World review of road pricing: Phase 2 - final report
3. Worldwide progress of road pricing
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This Chapter presents a review of the information gathered on emerging Road
Pricing schemes across the world. An initial identification of Road Pricing schemes
across the world revealed a large number of potential schemes, as shown in Table 3.1, including those researched as part of the Phase 1 review. Drawing upon
information from the desktop research exercise each of the potential schemes tended
to fall into one of the following categories according to its current status, i.e.:
- Schemes included as part of the Phase 1 Review;
- Schemes that appear likely to be implemented in the near future by having some
level of commitment or implementation plan;
- Schemes that have no evidence of firm commitment formally or informally but
had been a subject of some detailed technical study; and
- Schemes that have no evidence of commitment but had been associated with
the concept of Road Pricing at some stage.
3.1.2 It should be noted that other than Category (i), categorisation is necessarily
subjective given the nature of information that is freely available about the status of
individual schemes.
3.1.3 The locations with emerging Road Pricing proposals outlined in bold in Table 3.1
have been selected as case study locations. Case study locations were selected to
provide a suitably broad range of stages of development, contexts and geographical
areas. The selection of case study locations was also partially influenced by the
availability of information, with the impact that emerging proposals in Category (iv)
are less well represented in the short-list. It should be noted that certain established
(i.e. Category (i) schemes) continue to evolve, including London and Stockholm, and
these have been included in the case studies.
3.1.4 Table 3.2 provides headline statistics on the characteristics of each case study
location.
Table 3.1 - Classifications of locations associated with road pricing
| Continent |
Category (i)
Included in Phase 1 |
Category (ii)
Implementation likely |
Category (iii)
Some development |
Category (iv)
Little or no development |
| Europe |
Austria
Bergen
Durham
London
France
Germany
Hungary
M6 Toll
Oslo
Rome
Stockholm
Switzerland
Trondheim |
Prague
Genoa
Venice
Milan |
Helsinki
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Netherlands
Barcelona
Bologna
Cardiff
Bristol (Gtr)
Tyne & Wear
Shropshire
Durham
Cambridge
West Midlands
East Midlands
Reading
Norfolk |
Nantes
Lyon
Grenoble
Berlin
Munich
Frankfurt
Reggio Emilia
Forli
Padua
Riga
Vilnius
Arnhem - Nijmegen
Amsterdam
Utrecht
The Hague
Warsaw
Madrid
Plymouth
Belfast
Edinburgh
Dublin
Graz |
| USA & Canada |
Orange County
New York - Port Authority
San Diego
Toronto |
|
San Francisco
Seattle |
Calgary
Montreal
Vancouver |
| South America |
Santiago |
|
|
Sao Paulo
Santiago |
| Asia |
Japan
Singapore |
Shanghai |
Wuhan
Port Louis
Hohg Kong |
Beijing
Tokyo
Seoul
Kuala Lumpur |
| Africa |
|
|
|
Cape Town |
| Australasia |
Melbourne |
|
Auckland
Wellington |
Sydney |
Table 3.2 - Characteristics of case study locations
| City |
Population
(city administrative area) |
Population
(wider urban area) |
Area - km2
(city administrative area) |
Area - km2
(wider urban area) |
Mean population density
(population per km2) |
Car ownership
(cars per 1000 population) |
| Local areas |
| London |
7,500,000
(GLA area) |
8,500,000 |
1,579
(GLA area) |
- |
4,761 |
365 |
| Cardiff |
319,700 |
- |
140 |
- |
2,263 |
355 |
| Rome |
2,550,000 |
3,830,000 |
1,285 |
5,352 |
1,983 |
645 |
| Genoa |
620,000 |
890,000 |
243 |
- |
2,553 |
665 |
| Barcelona |
1,590,000 |
4,230,000 |
100 |
3,240 |
15,869
(city area) |
410 |
| Madrid |
3,230,000 |
5,180,000 |
607 |
8,000 |
4,886 |
322 |
| Copenhagen |
501,000 |
1,210,000 |
88 |
456 |
2,659 |
275 |
| Prague |
1,180,000 |
- |
496 |
- |
2,357 |
500 |
| Helsinki |
563,000 |
891,000 |
184
(excl. water) |
743 |
3,050 |
322 |
| Stockholm |
777,000 |
1,210,000 |
375 |
- |
3,230 |
386 |
| New York City |
8,100,000 |
18,500,000 |
786
(excl. water) |
8,683 |
10,316 |
N/A |
| San Francisco |
739,000 |
3,390,000 |
121
(excl. water) |
8,869 |
6,115 |
N/A |
| Seattle |
574,000 |
3,810,000 |
369
(excl. water) |
21,202 |
2,665 |
N/A |
| Auckland |
1,240,000 |
- |
1,086 |
- |
989 |
500 |
| Shanghai |
9,840,000 |
17,400,000 |
6,341 |
- |
2,750 |
50 |
| Hong Kong |
7,040,000 |
- |
1,103 |
- |
6,295 |
48 |
| National areas |
| England |
50,400,000 |
N/A |
130,395 |
N/A |
377 |
460 |
| Netherlands |
16,300,000 |
N/A |
41,526 |
N/A |
395 |
376 |
Note: Various Sources
3.2 Current status of the case study road pricing schemes
3.2.1 All the case study schemes are different in some way. The schemes are at different
stages of development, incorporate different characteristics, have subtly different
objectives, different histories and appear to have different levels of support. This
makes generalising across case studies difficult and for details of individual emerging
Road Pricing schemes the case study proformas provided in Appendix a should be
referred to for detail. Nevertheless, it is possible to pick out a number of key
conclusions on scheme status.
National and local road pricing schemes
3.2.2 First, from the identification of emerging schemes worldwide there is a critical
distinction between local and national Road Pricing schemes. Only two emerging
Road Pricing schemes can be considered as national in their proposed coverage -
those for the UK (as set out in various policy statements and as addressed in the DfT's Feasibility Study of Road Pricing in the UK) and the Netherlands (as
documented in the case study included in this report). Neither of these two national
schemes can be considered committed. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is no
definite proposal for a national scheme in England and the UK - though a study of
the feasibility of such a scheme has been undertaken. In the Netherlands, while
plans are more developed, there is also as yet no firm commitment to
implementation. It is noted that partial national schemes already exist in Germany,
Austria and Switzerland in the form of lorry road user charging schemes, with the
Czech Republic and Slovakia also expected to implement lorry charging schemes.
3.2.3 The distinction between national and local schemes is important in considering the
attributes of and driving forces behind emerging Road Pricing proposals and is used
in subsequent sections of this chapter.
Progression towards implementation
3.2.4 The categorisation of emerging Road Pricing schemes presented in Table 3.1
attempts to identify how far away from implementation each of the schemes are.
Across the case studies there are two main distinctions: proposals for the extension
or modification of implemented schemes (that were identified in the Phase 1 review);
and proposals for emerging schemes that are some way off implementation.
Modifications to existing schemes
3.2.5 London is obviously the most advanced in implementing a full Road Pricing scheme
out of all the case studies, but for the most of the report the progress of London in
developing Road Pricing will be considered in terms of future developments, beyond
that of the planned western extension.
3.2.6 Stockholm could then be said to be the most advanced as the permanent
implementation of the initial pilot scheme has been agreed by the government since
the referendum, but aspects of the scheme such as the level of charge may well
change. The Stockholm pilot scheme is planned to be restarted on a permanent
basis from 2007.
Emerging schemes
3.2.7 Despite the profile of Road Pricing across the world, and an increasing amount of
'noise' generated through various media about the progression of Road Pricing
schemes, none of the case study locations other than London and Stockholm have
developed schemes to into firm Road Pricing propositions.
3.2.8 Expectations formed in the first stage of the research that the level of noise
surrounding schemes could be a fair approximation of their development and
progression of implementation was often found to be misleading.
3.2.9 Generally Road Pricing propositions are not far developed in any of the cases
examined. Nevertheless, in most case study locations there is a positive expectation
that Road Pricing will be implemented and in many instances aspirational time
horizons are quoted.
