway fund their SUMP or “City Package ofMeasures” (“Bypakke”) with the revenue of tolling schemes. Through these investments andthe economic disincentive of the fee, congestion charges can promote modal shift to walking,cycling and public transport. In Milan the number of public transport users increased by 12%
on surface transport and by 17% on the underground. Despite the declining impact on car
traffic in Gothenburg, the number of public transport passengers continued to increase
throughout the first year. The number of multimodal journeys increased by 10% and the carpark occupancy at park and ride facilities rose from less than 70% to 85%. Interestingly, astudy in Stockholm suggests that congestion charging schemes can encourage people tobecome more environmentally conscious in general.
More quality of life and road safety
A reduction in traffic and congestion frees up space for other purposes. As we mentioned
earlier, London has reallocated more road space to sustainable transport modes. Walking
and cycling also become safer as congestion drops. An important side effect of the London
CC was a decline in traffic crashes and bicycle accidents. In Milan the number of roadaccidents dropped by 24%.

Children cycling in Hyde Park in London

A sensitive debate
In some countries, like the Slovak Republic there is no legal basis to introduce congestion
charging. But even when there is one, congestion charging is still a very sensitive topic forpoliticians and citizens. Several planned schemes have died in political debate, e.g. New
York, or in public referendums, e.g. Edinburgh and Manchester, UK; and Gothenburg after
1.5 years of implementation. Even in countries with a long tradition in tolling schemes, suchas Norway, cities are still hesitant to implement congestion charges. Out of the existing eightcities schemes the cities of Trondheim and Kristiansand have time-differentiated tolling
schemes appearing as a congestion charging light. Norway has however no real roadcharging or congestion charging scheme even though the legal basis for it was established in
the Road Traffic Act in 2011. Overview map.
Opponents often regard the charge as yet another fee that raises the already high level oftaxation of the motorists. In Norway, some research reports suggested that the rush hourprice in Oslo had to be as high as NOK 30-40 (appr. €3.5 to €4.6) per trip to influence traffic
volumes.
Other objections include:

In 2006, the majority of surrounding municipalities
were against the Stockholm congestion tax(marked in red). Map by Slarre / CC BY-SA 3.0• the displacement of traffic into adjacent areas. In many cases no such effect has been
observed, but in Gothenburg it has;
• Customer loss for businesses within the area. Much debated in London, but one study
suggests impact was mostly neutral;• Costs of installing charging technology and higher administration costs than traditional
tax collection;• Inequality: a congestion charge is a regressive (flat) tax, meaning that low-income
groups pay a much larger share of their income than the more affluent. This discussion
is currently going on in China.

Congestion charging in Gothenburg - Photo by
Erik Lundin / CC BY-SA 3.0

In any case, a city needs excellent and affordable alternatives to the car when it implements
a congestion charge. Most cities that have successfully implemented a charge have invested
a lot in public transport improvements and infrastructure for walking and cycling. In fact,
insufficient public transport capacity is one of the main reasons why the city of Helsinki inFinland still hesitates to implement a congestion charge (read more here).

How to win support?
Of course, congestion or air pollution needs to be perceived as a real problem in the city if acongestion charge is to be accepted by the public. This probably explains why in the smallercity of Gothenburg the scheme was rejected after 1.5 years, while in the much larger Milan astaggering 79% of voters said yes to Area C, and public support in Stockholm rose from 36%
to 74% after implementation.
Stockholm took the hurdle of public opposition by proposing a temporary 7-month trial, which
was accepted by a slight majority (51%). In combination with a massive and costly
improvement of public transport, the test managed to win citizens over for a permanent
scheme. Another experiment that might give citizens a taste of the goals of congestion
charging, is to make a neighbourhood almost completely car-free for a month, like they did in
the first EcoMobility World Festival in Suwon in South-Korea.
The centre of Valletta in 2005 - Photo by Jens
Reimann / CC BY-SA 1.0

The interest of businesses located in the area can be taken into account with specialmeasures. In Milan, the charging period ends early on Thursday so that people can takeadvantage of late shopping (Source: ec.europa.eu). In Valletta, companies, restaurants andshops can buy congestion charge vouchers to offer free parking time for their employees orcustomers. In Area C residents of the restricted zone get their first 40 accesses for free everyyear .

The exclusive use of the revenues to improve mobility-related infrastructure and services andto boost the accessibility and liveability of the congestion charge zone helps to make thecongestion charge more publicly acceptable. The London Congestion Charge has the explicit
support of the business membership organisation London First, as congestion represents amajor economic cost for businesses.

Alternatives to congestion charging
According to the Economist, congestion cannot be tackled sufficiently without some form ofroad user charging. "To me, it is hard to understand why we in capitalistic societies, wherewe use the market to distribute most of the goods in life, still use queues and congestion todistribute road space," says Björn Abelsson from the municipality of Sundsvalls on LinkedIn.
But of course, each city will have to evaluate if a congestion charge is the best fit for theircity’s transport system and political climate. Let’s have a look at some alternatives.

Photo by Holger.Ellgaard / CC BY-SA 3.0

Despite the successful example of small-scale congestion charging in Durham, smaller cities
with a compact, “walkable” centre would probably prefer to invest in the pedestrianisation ofstreets and allocating more road space to PT and cycling. (Rupprecht Consult, 2014)
Judging from the number of schemes, access restrictions seem to be less controversial
and probably cheaper to implement. Some schemes contain elements of congestion
charging, such as the Limited Traffic Zones in Italy (e.g. Rome, Genoa, Florence), where
access is restricted to specific users such as residents, taxi drivers and disabled people andsome of those users need to pay an annual fee for their permit.

