-
Congestion Pricing
Congestion pricing is a fee-based system to improve traffic flow, reduce the environmental impacts of transportation, and fund additional transportation services by charging motorists to enter busy downtown areas during peak traffic hours. The goal is not only to reduce automobile use during the most congested hours but to encourage commuters to encourage
mode shift
from single-occupant vehicles to transit, walking, and bicycling, or shifting to travel during off-peak times.
Current Examples
Congestion pricing has been used successfully in London, Singapore, Stockholm, and three Nowegian cities.
London
Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone implemented congestion pricing in 2003. The city began charging a premium to drive into its congested business district, where traffic congestion was exacting a high price on residents, visitors, and businesses in this important financial center. Since implementing congestion tolling, London has found that congestion is greatly reduced, traffic -- including transit vehicles -- moves more efficiently, and emissions of toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases has decreased. Toll revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars are now invested in better transit, primarily bus service, which has attracted dramatically higher ridership. Importantly, traffic has not been found to overflow onto neighboring roads. Initial public skepticism has given way to popular support.
Stockholm
Stockhom, Sweden, introduced a trial congestion toll for six months in 2006. Public approval was 67% following the trial, which encouraged the city to relaunch the system in August 2007 [1]. The system has reportedly resulted in a 22% decrease in traffic within the tolled area, despite a rather modest toll level.
Singapore
The tiny but extremely prosperous island city-state of Singapore instituted congestion pricing in 1975[2]. Singapore's system automatically adjusts tolls on a continuous basis throughout the day, and adjusts the amounts every three months as needed to maintain optimal traffic flow. Revenues have been used to increase and maintain the transit system.
Norway
Norway has put charging systems into practice in several cities, including Oslo (the capital), Bergen and Trondheim[3]. Their systems yielded traffic reductions of about six to ten percent. Initial revenues tended to be invested in new roads, but Trondheim also used the money raised for projects such as bicycle paths and a fleet of free bicycles for public use. All three cities use electronic transponders with manual payment mechanisms as an alternative. Oslo is considering a plan for a major expansion of their system.
U.S. Proposals
In 2008, congestion pricing was approved by the New York City Council as a way to reduce traffic through Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York initiative. Although the proposal had received funding from the Federal Highway Administration, it was ultimately blocked by the New York State legislature. The proposal would have charged drivers that enter Manhattan weekdays below 60th St. between the hours of 6am and 6pm on weekdays.
Under the U.S. Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership program[4], congestion pricing proposals are also under consideration in six metropolitan areas – Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis–St. Paul, San Francisco and Seattle. A total of $853 million in grant funding were provided in August 2007 to each of these municipalities to advance their proposals further.
Equity Considerations
Congestion pricing is frequently criticized for imposing disproportionate costs on lower-income drivers. However, any potential inequities can be overcome through careful planning. Congestion pricing can even be seen as more equitable than randomly tolled roadways. For example, a study of New York City's proposed cordon pricing system found it to be more equitable geographically than the region's current toll system, which permits some inbound motorists to drive into Manhattan free of charge.
According to a recent Rand Corporation study funded by the Environmental Defense Fund, policymakers responsible for developing a congestion pricing proposal should[5]:
1. Test it through modeling to determine who tends to pay charges and whether low-income or other transportation-disadvantaged groups are disproportionately affected.
2. Conduct sufficient outreach so that residents understand the proposal and have opportunities to offer suggestions.
3. Monitor equity after congestion pricing is implemented, and change the system periodically if the initial tools to promote equitable outcomes are not meeting their goals.
ALSO ON THE LIVABLE STREETS NETWORK
- Streetfilms: Campaign for New York's Future: Congestion Pricing
- Streetfilms: London Driver on Congestion Pricing
- Streetsblog: City Council Passes Congestion Pricing. Next Stop Albany
- Streetsblog: It's (Apparently) Official: Congestion Pricing is Dead
- Streetsblog: NYC 2030, London Today
- All Streetsblog articles on Congestion Pricing
- All Streetfilms on Congestion Pricing
REFERENCES
Each source is referred to by the same number every time it is cited. Please keep citation style consistent.
[2] Singapore: A Pioneer in Taming Traffic, Environmental Defense Fund, April 20, 2007.
[3] Norway: Rings Around Cities Reduce Traffic, Environmental Defense Fund, April 20, 2007.
[4] Urban Partnerships, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
[5] Ecola, Liisa and Thomas Light Equity and Congestion Pricing: A Review of the Evidence, Rand Corporation, 2009.
PICTURE REFERENCES
Pictures are cited in the order they appear above. Please keep citation style consistent.
[1] Stockholm traffic. Photo by ugglan via Flickr
[2]
FURTHER READING
- Congestion Pricing. Transportation Alternatives.
- Environmental Defense Fund's Congestion Pricing webpage