3.2.10 Cases considered to have fairly well developed plans that appear to be moving
towards a firm Road Pricing proposition are listed below, including when each
scheme might realistically be implemented - though no formal commitment has been
made:
- Prague (2010);
- Shanghai (2008-2010);
- Auckland (2015-2020);
- Cardiff (2010);
- Copenhagen (2009);
- Genoa ; and
- The Netherlands (2012 national scheme).
3.2.11 It is noted that during the research, Milan appears to have emerged as a scheme
likely to be implemented in the near future. It is reported that a trial scheme focused
on the city centre area is due to commence in early 2007. Milan has not been
included in the case studies as it was not possible to obtain more detailed information
on the scheme.
3.2.12 Amongst the other case study locations the degree of progression to a firm Road
Pricing proposition and to implementation is vague and difficult to assess.
- While San Francisco, Seattle and Helsinki have not developed plans to any level
of detail they are currently developing and scoping proposals for future
consideration.
- New York, Rome, Barcelona and Madrid are considering Road Pricing but
currently do not appear to be moving towards developing a firm Road Pricing
proposition.
3.2.13 New York and Rome have in the past considered how charging could be introduced
and have received support from many areas. However, in recent years there has
been no political movement to take this further largely because of an apparent lack of
support and subsequently its proposal being seen as 'political suicide'. In New York
this may yet change as in order to bridge an emerging funding gap the Mayor may be
forced to seriously consider how Road Pricing could be introduced.
3.2.14 Rome, Madrid and Barcelona are, though, actively implementing a series of
measures to manage traffic and congestion in varying degrees across the city. The
main measure in Rome is a restricted zone where access is with an annual licence
only. This is different to other Road Pricing schemes which tend to allow journeys,
including irregular and infrequent journeys, if the driver is willing to pay the charge.
Barcelona is also restricting parking to residents and local business in order to
dissuade other car travel. Consequently, neither of these schemes is considered to
be a Road Pricing scheme within our definition. Madrid is only at the stage of
developing a range of Travel Demand Management measures largely to increase
modal share of sustainable transport modes.
3.2.15 Other cities have also implemented a number of non-Road Pricing Travel Demand
Management measures. Seattle and Washington State have a series of High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes which originally were intended to benefit cars carrying passengers and encourage car-sharing. It is expected that these, like others
across America, will be altered to allow single occupancy vehicles, i.e. nonpassenger
carrying vehicles, to use these less congested lanes in return for a
distance based charge. This is intended to reduce congestion on other lanes of the
highway and to raise revenue. Because it does not directly charge for a route or
network, it is not considered as a Road Pricing scheme in this study's context. Also in
a large number of cases, toll-roads operate mainly to raise revenues, such as the
New York bridges; USA highways; Prague (for foreign drivers and shortly freight); the
Italian motorways; and Hong Kong.
3.2.16 One of the case studies investigated, Hong Kong had undertaken a feasibility study
but did not subsequently go on to implement the scheme. There were a raft of
reasons for Road Pricing not being progressed, but the strongest seems to relate to
public and political support against the background of a changing political framework.
There is presently no evidence that a Road Pricing scheme is re-emerging as an
option. Hong Kong has implemented a number of changes in their road tax structure
to discourage increasing car ownership, which it did successfully, although there was
little impact on congestion levels. There is also debate over the current tolling
arrangements where charges on those operated by private companies are higher
than those operated by the Government.
Technology trials
3.2.17 To further understand the operation of Road Pricing schemes some locations have
undertaken trials of different Road Pricing operating systems rather than purely
technologies. Genoa trialled a cordon charge using Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) cameras. This informed subsequent proposals for progressing
with Road Pricing. Seattle has also completed a trial with over 400 participants to see
how drivers behave under a kilometre charge that might be used to replace fixed
taxes. A similar trial was undertaken in Copenhagen although with the focus on
assessing pricing structures. Stockholm is, of course, the most substantial trial
undertaken which, unlike Genoa and Seattle, operated at full scale.
Road pricing studies
3.2.18 To refine initial proposals some locations have undertaken scoping studies. These
review various scenarios and consider details of a scheme's characteristics.
Locations that have undertaken such studies in the past include: New York (2005);
Prague (2004); Shanghai (2004); Hong Kong (2001); and the Netherlands (1999). Of
these only Shanghai has built upon the scoping study and progressed to a more
detailed assessment. The other locations have either changed their scheme (e.g.
Netherlands moving from local schemes to a national scheme) or dropped Road
Pricing altogether.
3.2.19 The majority of locations are currently undertaking or reviewing results of more
detailed studies into Road Pricing. These include: San Francisco; Seattle; Shanghai
(2nd Round); Auckland; Cardiff; Genoa; Helsinki; Copenhagen and the Netherlands.
The direction and shape of any Road Pricing scheme is expected to be dependant on
the outcome of these deliberations.
Describing the emerging schemes
3.2.20 Against this backdrop of different contexts and different levels of scheme progression
four main themes have been used to describe the emerging Road Pricing schemes
examined by the case studies, as follows:
- the aims and objectives of a scheme;
- background to the transport policy and political considerations;
- the form of any proposed scheme; and
- the current position regarding the public, media and stakeholders.
3.2.21 These themes are common to all schemes across the world. It is possible in some
cases to further break these down into more detailed sub-themes. But in many cases
the schemes are not far enough developed to provide sufficient detail for this.
3.2.22 Considering the available level of detail, each of the 17 case studies was researched
around these key elements and then analysed along a thematic approach. This has
enabled comparisons between locations to be made.
3.2.23 It should be noted that often locations had not developed or considered aspects of
schemes sufficiently to comment and therefore occasionally only a limited number of
cases are referred to.
3.3 Aims and objectives of scheme proposals
Primary objectives
3.3.1 The primary objectives identified for each of the emerging schemes is shown in Table
3.3. In order to enable some form of benchmarking with the status of Road Pricing
in the UK, the table also shows an assessment of the stated objectives of Road
Pricing in the context of the UK. A distinction has been made between the objectives
of a national scheme (as per the DfT's Feasibility Study of Road Pricing in the UK
study) and local schemes (as per Congestion TIF).
3.3.2 It is noted that the means by which objectives are identified and expressed across
the case study areas does vary. Additionally, certain objectives are linked to one
another.
3.3.3 However, the above analysis does clearly indicate that the most clearly focused
objective of Road Pricing is that of targeting congestion. Overall, though, Road
Pricing is seen as having multiple objectives.
Table 3.3 - Objectives of road pricing as stated by case studies
|
Reduce congestion |
Improve air quality |
Prevent climate change |
Sustain economy |
Improve urban environment |
Raise funds for transport |
Modify / replace taxation regime |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| London |
√ |
(√)
(also LEZ) |
(√)
(also LEZ) |
√ |
|
|
|
| Cardiff |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
(√) |
|
| Rome |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
| Genoa |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Barcelona |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
| Madrid |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
| Copenhagen |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prague |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
| Helsinki |
√ |
|
|
|
|
(√) |
|
| Stockholm |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
| New York |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√
(potentially) |
|
| San Francisco |
√ |
(√) |
(√) |
(√) |
(√) |
(√) |
|
| Seattle |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
| Auckland |
√ |
|
|
|
|
(√) |
|
| Shanghai |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hong Kong |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| National schemes |
| England |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
| Netherlands |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
Note: √ - Primary Aim; (√) - Secondary Aim
3.3.4 Only Genoa, Copenhagen and Hong Kong have a single key aim of reducing
congestion without specifically stating other objectives. In the context of local Road
Pricing schemes in the UK, the primary stated objective is considered to be that of
targeting congestion, even though other sub-objectives could be viewed as linked to
this.
3.3.5 A number of locations have the primary aim of reducing congestion with one or more
secondary objectives. These locations include San Francisco, Auckland and Helsinki.
The UK - as a national scheme - although having similar broad objectives to the
Netherlands, does not appear to have an explicit objective to modify the existing tax
system.
3.3.6 In London there are a number of key aims, related to air quality and pollution, which
have benefited from the traffic changes. These objectives are also being tackled
through complementary schemes such as Low Emissions Zone (LEZ).
