When they saw the benefits of a trial use of congestion charges, Stockholm residents voted overwhelmingly in favour of them, finds David Labanyi
While the Government announced in its recent Sustainable Transport Action Plan that it was considering the introduction of congestion charges, it quickly laid down a raft of conditions that must be met before such a decision will be taken. While this could be judged as a hybrid political game of pro-active procrastination, in Sweden the government there was wasting no time.
Congestion charging will be introduced in Stockholm from July, following a successful six-month trial of the system.
The Swedish government took the decision after a referendum to keep congestion charges was passed by residents in the Stockholm municipality.
Gunnar Söderholm, director of Stockholm's Environment and Health Administration was involved in designing and implementing the scheme. He told The Irish Times that the shift in public opinion on congestion charging was "amazing".
Two years ago no more than 10 per cent of Swedish people supported the idea. Swedish media were describing the plan variously as "very expensive and stupid", he says.
Yet, just weeks after a six-month trial of congestion charges in Stockholm last year, residents were voting in favour of making the scheme permanent. As a result, a new law providing for the congestion charging is due to be passed by the Swedish parliament in the coming weeks.
Seeking to explain why public opinion changed, Mr Söderholm points to the obvious impact of the measure.
On the first day of the trial on January 3rd, 2006, traffic volumes dropped 35 per cent.
"We were prepared to have to justify the extent of the traffic reduction. But on January 3rd it was an empty city. So the effect was obvious to everyone.
"And once the trial was under way, the media switched 180 degrees very quickly because people accepted the charge rather well and immediately," Söderholm notes.
The target of reducing traffic volumes in Stockholm by between 10 and 15 per cent was exceeded, with average daily traffic falling 22 per cent during the trial.
A secondary target to reduce emissions was also achieved with transport carbon monoxide and CO2 emissions in the inner city falling between 10 and 14 per cent.
To encourage compliance the Stockholm authorities decided to set the charge relatively low and to allow people a grace period to make payments, unlike the more punitive system used in London.
The maximum rush hour charge was the equivalent to €2 during the trial. This dropped to €1.50 in the half-hour either side of rush hour, before dropping again to €1 for the remainder of the day. The maximum fee per day was €6. From 6.30pm to 6.29am there was no charge. Charges were levied at 18 access roads into Stockholm, and drivers had to pay when either entering or leaving the zone.
Number plate reading cameras and radio frequency transponder readers were set up at each access point to record vehicles entering or leaving the zone. Drivers paid in convenience shops, on a website, or by direct debit.
However, because the cameras were so effective, the transponders are unlikely to be used when the system becomes permanent.
There was no discount for residents, as there is in London. Instead discounts were offered in favour of environmentally-friendly cars, and this will be the case when the charges resume in the summer. Exemptions will be limited to emergency vehicles, buses and cars for, or driven by, disabled persons.
"Overall, 99.4 per cent of the congestion taxes were paid on time. We achieved better results than in London with much lower penalties," says Söderholm. "We had penalty fees. If you didn't pay within 14 days, what you owed increased. When it resumes in July we are going to extend this period to 30 days. This means people can then pay monthly. It's easier."
Another reason why public opposition waned was that the technical side of the system was simple and almost error free, he adds.
An unexpected benefit of the trial was that traffic flows outside the city centre also improved dramatically as traffic jams along access points to the inner city were reduced.
On the day the trial ended last September, traffic levels rose sharply again, although they remain approximately 5 per cent below per pre-trial levels. Söderholm suggests this is because a number of people who switched to public transport have not returned to their cars.
One concern for those in charge of the system was that it would create problems for residents on low incomes. However, Söderholm says research on the trial suggests that high earners were most affected, followed by middle-income motorists, with lower earners seeing the lowest reduction in traffic.
A final positive by-product of congestion charging - if you're a government official - is that it generates revenue for the state. In Stockholm's case, more than €80 million per annum is expected, with just €20 million required to run the system.