v v gunnar johansson, road user charging budapest | november - 2006 © 2006 ibm corporation the...

vv

Gunnar Johansson, Road User Charging

Budapest | November - 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation

The Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial

BACKGROUND

SOLUTION DESIGN

MAIN CHALLENGES

PERFORMANCE

IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION

TRAFFIC IMPACT

LESSONS LEARND

2

Stockholm Congestion Charges

Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation

Situation in Stockholm

Inhabitants

1,9 million in the county of Stockholm

760 000 in the city of Stockholm

275 000 in the Stockholm inner city

Travel & transportation

560 000 vehicles cross the inner city

cordon per working day

73% of all personal trips across the inner city

cordon during rush hour is by public transport

2,5% car ownership increase per year

Lack of capacity in between the northern and

the southern halves of the region (road and rail)

BACKGROUND

3



Situation in Stockholm

BACKGROUND

4



73% of all personal trips to the inner city during rush hour is by public transport - but the road congestion still cause the society huge damages

External impacts

Congestion estimates cost 600 to 800

million Euro per year

361 severely injured & 18 traffic deaths

10 – 100 cases of cancer caused by

atmospheric pollution

50 000 inhabitants exposed

to over 65 dBA

BACKGROUND

5



Mission: Find a way to keep the congestion at the present level but take into account the estimated socio-economic and demographic changes for the future

“Present situation” Future

Estimated traffic speed relatively to free flow speedClassifications of speed reduction; RED = 65 -100% BLU = 50 - 65 % GREY = 0 - 50%

BACKGROUND

6



There are now way to sustainable reduce the congestion in the City of Stockholm without Congestion Charges

Conclusion:

Just building new road lanes generate more traffic

and new bottlenecks – takes long time to

implement and cost a fortune

Improved public transport services do not reduce

congestion as it do not attract car users significantly

- and cost a fortune

A combination of Congestion Charges, road

investments and improved public services is

needed to reduce congestion - and is a win-win

solution

BACKGROUND

7



The Stockholm Trial project

Trial period from Jan to July 2006 Referendum Sept 2006 Revenue used for public transports Charges

– Variable charges, 0-2 Euro per

passage in or out of the city

– No charges during low traffic period

– Max charge 6 Euro per day

– Lidingö exemption rule

SOLUTION DESIGN

Congestion Charges

Improved Public Transport

New Park & Ride

8



How does the system work?

2Information is matched with registered vehicle. Fee is added to the owner’s account

Call-centre operations managed by IBM

The gateway registers the vehicle

A

1 Picture is taken of the vehicle’s licence plate.

ABC 123

B

IBM has designed, built, implemented

integrated and runs the congestion charging system

3 Way of payment• Transponder/direct debit• Bank/Giro• 7-eleven/ Pressbyrån

9



MAIN CHALLENGES

To design a “state-of-art” OCR solution to meet the agreed service levels was a challenge

10



City of Stockholm Transport of StockholmSwedish Road Administration

Tax AuthorityIBM

Ministry of Finance

Enforcement

Courts

Bra

vida

Con

nect

a

Ela

n IT

Res

ourc

e

eWor

k

Man

pow

er

Nor

dea

Pos

ten

Rei

tan

Ser

vice

hand

el S

verig

e A

B

Riz

ITSA

P

Sto

kab

Sw

eco

VB

B A

B

VÄ

GB

ELY

SN

ING

I S

VE

RIG

E A

B

FOR

TUM

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

ABNO

FA

VÄ

GV

ER

KE

T P

RO

DU

KTI

ON

Focu

s N

eon

Ministry of Industry …Q

-Fre

e

MAIN CHALLENGES

To coordinate partners, 200 change requests and deliver an “end to end” solution & service in time was a challenge

11



Payment channels

Transponder/direct debit 63%

7-eleven/ Pressbyrån 24%

Bank/Giro 13%

Transaction and appeal volume

Passages at control points 46 500 000

Passages liable for the tax 33 500 000

Number of tax decisions 14 400 000 100%

Appeals to the tax Authorities 13 000

0,09%

Appeals to the County Administrative Court 665

0,005%

Efficient payment cannels and low number of appeals (Jan-July 2006)

PERFORMANCE

12



99.99% operational reliability is a result of built in redundancy

Total number of lane hours 148 174

Lost operational time, number of lane hours 57 (0,038%)

Non-identified vehicles 1%

PERFORMANCE

14



Media was very critical before ”go alive”

System launching day

Focused on the expected chaos


15



The congestion charging policy and solution was a target for media

Before the launching date

Solution, transponders and project costs


16



Immediate positive press focused on the huge impact

One day after

17



System performance exceeds all expectation

Some weeks after

System performance exceeds all expectation


18



The swing in the opinion came after 3 months


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Sep05

Oct05

Nov05

Dec06

Jan06

Feb06

Mar06

Apr06

Maj06

Jun06

Good idea

Bad idea

Referendum in the City och Stockholm

YES: 51,7%

NO: 45,6%

19



Number of passages reduced by 90 000 to 115 000 per day (20 – 25%) compared to last year

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

2005

2006

En

d o

f t

ria

l p

eri

od

TRAFFIC IMPACT

20



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000Innerstadssnittet

Tidpunkt

Flö

de (

ford

on

/h)

April 2005

April 2006

Peak traffic was reduced and accessibility improved

TRAFFIC IMPACT

21



The impact exceeded all expectations

Improvements also for non car users

40,000 new daily public transport passengers Congestion reduced by 30 – 50 % in the City Centre

Increased efficiency in public bus transports

Taxi drivers increased revenue by 10-20%

Inner-city retailers not negatively effected

Better environment - emission reduced by 12-14% in the

City Centre

Attitudes was changed from negative to positive

Revenue EUR 90 M per year

TRAFFIC IMPACT

22



Why is the Stockholm project a success?

Policy and scheme design

The clear defined objective was exceeded

The charging scheme was simple and fair

The impact was visible for everybody and

well communicated

Technical system

The users were well informed before the

start

The system worked from day one

Very low number of errors generated by

the system

LESSONS LEARNED

23



v v gunnar johansson, road user charging budapest | november - 2006 © 2006 ibm corporation the...

Documents