3.3.7 New York has two primary objectives: reducing congestion and improving air quality.
It further recognises the importance of a number of additional factors including
redirecting freight traffic from the city centre, providing economic sustainability and
improving the public realm. Currently the opportunity to raise additional revenue to
fund transport is a secondary issue, although this may become more important if the
Mayor does decide to propose Road Pricing.
3.3.8 The Stockholm trial was originally implemented in the face of increasing congestion,
but with equal intentions of improving accessibility and improving the environment
alongside understanding how a scheme might enhance the transport system.
Stockholm may yet be adding another aim to the list as the Alliance government state
that Road Pricing will be introduced and the revenues reinvested in building a ring
road around the city. To reinforce the importance of this there is already suggestion
that the scheme will be operational only as long as revenues are required to build
roads. This arrangement is along the same lines as those in Norway, particularly
Trondheim, where revenues were ring-fenced for a transport infrastructure project
until a certain point in time, which has now passed and so the charge has been duly
terminated.
3.3.9 Other cases have more than one objective for Road Pricing, but report them to be of
equal significance including Shanghai, Seattle, Prague, Cardiff and Madrid.
3.3.10 Only Rome does not target congestion as an issue in itself, but rather is treated as a
by-product through improving mobility, increasing public transport mode share,
protecting health and preserving their historical and architectural heritage.
3.3.11 It is noted that many of the case studies examined do explicitly have an objective to
raise revenues to provide funds for reinvestment in the transport system. This is not
a stated objective for the UK.
3.3.12 Additionally, despite the increasing focus on tackling climate change due to
emissions from transport sources, not all the emerging schemes have explicit
objectives for this - including the UK in relation to local schemes.
Use of revenues
3.3.13 The use of revenues derived from Road Pricing has been considered key to the
acceptability of Road Pricing schemes. This has been an important factor in London
where around £90million of net revenues each year have been used to fund public
transport improvements in and around the charging zone as well as transport
projects around the Capital that encourage more sustainable transport and travel
away from the most congested areas. Other Road Pricing cases around the world
link revenues to funding transport infrastructure of one sort or another.
3.3.14 However, unlike London, many cases are intending to use net revenues to support
transport projects that are not necessarily related to the introduction of Road Pricing
and a package of wider Travel Demand Management measures. These include;
Seattle; New York; Prague; Auckland; Cardiff; the Netherlands; and now Stockholm.
3.3.15 It is worth noting that although London does currently have an obligation to invest
revenues in transport, this was originally only to be the case for 10 years, after which
the Treasury would have responsibility for investing net revenues. The Mayor has negotiated an extension to this so that the 10 year period starts again after the
implementation of the extension such that transport in London will continue to benefit
from Road Pricing revenues until at least 2017.
Table 3.4 - Expected use of revenues from schemes
|
For local
transport |
To bridge
funding gap |
To replace / modify
existing tax regime |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
√ |
|
|
| London |
√ |
|
|
| Cardiff |
√ |
√ |
|
| Rome |
√ |
|
|
| Genoa |
√ |
|
|
| Barcelona |
√ |
|
|
| Madrid |
√
(through city's
budget) |
|
|
| Copenhagen |
√ |
|
|
| Prague |
|
√ |
|
| Helsinki |
√ |
√ |
|
| Stockholm |
√
(for trial) |
√
(proposed for
scheme) |
|
| New York |
√ |
√
(potentially) |
|
| San Francisco |
√ |
√ |
|
| Seattle |
√ |
|
√ |
| Auckland |
√ |
√ |
|
| Shanghai |
√ |
|
|
| Hong Kong |
√ |
|
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
3.3.16 Evidence for Seattle and the Netherlands indicates that they do intend to use Road
Pricing revenues to modify the current road tax systems with a system that is
deemed to be more closely related to the level of road use. In the UK under the
national scheme the possibility of replacing the current fixed tax system has been
identified though there is no commitment to such a measure.
3.3.17 Overall, the majority of the case study locations with local schemes intend to use
revenues on improvements to the local transport system. Specifically, Shanghai, San
Francisco; Genoa, Copenhagen and Helsinki all have proposals for reinvestment in
measures that will support the impacts of Road Pricing. Although Copenhagen
intends to implement Travel Demand Management measures and improve public
transport without additional funding from Road Pricing, they do recognise the
importance of this hypothecation towards gaining acceptability of a scheme.
Barcelona, Madrid and Rome are locations that are really focussing on Travel
Demand Management rather than Road Pricing. Barcelona and Rome expect
revenues to be reinvested in improving transport, although in Madrid revenues would
be expected to be part of the larger 'pot' of the City's budget.
3.4 Policy rationale for proposals
3.4.1 The status and progress of Road Pricing in a given city or country is dependant on
many factors. Some of the key drivers and inhibitors relate to the current political
climate and policies, the level of commitment, existing legislation and available
funding.
Policy responsibilities
3.4.2 Table 3.5 below identifies whether the progression of emerging Road Pricing
schemes is driven by policy set at local, regional or national levels, and the extent to
which policy makes a solid commitment to developing a scheme.
Table 3.5 - Position of responsibility for road pricing policy and current commitments
|
Local |
Regional |
National |
Commitment to
road pricing |
| Local schemes |
| England |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Local schemes driven by a national framework |
| London |
|
√ |
|
Mayor's Transport Strategy |
| Cardiff |
√ |
|
|
None - expected soon by Assembly |
| Rome |
√ |
|
|
None - other than to Travel Demand Management |
| Genoa |
√ |
|
|
None - expected in UMP 2007 |
| Barcelona |
√ |
|
|
None |
| Madrid |
√ |
|
|
None |
| Copenhagen |
√ |
|
|
None - expected in 2007 |
| Prague |
√ |
|
|
None - other than to Travel Demand Management |
| Helsinki |
|
√ |
|
None - other than to Travel Demand Management and revision planned for 2007 |
| Stockholm |
|
|
√ |
Verbal from Prime Minister |
| New York |
√ |
√ |
|
None |
| San Francisco |
√ |
|
|
None |
| Seattle |
√ |
√ |
|
None |
| Auckland |
√ |
√ |
|
None - but planned Auckland Transport Plan |
| Shanghai |
√ |
√ |
|
None |
| Hong Kong |
|
√ |
|
None |
| National schemes |
| England |
|
√ |
√ |
White Paper |
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
In Mobility Policy Document |
3.4.3 Overall, the responsibility for Road Pricing lies with the transport authority, although
in some cases this is divided as is responsibility for different aspects of the transport
network. In London this position was clarified when the power to implement Road
Pricing was given to TfL under the 1999 GLA Act.
3.4.4 In Shanghai, Seattle and New York responsibility lies across local and also provincial
(or regional) government. In the case of New York this is seen to have potential
pitfalls. The City of New York has very different characteristics to the State of New
York. The City is highly dependent on the public transport network and has to support
a vast economy. It is not considered that the State is 'representative' of the City.
Responsibility for New York City's transport research lies locally although policy is set
by both the City and the State government. The Mayor is an additional factor who,
although having no political power in this area is seen to be the 'voice' of New
Yorkers and can be very influential in gaining acceptance and support. The outcome
of this could be that policy does not reflect the needs of New York as a World City.
3.4.5 In the case of Seattle a scheme could be implemented in the Puget Sound Region
(containing Seattle and its suburbs) by the Regional Council. However, if the scheme
were to be focused on replacing the existing tax system this would become the
responsibility of, and have to apply across, the wider State of Washington.
3.4.6 In the majority of cases the development of Road Pricing schemes has benefited
from local positioning of power. Rome, Genoa, Barcelona, Madrid, Copenhagen,
Prague, Cardiff and San Francisco are effectively governed by their City Councils
meaning power lies at the heart of the area. The benefit of this is apparent in some of
the cases where there is a short implementation time scale such as in Copenhagen,
Prague and Cardiff. It should be noted that these cities would have to rely on
legislation being implemented nationally.
3.4.7 Helsinki is slightly different in that responsibility lies within the region, the
Metropolitan Area Council, which also includes three other cities. Partly as a result of
this only a scheme for the whole region is being considered. In Hong Kong there is
also regional responsibility for transport policy, although Road Pricing has largely
only been considered within the Central and Kowloon areas.