Photo by Andrew Hill / CC BY-SA 2.0

Access restrictions or charges for polluting vehicles in low-emission zones (LEZ) are quite
common in Germany, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Germany, municipalities wererather forced to introduce them e.g. by environmental organisations going to court. They arestill much debated and a study revealed that much better effects for clean air could beachieved by applying measures such as restricting or redirecting or slowing down traffic in
only about 25% of the time compared to permanent measures. In Austria the firstenvironmental zone, to be located in Graz, never made it through the referendum. LEZ canbe successfully combined with congestion charging, as demonstrated in Area C in Milan andthe LEZ that covers most of Greater London. Additionally, by 2020 the London congestion
charge zone will be turned into an ultra low-emission zone, creating an extra charge on top of
the congestion charge.
To a certain extent, managing parking supply and raising parking fees can achieve the same
objectives as a congestion charge. In 2012 Nottingham introduced a Workplace Parking Levy
as an alternative to congestion charging and this option is now being explored by several
other UK local authorities as a less politically controversial means of reducing congestion
and raising revenue to fund transport improvements. But obviously, parked cars do notcontribute to congestion as much as moving ones, parking fees do not affect through-traffic,
and many car drivers have free parking spaces in the city centre. When combined, parking
management and congestion charging can create important synergies. Or parking fees canbe reduced when a congestion charge is introduced to make the charge more politicallypalatable, as happened in Singapore for example.

Photo by Psychonaut/Markus Baumer / CC BYSA 2.0

In Jakarta in Indonesia and Beijing in China alternative demand management schemes areon the verge of being replaced by a congestion charge. In Jakarta the charge would replace
the existing “three-in-one” car-pooling scheme , which requires at least three people in a car
along some roads in Jakarta during the morning and evening rush hours on weekdays. InBeijing, China, there currently is an End Number License Plate Policy prohibiting cars withplates ending in a certain number from driving in the city centre on certain days. There is alsoa License Plate Lottery, limiting the number of new license plates to be registered eachmonth.
In the Netherlands, there have been many experiments with a more voluntary approach forrelieving congestion during peak hours, with many peak avoidance projects mostly onhighways.
Belgium, a very densely populated and congested country, is rather considering a national
kilometre taxation system. A scheme for trucks will be implemented in 2016 (see this video)
but a proposed kilometre charge for private vehicles generated a heated debate and has notbeen concretised so far. In 2011, a trial project with a fictitious kilometre charge showed thatpeople do change their behaviour for the better and congestion can be relieved throughkilometre charging. The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communication also studied thebenefits of a potential shift to a kilometre taxation system (2014).

Photo by Certo Xornal / CC BY 2.0

Combination of measures
It is important to consider congestion charging as embedded in a SUMP with a whole set ofother sustainable mobility measures. Congestion charges can deter some drivers, but ascongestion levels are reduced, others may find driving into the city more attractive. Mobility
management can play an important role in mitigating the negative impacts of a charge insurrounding areas, and can help build a lasting impact on people’s travel behavior.
In London congestion charging works in conjunction with mobility management measures
such as awareness campaigns, and school and company travel plans. Similarly, Nottingham
uses the workplace parking levy together with mobility management instruments to improvetransport options in the city.
Photo by Nevilley / CC BY-SA 3.0

Another powerful combination is to promote car-pooling together with the congestion
charging scheme. Instant car-pool matching tools could offer an alternative to the private carwith a degree of flexibility that public transport could never accomplish. The Norwegian
National Road Authority runs a pilot project (link in NO) in Bergen, and the city council has
asked for an assessment of introducing a tolling rebate for cars that are used for ridesharing.
But when we look at the debate around the app Uber, it becomes clear that there are somelegal issues to sort out before car-pooling can become a full part of the transport offer.
The HentMEG car-pooling app in Bergen,
Norway. http://2pluss.info/

What will the future bring?
It is clear that congestion charging can be a powerful instrument, if the necessary legal basis
and transport alternatives are in place. It is hard to say if congestion charging will really
become a wide-spread phenomenon and it is up to local authorities and their citizens to
decide if they are ready to take this bold step.

Discover moreIn the past, several resources were developed on the subject of congestion charging androad pricing:• Overview of road charging schemes and LEZs: www.urbanaccessregulations.eu• An overview of EU legislation• http://roadpricing.blogspot.com• TIDE e-learning course: Road user charging: how it works, the challenges and thebenefits. (Rupprecht Academy, 2014)• Paper Nordic Communications Corporation: Road pricing by tradable slots (2013)
Source: openstreetmap.org / CC BY-SA 2.0• Thesis Lund University: Congestion pricing in urban areas – Theory and case studies.
(Jarl, 2009)• COMPETENCE Reference material ‘Congestion and road pricing’ (2006)• CURACAO project – knowledge base on urban road user charging and case studies*To be published: Rupprecht Consult, 2014. Implementing a congestion charge, prepared insupport of the development of an EMAS Sectoral Reference Document on Best
Environmental Management Practice for the Public Administration sector

Upcoming events• PUMAS Final Conference
12 May 2015 – Venice, Italy
www.eltis.org• CIVITAS training on company mobility management
20 May 2015 – Utrecht, The Netherlands (at the ECOMM)
www.civitas.eu• ECOMM – European Conference on Mobility Management
20-22 May 2015, Utrecht, Netherlands
see website, brief overview and registration• 2nd European conference on SUMP
16-17 June 2015 – Bucharest, Romania
www.eltis.org• 3rd World Collaborative Mobility Congress (Wocomoco)
25-26 June 2015, Innsbruck, Austria
see website
For more events, please visit the EPOMM Calendar.