3.4.8 Auckland and Stockholm are different in that any Road Pricing proposal must be
passed by national Government despite being driven locally. In Stockholm the City
Council applied to the government for permission to conduct a trial. This was agreed
and the trial undertaken in two parts with an initial improvement in public transport in
2005 and then a six month trial in 2006.
3.4.9 The national scheme in the Netherlands is the responsibility of the Government,
although accelerated Travel Demand Management schemes in local areas to target
congestion prior to a national scheme will be implemented with the cooperation of the
local governments. This is not expected to be problematic as areas such as
Rotterdam and The Hague have traditionally been keen to implement Road Pricing.
Commitment to road pricing
3.4.10 There is little evidence of clear commitments to implementing Road Pricing in the
local or national transport strategies and plans relating to the case study locations.
3.4.11 The Netherlands is the clearest where the government's Mobility Policy Document to
2020, published in September 2005, states that;
3.4.12 "The cabinet considers the introduction of a kilometre fee in combination with a
reduction in road taxes to be a workable alternative."
3.4.13 The Implementation Memorandum for the Policy Document goes further towards
making a decision on Road Pricing;
"The state will take all steps needed to introduce a system for levying a
'fast-track fee'. The proceeds will be used to expedite the resolution of
existing bottlenecks. To enable a future cabinet to reach a decision
regarding the introduction of a road pricing system, the current cabinet
will make all necessary preparations. The introduction of such a system
will coincide with a lowering of road and/or vehicle taxes."
3.4.14 England has a similar level of commitment as described in section 2.3. However, a
national scheme in the UK is not considered to be as well developed as in the
Netherlands in terms of reaching an implementation plan.
3.4.15 In London there has obviously been a clear commitment to Road Pricing, although at
present there is no formal commitment to long term plans beyond the western
extension.
3.4.16 Also on a local level the closest written commitment is in the San Francisco 30 year
2004 Countrywide Transportation Plan which commits to developing schemes to
tackle congestion, one option of which is Road Pricing.
3.4.17 Prague, Copenhagen, Barcelona, Rome, Shanghai and Helsinki do commit to
developing Travel Demand Management measures in their transport plans, although
not specifically Road Pricing. Copenhagen intends to have a clear commitment within
the City Council to Road Pricing by early 2007. Auckland and Genoa are developing
plans which are intended to shape commitment within transport plans.
3.4.18 Hong Kong, Seattle and New York are the exceptions. Based upon reviewed
evidence, there is no current commitment to Road Pricing. However, in Hong Kong
there have in the past been measures taken to reduce car ownership levels. In
Seattle and Washington there is a wider programme of Travel Demand Management
measures and past discussions continue to support the further study of Road Pricing.
Legislative requirements
3.4.19 Table 3.6 shows the current position regarding legislation required to implement a
Road Pricing scheme. In the majority of cases there is existing legislation which
allows for the tolling or collecting of revenues for funding transport infrastructure. In
these situations, rather than introducing completely new legislation, it may be
possible to revise that already in place to cover a particular Road Pricing scheme.
Table 3.6 - Legislation requirements for road pricing
|
Legislation in
place |
Revisions required to
existing legislation /
legislative precedent
set |
Full legislation
required |
| Local schemes |
| England |
√ |
|
|
| London |
√ |
|
|
| Cardiff |
|
|
√ |
| Rome |
|
√ |
|
| Genoa |
|
√ |
|
| Barcelona |
|
|
√ |
| Madrid |
|
√ |
|
| Copenhagen |
|
|
√ |
| Prague |
|
√ |
|
| Helsinki |
|
|
√ |
| Stockholm |
|
√ |
|
| New York |
|
√ |
|
| San Francisco |
|
√ |
|
| Seattle |
|
√ |
|
| Auckland |
|
√ |
|
| Shanghai |
|
|
√ (local) |
| Hong Kong |
|
|
√ |
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
3.4.20 London is the only case where there is legislation fully in place for building upon the
current scheme. Although, similar to London, there is legislation in place to
implement schemes across the UK, there is none in place for a national scheme.
This is also true of the Netherlands, although there is legislation being developed to
allow the first stage of a scheme in tolling areas of severe congestion.
3.4.21 Cases that require completely new legislation are: Shanghai, who need local
legislation and intend to set up an agency responsible to deal with all Road Pricing
aspects; Hong Kong, despite current operating tolls; Cardiff, who have made some
ground by already decriminalising parking offences for improved management and
need the Welsh Assembly Government also to introduce legislation; Copenhagen;
Barcelona; and Helsinki. Copenhagen considers legislation from Government to be
the biggest risk in delaying the implementation date of 2009.
3.4.22 In Stockholm the Swedish Parliament adopted the Common Congestion Charges
Law which contained an annex relating to the Stockholm trial and should cover future
Road Pricing schemes. This would need to be revised for the scheme to be
introduced permanently.
3.4.23 Some cases have existing legislation that provides a precedent or basis for
developing more specific requirements. San Francisco has a 'Prop K' half cent tax on
sales in the State that is administered by the San Francisco County Transportation
Authority (SFCTA) and dedicated towards transport improvements. Although
legislation for tolls exists in many locations this would not apply to area charges as is
the case in Genoa, nor would it allow the reallocation of revenues to replace road tax,
as is the case in Seattle and the Netherlands.
3.4.24 In the case of Prague there is already legislation for restricted zones that charge non
residents or business users for entering. This would have to be revised to allow
expansion of the zone and application to different vehicles.
Funding of road pricing scheme development and implementation
3.4.25 In many of the case study locations, funding has been provided from various sources
for the development of Road Pricing schemes (e.g. studies and pilots) and, in some
cases, potential funding for subsequent scheme implementation. Funding availability
was identified in a number of case studies as a major driver for scheme
development. Table 3.7 summarises whether Road Pricing schemes are being
encouraged at planning and implementation stages through the availability of funding
for scheme progression.
3.4.26 The Congestion TIF is a prime example of this. In London, it is expected to be
funding a substantial programme of technology trials and could encourage Local
Authorities to participate in any extension of the current scheme. In terms of a
national scheme, the UK is funding the development of local schemes that, as well as
targeting local congestion, will inform the progress of a national scheme and
potentially reduce costs in the longer term.
3.4.27 In San Francisco, grants from the United States Federal Highway Administration
(FHA) have supported studies undertaken.
3.4.28 Rome, Genoa, Barcelona, Copenhagen and Helsinki all have received funding from
the European Commission (EC) who set up international projects researching and
progressing Road Pricing and sustainable transport. However, Copenhagen
comments that although this research was useful in terms of developing pricing
structures it was not pivotal in driving their current plans for Road Pricing. Rome is
being funded to develop its Road Pricing related Travel Demand Management
measures jointly by the City Council and the Italian Environmental Ministry.
Table 3.7 - Funding influences for scheme development and implementation
|
Funding for development |
Funding for implementation |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
√ |
√ |
| London |
√ (technology trials) |
|
| Cardiff |
|
√ (concern over availability) |
| Rome |
√ |
|
| Genoa |
√ |
|
| Barcelona |
√ |
|
| Madrid |
|
|
| Copenhagen |
√ |
√ (availablr locally) |
| Prague |
|
|
| Helsinki |
√ |
|
| Stockholm |
|
√ (value proven) |
| New York |
|
|
| San Francisco |
√ |
|
| Seattle |
√ |
√ (expected through FHA) |
| Auckland |
|
|
| Shanghai |
|
|
| Hong Kong |
|
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
| Netherlands |
|
√ (cost monitor) |
3.4.29 Funding scheme implementation has not, as yet, been considered in the majority of
cases, reflecting the very embryonic status of many of the emerging schemes.
3.4.30 As well as the costs of the Road Pricing scheme's infrastructure there is potentially
also the cost of the associated package of complementary measures.
3.4.31 The issue of funding and the relationship between funding implementation and the
revenues that Road Pricing could deliver is raised in a number of the case study
locations.
3.4.32 San Francisco, for example, makes this point in their 2030 Transportation Plan that
for a Road Pricing scheme to be worthwhile it would be expected to cover its costs in
revenues within a reasonable timescale and not prohibit its introduction:
"Fortunately, many of these "intelligent transportation" strategies come
at relatively low cost - especially when compared to major road or
transit expansion projects. So, while new funding is needed, it is not
the major obstacle to full-scale implementation."
3.4.33 Cardiff has particular concerns over funding. They estimate that to implement a
scheme with associated infrastructure changes it would cost £300million-£500million.
How this would be provided is of concern to Cardiff given that it amounts to at least
three times the Welsh national annual transport budget of £100million.
3.4.34 Seattle is a case where funding is expected to come from grants made available
nationally by the United States FHA.
3.4.35 The Netherlands is an example where funding is not seen as a significant concern.
More attention is being paid to value-for-money and benefit maximisation. Emerging
costs are also being competitively reviewed and will have to provide a strong case for
value and relative benefits compared to revenues. A 2006 review found that costs for
a national scheme would now be less than they were in 2005. If this continues it
could advance the implementation date. Further reviews are planned for 2008.
3.4.36 In Stockholm, although there where significant outlay costs and the trial did not
operate long enough to recoup these; in the long term it is felt that the scheme will
produce a positive value. Subsequently funding is not a key issue in its future
operation.
3.4.37 Copenhagen studies indicate that potential costs for the City are not of concern and
are generally 'affordable'.
Key influences
3.4.38 Not only is the progression of Road Pricing schemes complicated by factors relating
to policy, commitments, legislation and funding there are numerous other issues that
appear to be driving the progression of Road Pricing schemes.
3.4.39 Table 3.8 provides a summary of key influences, noting that this is a necessarily
subjective view drawing upon the evidence from the case studies.
3.4.40 Hong Kong was seen to be pioneering the early development of Road Pricing, led
strongly by the Government's desire to cut rising car ownership levels and avoid
increasing congestion levels. However, there has been little progression over the last
5 years with no obvious drivers other than a belief amongst academics and transport
professionals that Hong Kong is a 'natural candidate' for Road Pricing.
3.4.41 In more recent years the success of schemes already operating around the world has
been a significant factor in progressing cases in other locations. To Shanghai and
Helsinki in particular, the development and referendum of the Stockholm trial was of
particular importance. The outcome of Stockholm is not considered to have caused
an impediment or delay in developing schemes, but rather as providing a gauge to acceptability and greater understanding of impacts. On a more general basis there is
considered to be increasing attention to Road Pricing as a Travel Demand
Management measure from within local and national Government in places such as
Seattle, San Francisco and the Netherlands.
Table 3.8 - Key influences described in progressing with potential schemes
|
Research
funding /
partnerships |
Results of
studies /
trials |
Opinion of
stakeholders |
Success
of other
schemes |
Potential
revenue as
a source of
funding
transport |
| Local schemes |
| England |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
| London |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
| Cardiff |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
| Rome |
√ |
|
|
|
|
| Genoa |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
| Barcelona |
√ |
|
|
|
|
| Madrid |
|
|
√ |
|
|
| Copenhagen |
|
√ |
|
|
|
| Prague |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
| Helsinki |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
| Stockholm |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
| New York |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ (potentially) |
| San Francisco |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
| Seattle |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
| Auckland |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
| Shanghai |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
| Hong Kong |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
√ |
|
|
|
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
3.4.42 In Cardiff, the UK national policy to progress Road Pricing has supported the case
and has led to hopes that the scheme could be utilised as a 'Pilot'. Conversely, in
America national policy is not seen to be a particular motivator in setting local policy.
The Department for Transportation in May 2006 released its National Strategy to
Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network which is intended to
provide a guide for officials to tackle the problem of congestion. It states that;
"We must not be afraid to make meaningful progress in reducing congestion."
3.4.43 Despite this none of the American cities studied considered this to be a motivating
factor in furthering Road Pricing other than the associated provision of funding from
the FHA.
3.4.44 In London the national policy to further the development of Road Pricing could be a
significant factor in how the current scheme develops further. Although an equally
important factor is the upcoming need to re-tender the operation of the scheme
providing an opportunity to more easily implement any changes.
3.4.45 The Netherlands appear to need few influences and are developing implementation
plans for their national scheme. The "Opinion of Stakeholders" is only included in this
case in Table 3.8 because the Netherlands has itself established a 'Joint Fact
Finding' committee involving a wide range of stakeholders to generate information
that will allow a political decision to be based on. The committee's members
represent a large proportion of the country's residents. Copenhagen too has few
influences other than the results from studies indicating a worthwhile reduction in
traffic levels.
3.4.46 The involvement of interest and stakeholder organisations has proved to be a strong
force in maintaining the profile of Road Pricing within locations. This has been the
case in New York, where the Regional Plan Association (RPA), an independent notfor-
profit research organisation, is striving to understand how Road Pricing could best
benefit New York. In Auckland the Joint Official Group (JOG) comprising local
authorities and national government has been instrumental in initiating and driving
forward Road Pricing issues.
Political influences
3.4.47 The political framework of a location can have a strong influence on the direction
Road Pricing may take.
3.4.48 It is generally agreed that in London the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, had a key role in
driving forward and implementing Road Pricing. This would appear to be the case for
the remainder of his term in office, after which the future developments could be
affected by a change in leadership. This has not been the case in the majority of
other locations studied. Although in Auckland the independent Mayor is seen to be
following in Mayor Livingstone's footsteps by actively supporting development of
Road Pricing despite occasional vociferous opposition.
3.4.49 The influence of an individual can also be used to resist Road Pricing as was the
case in New York. Here, Mayor Bloomberg recently held back from supporting Road
Pricing as it is not widely supported and was felt could lead to his 'political suicide'.
This situation may still change as demands for bridging funding gaps grow.
3.4.50 Hong Kong is a key example where the political framework is partly to blame for the
lack of progress on Road Pricing. There was a new political structure implemented in
the 1980's which provided a powerful blocking force to such schemes. The
Government generally were not proactive in lobbying support and providing effective
communications on Road Pricing to allow debate, and the key progress occurred
around the time of the hand-over to China sparking concerns over invasive
technology.
3.4.51 Even if a political framework is effective, transport policy can change depending on
who is in power. For example in Auckland there is general support for Road Pricing
partly as a result of power shifting after the last election, which may again change in
the 2007 election. The current administration more closely reflects the national
picture of largely Labour candidates who are generally not in favour of building new
roads to manage congestion. Current schemes which could potentially be vulnerable
to forthcoming elections are Cardiff and the Netherlands. Cardiff City Council will not
commit to a Road Pricing scheme before pending elections in May 2008. And in the
past have been affected when the last local elections saw Labour lose overall control and Road Pricing policy only maintained with the support of one Liberal Democrat
transport member.
3.4.52 The Netherlands national scheme too could be susceptible to a change in the
political administration in the November 2006 elections. However, they are confident
that any result will not significantly affect progress of the scheme which all parties
have supported in their manifestos, assuming there is no significant change to the
proposals. Stockholm is a current example of how government policy is standing
behind Road Pricing. It had been expected that the new centre-right administration
would not be in favour of the scheme but it has come out in support of it.
3.4.53 A further example of how political support can affect progress is seen by comparing
Prague, which is expecting to implement a scheme by 2010 and has political support
for this, to Helsinki, which cannot envisage an implementation date partly because of
the lack of political support, other than perhaps of the Green party who hold little or
no influence. Copenhagen falls in the middle of these two situations where the City
Council is largely supportive of a scheme and is driving forward an ambitious
implementation programme, whereas the national Government who are responsible
for providing the legislation are generally opposed to Road Pricing. Although in this
case there could be other conflicting reasons including a freeze on new taxes, and
the opinion by some members that a national scheme could replace current road tax
of 180% on newly purchased cars - which could be exacerbating levels of car use.
3.4.54 The EC has shown itself also to be a successful political motivator on Road Pricing
and has been involved in projects promoting sustainable transport solutions. As well
as funding, the EC provides a role in motivating locations and fulfilling a central role
through which information can be shared.
3.4.55 Forecasts of large growth in population, employment and associated travel are also
reasons for developing Road Pricing schemes. This has been highlighted as an issue
in Cardiff and Helsinki. In Shanghai the predicted rate of increase is vast, reflecting
growth in the economy. Here Road Pricing is almost seen as a possible prevention to
a foreseeable problem rather than a cure, as in most other cases.
Table 3.9 - Evidence of political leadership driving support for road pricing
|
Individual |
Local / regional
bodies |
National
bodies |
| Local schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
| London |
√ |
√ |
|
| Cardiff |
|
√ |
|
| Rome |
|
√ |
|
| Genoa |
|
√ |
|
| Barcelona |
|
√ |
|
| Madrid |
|
√ |
|
| Copenhagen |
|
√ |
|
| Prague |
|
√ |
|
| Helsinki |
|
√ |
|
| Stockholm |
|
√ |
√ |
| New York |
√ |
|
√
(transport strategy) |
| San Francisco |
|
√ |
√
(transport strategy) |
| Seattle |
|
√ |
√
(transport strategy) |
| Auckland |
√ |
√ |
√ |
| Shanghai |
√ |
√ |
|
| Hong Kong |
√
(held responsible) |
√ |
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
| Netherlands |
|
√
(The Hague,
Amsterdam etc.) |
√ |
3.5 Types of schemes being considered
3.5.1 None of the schemes have progressed to a stage where a definite set of
characteristics are proposed or have been agreed for a specific Road Pricing
scheme, although many are at the stage of considering and agreeing options.
3.5.2 Table 3.10 sets out a summary of the types of schemes that are being considered in
each of the case study areas.
Table 3.10 - Elements of road pricing schemes considered
|
Area |
Cordon |
Distance |
Hours of
operation |
Possible
charge level |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Undecided |
| London |
√ |
√ |
√ |
7am - 6am
(with extension) |
£8
(current) |
| Cardiff |
√ |
√
(double) |
|
AM peak
(in study) |
£4 - £12
in study - by
vehicle type) |
| Rome |
|
|
|
|
|
| Genoa |
|
√ |
|
7am - 8pm |
1 - 5 Euros
(70p - £3.50) |
| Barcelona |
|
|
|
|
|
| Madrid |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copenhagen |
|
√ |
|
peak and off peak |
DK10 - DK25
(£1 - £2.50) |
| Prague |
√ |
√
(single or double) |
|
|
1 - 5 Euros
(70p - £3.50) |
| Helsinki |
|
|
√ (regional) |
|
undecided |
| Stockholm |
|
√ |
|
6.30am - 6.30pm
(in trial) |
|
| New York |
|
|
|
6am - 7pm and
24 hours
(in study) |
$4 - $10
(in study) |
| San Francisco |
|
|
|
|
undecided |
| Seattle |
|
|
√ |
6am - 10pm
(in trial) |
0 - 50 cents/mile
(0 - 25p/mile)
(in trial) |
| Auckland |
√ |
√ (double) |
|
AM peak
(in study) |
$3 - $6 (£1 - £2)
(in study) |
| Shanghai |
|
√ |
|
AM and PM peaks |
5 - 7 RMB
(30p - 50p) |
| Hong Kong |
|
√ (2001 study) |
|
√ (2001 study) |
HK$8 - HK$31
(60p - £2.10)
(2001 study) |
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
|
undecided |
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
|
undecided |
Charge basis
3.5.3 The Netherlands and the UK national schemes are primarily considering a distance
based charge most likely varying by area and time of day. Seattle is also progressing
in this direction, although does stands out as being the only local scheme currently
considering this arrangement. This would entail the scheme covering the whole of the
Washington State region. To inform this eventuality Seattle has completed a trial
based on a smaller region with volunteers and provides valuable information on how
drivers might react to such a scheme.
3.5.4 Shanghai, Genoa and Copenhagen are only considering a cordon scheme where
drivers would be charged for entering a defined area, as was Hong Kong. These are
expected to cover just the city centre. Although the Stockholm trial operated on a
cordon basis it charged drivers for entering and leaving the area. Copenhagen did
study a number of options including a city centre cordon, a larger cordon and
distance based charging, but in order to implement a scheme as soon as possible
and achieve uniform impacts the larger cordon is the most likely proposition.
3.5.5 Other locations have identified a number of scenarios that have been considered
suitable for further development. Cardiff, Prague and Auckland are all considering an
area or a double cordon charge where a higher charge would be paid for entering the
central area and a lower charge for the outer area. Prague is also looking at the
option of just a single cordon at the centre as is New York. Although not currently
progressing scenarios the most recent feasibility study focused on a cordon charge in
Manhattan. London could alter its current scheme in a number of ways but if it is to
do so by 2010 would involve an area or cordon charge rather than distance based
scheme.
3.5.6 An additional option investigated in Auckland was to install a parking levy on top of
parking costs inside the defined zone. Although this is not directly a Road Pricing
scheme it is expected to have an impact on reducing traffic.
3.5.7 Some cities are currently scoping suitable proposals. In Helsinki this would cover the
wider Metropolitan region and in San Francisco it would focus on the 'Downtown'
area. Seattle and the Netherlands also say they do not have a current plan although
a distance-based charge that would replace the fixed tax system is preferred.
Charging periods and charge levels
3.5.8 Few of the locations examined have developed their scheme sufficiently to decide
what Road Pricing charges would be. Some locations are expecting to have a
variable charge in order to target congestion including the national schemes in the
UK and the Netherlands, local schemes in Cardiff, Helsinki, Genoa, Seattle, and this
was also the case in the Hong Kong study. In the case of Cardiff this is also intended
to vary by vehicle in line with their focus on air quality.
3.5.9 Genoa, Copenhagen and Seattle are considering charging for the full working day. In
Hong Kong the original trial only charged in peak periods, although the second round
of proposals did recommend charging across the working day.
3.5.10 Cardiff and Auckland are considering charging for the AM peak period only. Part of
the reason for this is to impact upon the worst congestion but it can also help achieve
acceptability by minimising who would be affected. Cardiff specifically comments that
operating a charge in the morning peak only is a condition of gaining business
community support as shoppers will be largely unaffected.
3.5.11 Shanghai is focusing their charge during both peak periods. In the Netherlands it is
expected that by having a higher charge in the peaks and in the cities this will provide
the majority of the push that is needed to reduce the most serious congestion.
3.5.12 In many cases the charge is expected to vary depending largely on the time of day
travelling.
3.5.13 Current charges in London as well as those proposed in Cardiff and modelled for the
English national scheme appear considerably higher than those proposed around the
rest of the world. In Singapore, where the cordon based charge was recently
adjusted, the maximum charge for a heavy goods vehicle on a weekday morning
peak is $7, approximately £2.40. In the US it has been estimated that for a distance
based charge to be fiscally neutral with current tax arrangements the required charge
is around 1.2 cents per mile, although such a scheme would be unlikely to impact on
congestion levels.
3.5.14 It is noted, however, that comparing charge levels between locations is difficult
because of differences in costs of motoring, income levels etc. and due to exchange
rates.
Technology
3.5.15 Technology clearly has an influence on when a scheme could become operational.
However, it does appear that if the characteristics of the scheme are developed
primarily, then the suitable technology is a secondary consideration.
3.5.16 In cases where variable distance-based charges are being considered Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) are largely seen to be the most feasible option. This tends to mean that a scheme would not be operational until around 2012 at the
earliest. The Netherlands as a national scheme and Seattle and Helsinki as local
schemes are investigating this option. Hong Kong also recommended GPS in their
2001 study to maximise interoperability and give longer term technical benefits. The
issues associated with GPS were shown in the Seattle trial where the 'Downtown'
area could not be included in the chargeable network as GPS is not yet at a stage
where it can give sufficiently detailed coverage in dense areas to ensure a fair
system of charging drivers within those areas.
3.5.17 Technology considered suitable for area and cordon-based charges is already
available and has undergone testing in existing schemes and can therefore mean
implementation could be completed in a shorter timescale. Tag and Beacon
technology, or Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), as used in the
Stockholm trial is also being considered for Auckland, Prague and Shanghai. Genoa
and Copenhagen are considering both Tag and Beacon and Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) cameras for their cordon charge - the choice of which will be
closely scrutinised on the basis of cost and value. Although Stockholm is expected to
be continuing with Road Pricing there is some debate over continuing to use DSRC.
Although this is often considered to be the cheaper and more flexible option
Stockholm considers that ANPR may provide a more efficient and accurate system
and could be preferable for the scale of the permanent Stockholm scheme.
Copenhagen too predicts this may be the situation in their case.
3.5.18 Questions concerning the cost, reliability and interoperability of technologies are
closely linked to the development of the English national scheme through the TIF
programme. In the Netherlands the focus is more on monitoring the cost of
implementing a scheme, which is expected to decrease as the technology itself
becomes more reliable and therefore more readily available.
3.5.19 The technology trials undertaken by TfL will inform any plan for altering the current
scheme when it is retendered in around 2010. The main focus has been Tag and
Beacon and there is currently a trial underway of this technology. GPS-based
technology has also been tested, although it is considered to be out of scope for any
medium term proposals.
Table 3.11 - Technology being considered for scheme
|
ANPR |
Tag and
beacon |
GPS type |
Likely date of
implementation |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
|
|
|
|
| London |
√ |
√ |
|
2010+ |
| Cardiff |
√ |
√ |
√ |
2010 |
| Rome |
|
|
|
|
| Genoa |
√ |
√ |
|
not known |
| Barcelona |
|
|
|
|
| Madrid |
|
|
|
|
| Copenhagen |
√ |
√ |
|
2009 |
| Prague |
√ |
√ |
√ |
2010 |
| Helsinki |
|
|
√ |
not known |
| Stockholm |
√ |
√ |
|
2007+ |
| New York |
|
|
|
|
| San Francisco |
√ |
√ |
√ |
not known |
| Seattle |
√ |
√ |
√ |
2015 - 2020 |
| Auckland |
√ |
√ |
√ |
2015 - 2020 |
| Shanghai |
√ |
√ |
|
2008 - 2010 |
| Hong Kong |
|
|
√
(2001 study) |
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
|
√ |
2015+ |
| Netherlands |
|
|
√ |
2012 |
3.5.20 Cardiff has not favoured any particular technology so far, although their options may
be limited by their planned start date of 2010. However, they do have the benefit of
being able to use experience gained around the UK in projects funded by the UK
Government TIF, which although not extending to Wales, will be partly used to report
on different technologies.
3.5.21 In addition to technology for the charging system there would be a need for effective
enforcement technology to encourage compliance. In London, Stockholm and
Singapore schemes are enforced with ANPR cameras. The Netherlands are
expecting to use GPS based technology with ANPR for enforcement.
Other aspects
3.5.22 Discounts and exemptions to the charge can affect the level of impact achieved by a
scheme. In the majority of cases these had not been considered in detail and the
experience of other locations such as London and Stockholm were felt to be
instrumental in shaping this. In New York, discounts would be considered for certain
groups, such as low income households in areas reliant on the river bridges, to avoid
social exclusion. Shanghai debated whether official government cars not paid for by
the owner would be excluded from the charge in order for a scheme to be equitable,
this was eventually discarded.
3.5.23 The use of Road Pricing as part of a wider scheme has varied in importance. In most
cases there is some element attached to introducing the scheme focussing on
highway infrastructure, public transport or other Travel Demand Management
measures. These were pivotal to the London scheme and are likely to continue to be
with any alteration to the current scheme.
3.5.24 The Netherlands does not expect to implement local Travel Demand Management
measures or public transport improvements but is concentrating on wider
infrastructure. This is the opposite of a national scheme in the UK where the focus is
on Road Pricing as part of a wider package of measures incorporating Travel
Demand Management and public transport improvements. The Netherlands is also
considering a different approach to implementing its Road Pricing scheme. In order
to raise funds to support the network prior to the main scheme an incremental
approach is being taken where Travel Demand Management measures in the form of
tolls will be accelerated in certain areas prior to a nationwide scheme. This has the benefit of targeting congestion and raising awareness whilst technology improves
sufficiently to allow a nationwide GPS scheme.
3.5.25 Many locations report that they expect to introduce traffic and public transport
improvements but have not yet considered this in detail including: Helsinki; Genoa;
Copenhagen; Cardiff; Auckland; Prague; New York; San Francisco; Seattle; and
Shanghai. Copenhagen and Helsinki both intend to introduce Travel Demand
Management measures but do not necessarily see them to be integral to the
scheme, but as a wider requirement. Other cities have already started introducing
other Travel Demand Management measures. Cardiff is introducing park-and-ride
schemes and measures to meet walking and cycling strategies. Rome and Barcelona
are mainly focussing on Travel Demand Management measures rather than Road
Pricing per se. Prague has restricted zones in the city centre and is building the City's
ring road to allow alternative routes when Road Pricing is introduced. Stockholm has
already improved their public transport in advance of the completed trial.
Table 3.12 - Elements expected as part of road pricing package
|
General
transport
infrastructure |
Local travel
demand management |
Local public
transport |
| Local schemes |
| England (congestion TIF) |
|
√ |
√ |
| London |
|
√ |
√ |
| Cardiff |
|
√ |
√ |
| Rome |
|
√ |
|
| Genoa |
|
√ |
√ |
| Barcelona |
|
√ |
|
| Madrid |
|
√
(not as part of scheme) |
|
| Copenhagen |
|
√
(not as part of scheme) |
√
(not as part of scheme) |
| Prague |
√ |
|
|
| Helsinki |
|
√ |
√
(not as part of scheme) |
| Stockholm |
√ |
√
(completed for trial) |
√
(completed for trial) |
| New York |
|
|
√ |
| San Francisco |
|
√ |
√ |
| Seattle |
|
√ |
√ |
| Auckland |
|
√ |
√ |
| Shanghai |
|
√ |
√ |
| Hong Kong |
|
√ |
|
| National schemes |
| England |
|
√ |
√ |
| Netherlands |
√ |
|
|
3.5.26 Some locations have investigated costs for implementing a scheme. These vary quite
significantly and are likely to depend on the size of the scheme, technology used and
whether costs for implementing the wider package are included. Cardiff estimate costs of between £300million and £500million including associated Travel Demand
Management measures. Auckland estimates costs at between NZ$730million and
$930million (£260million - £330million). Hong Kong estimated costs at HK$1billion
(£69million) and Shanghai estimate costs will be around RMB130million (£9million).
These are relatively low compared to other schemes although is likely to be linked to
the differences in the economy and a more recent awareness of costs.
3.5.27 To implement the Stockholm trial contractors were paid SEK3.8billion (£266million)
which is comparable to the existing scheme in London where implementation costs
were around £200million.
3.5.28 There are no estimates for costs of setting up a national scheme in the UK, and it is
acknowledged that costs are likely to change considerably before the likely
implementation date. However, the DfT's 2004 Road Pricing Feasibility Study has
estimated that for 30 million vehicles the in-vehicle units alone could cost around £3
billion - noting that there would also be other significant implementation costs. In
contrast, evidence from the planning of the Netherlands National Scheme gives an
estimated total implementation cost of between 2 and 4 billion Euros (£1.2 - £2.4
billion) for a fleet of around 7 million vehicles.
3.6 Level of awareness and acceptance
3.6.1 With any large, new, innovative transport project comes a level of media coverage,
awareness and support. In the case of Road Pricing views and opinions can vary,
often depending on an individual or organisation's position and experience.
3.6.2 In the case study locations the amount of attention from different stakeholders and
media sources and how that has reflected on the scheme has varied. In many cases
there has been no formal consultation on opinions, although there is often a general
awareness of how different sectors currently view Road Pricing schemes in their
areas.
Table 3.13 - Level of awareness and acceptance
|
Public surveys |
Public support for
road pricing |
Consultation |
| Local schemes |
| London |
√ |
48%
(October 2003 TfL attitudinal survey) |
√ |
| Cardiff |
(intended by council) |
6%
(newspaper poll) |
|
| Rome |
|
|
(limited consultation on restricted zones) |
| Genoa |
√
(not recently) |
|
|
| Barcelona |
√
(as part of PRIMA) |
|
|
| Madrid |
|
|
|
| Copenhagen |
√ |
68% |
√ |
| Prague |
√
(referendum planned) |
+30%
(net support for 1 Euro charge)
-2.5%
(net support for 5 Euro charge) |
|
| Helsinki |
√ |
40%
(2002 survey if road pricing should be implemented) |
√ |
| Stockholm |
√ |
53%
(2006 referendum) |
|
| New York |
√
(underway) |
|
√
(underway) |
| San Francisco |
|
|
|
| Seattle |
√
(as part of trial) |
+7%
(increase in agreement with road pricing) |
√ |
| Auckland |
√
(open consultation results not available yet) |
|
|
| Shanghai |
√ |
6%
(2006 opinion poll) |
|
| Hong Kong |
|
|
|
| National schemes |
| England |
√ |
66%
(DfT road pricing survey 2004) |
√ |
| Netherlands |
√ |
>50%
(reported by Ministry of Transport) |
(currently only through committee) |
Awareness
3.6.3 Outside of the current London scheme Stockholm has received by far the most
media and public attention which has provided an ongoing commentary to those with
an interest in how the scheme progressed. In comparison, there has been limited
attention or public awareness of any potential development to the London scheme.
3.6.4 Judging the level of public awareness of emerging schemes is difficult to assess.
Evidence gathered in this study would suggest that public awareness of local Road
Pricing development is considered to be high in San Francisco, Prague,
Copenhagen, Cardiff, Netherlands, New York and also Helsinki. In San Francisco
and New York, although awareness is considered to be quite high, knowledge levels
surrounding the scheme are not. If people are not aware of how the scheme will
operate and consequently how they will be affected it is most likely that public opinion
will be more negative.
3.6.5 This was the case in Hong Kong where although Road Pricing was known about
there was very little information provided or support canvassed resulting in opposition
to the scheme.
3.6.6 In Seattle, Rome, Barcelona, Auckland and Genoa it is felt that public awareness of
Road Pricing is generally low, although in Seattle and Rome it is felt there is already
an awareness and acceptance of tolling, which could improve support for Road
Pricing.
3.6.7 What is seen to be the level of awareness does not always tally with the amount of
development or research that has been undertaken. For example Genoa and Rome
have both been active partners in EC funded projects on sustainable travel closely
related to Road Pricing. It might have been expected that such close alignment with a
project would spark debate over possible implementation yet in these locations that is
not considered to be the case.
3.6.8 The type of media coverage received can have an effect on the progress of
schemes. In New York media coverage has proved to be very influential where in the
past negative media coverage has seen schemes having been dismissed by
politicians not wishing to be associated with them. Press coverage reviewed on
schemes in Auckland, Prague, Seattle, Cardiff, Netherlands as well as Stockholm in
the main has provided an apparently balanced picture reporting the facts of what has
been undertaken and the background to Road Pricing as well as a mixture of views
from politicians, public and other stakeholders, rather than highlighting one angle or
particular sides.
3.6.9 Copenhagen co-ordinated their own press around media attention related to the
Stockholm trial and referendum. A conference was produced to increase awareness
locally and around the world at a time when Stockholm was generally a positive
influence for Road Pricing.
Public acceptability
3.6.10 Positive public opinion can be instrumental in implementing new schemes, such as is
the case in Stockholm where a referendum led the way in influencing the political
decision to continue with the Road Pricing trial on a permanent basis. Despite this in
most of the cases researched there had been little formal soliciting of public opinion.
3.6.11 Gauging public acceptability from available market research information is also
difficult, since it critically depends on how the questions are framed.
3.6.12 Experience in cities that have been operating schemes has showed that public
opinion has improved over time. For example in Stockholm those in favour grew from
40% to 52%, whilst in London support rose from 40% to 57% after the
implementation of the scheme. The general principle that support increases after a
scheme is implemented was mentioned in some cases as the reason for not
researching this before any plans were more clearly developed. This is reflected in
Genoa and Auckland where public opinion has not been canvassed although it is felt
to be improving and is expected to reflect the situation in London where, after
implementation, there was more support than opposition.
3.6.13 In addition, public acceptability varies by area within towns/cities. As discussed
above in relation to Stockholm, while the results of the recent referendum showed
support for continuing with the Road Pricing scheme, this varied according to area -
with Stockholm City supporting the scheme and the suburbs not supporting the
scheme.
3.6.14 In Seattle and the Netherlands there is public support to introduce a way of paying for
road use that is fairer than the current system. Although a similar arrangement is
being considered for a national English scheme, the benefit of this has not been
clearly communicated, and therefore receives little support.
3.6.15 In Shanghai the 'fairness' of the scheme has focused on whether official cars, paid
for by the Government, were to be charged. Despite a call for them to be exempt it is
now considered unlikely that will be the case.
3.6.16 Where public opinion has already been canvassed on Road Pricing in Shanghai it is
reflective of the expected negative opinion where 91% of respondents said they did
not want it. In Helsinki 60% of respondents opposed Road Pricing and most believed
public transport should be funded through general taxes. In Cardiff opinion was also
against Road Pricing, although in this case the question did not fully reflect the
emerging scheme. Cardiff is therefore trying to raise the profile of Road Pricing and
encourage public debate. In New York, where there is generally considered to be
opposition to schemes, research is underway to gauge public opinion and
understand how acceptance could be improved.
3.6.17 The public is largely supportive of Road Pricing in Netherlands (50%+) and Seattle
where the schemes are considered to improve fairness. The trial in Seattle was
largely reported as being for fact finding purposes and not a precursor of any
imminent scheme. In Prague there is support for a scheme focused on the historic
city core, but only on the basis of a very low level of charge.
3.6.18 In Copenhagen support has been measured to be very high at 68%, which is
considered to be reflective of the rest of the country. It is not clear why there is so
much support for a scheme here compared to other areas, but it could be related to
their proximity to Stockholm and/or the way in which the question was worded.
However Copenhagen do acknowledge that support is unlikely to be high amongst
certain populations, such as car drivers.
3.7 Consultation
3.7.1 Consultation can be a difficult but necessary process in developing Road Pricing.
Different sectors can have different views, for example environmental groups can be
supportive whilst business groups may be concerned about loss of business due to
change in travel behaviour. Again, because of the lack of development in Road
Pricing schemes there has not been extensive formal consultation and in many cases
more is expected to be undertaken later in the process.
3.7.2 London has undertaken consultation at key stages of the schemes variation, and
would be obliged to continue to do if the scheme were to be changed in relation to
retendering. As a result of ongoing consultation various aspects of the charge have
been altered to the request of stakeholders. For example the charging hours are
being changed to end at 6pm as of February 2007 to minimise any effect on the
tourist and leisure industry.
3.7.3 The ultimate form of consultation could be said to be a referendum as was the case
in Stockholm and is proposed in Prague. However these will tend to be on fully
developed schemes and there is a strong case for involving stakeholders from early development to help shape the scheme. This can help gain acceptability and
progress implementation of schemes. This has been the case in the Netherlands
where stakeholder groups are involved in developing the scheme's characteristics.
3.7.4 In Auckland an open consultation was undertaken by the Ministry of Transport. Only
around 1,000 submissions were received which is considered reflective of the low
level of awareness. In New York although there is no scheme proposed the views of
some stakeholders are currently being sought and a number of stakeholder groups
have been active in debating proposals. Helsinki is another location which has
undertaken a lot of consultation with local and regional authorities, politicians and the
Chamber of Commerce and road-user groups.
3.7.5 Seattle, San Francisco and Rome have only undertaken limited consultation,
although along with Prague, Genoa and the Netherlands are expecting to do more
when plans are further developed. This is with the exception of Rome where there
are powers in place that can allow some Travel Demand Management measures to
be implemented without additional formal consultation.
3.7.6 Businesses can be very powerful organisations in influencing how a scheme is
progressed, and the sustainability of the economy is an important aim of the many
schemes. In New York and the Netherlands businesses are generally supportive of
Road Pricing proposals.
3.7.7 Businesses are less supportive in Auckland because of the view that Aucklanders
are wedded to their cars and fears that associated Travel Demand Management
could impact on businesses. Similar fears were expressed in Copenhagen. Helsinki
businesses have a generally negative of Road Pricing, although as with public
support this is considered to be improving.
3.7.8 In Seattle and Cardiff views of the business community are felt to be mixed. This is
often considered to be as a result of their location within the city and proposed
charging area and their size and number of employees.
[ Previous ]
[ Contents ]
[ Next ]
