www.curacaoproject.eu                      CURACAO - coordination of urban road-user charging organisational issues                   Funded by the EU

Road Pricing Context

OBJECTIVES

SCHEME DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY

BUSINESS SYSTEMS

Prediction

PREDICTION

TRAFFIC EFFECTS

ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMY

EQUITY

Appraisal

APPRAISAL

Decision Making

ACCEPTABILITY

TRANSFERABILITY

Implementation and Evaluation

EVALUATION

IMPLEMENTATION

Case Studies

Bergen

Bologna

Bristol

Cambridge

Durham

Dutch National Case

Edinburgh

London

Manchester

Milan

Nord-Jaeren

Oslo

Rome

Stockholm

The Hague

Trondheim



Urban Road User Charging Online Knowledge Base

Comparison of Context Description on our case studies


Rome

In the last 35 years in the metropolitan area of Rome there was a threefold leap in terms of kilometers travelled, due to the increased length of trips and number of vehicles (+650%). This growth has not been matched by a parallel development of the public transport system that has only recorded a 90% increase in terms of kilometers travelled during the same period. Consequently, the public transport modal share, holding 56% of total motorized trips in late 70s, has sharply decreased and today accounts only for 24% of motorized trips.

Presently the city of Rome has a population of 2.8 million inhabitants, 1.96 million cars and more than 550,000 motorcycles and motor scooters circulating in Rome. The modal choice for travel in Rome is split in 52% on private vehicle, 24% for public transport and the rest is constituted by two wheels and walking/cycling. The pressures of so many people and vehicles have created two interrelated problems, traffic congestion and environmental degradation.




To reverse this trend, the municipality has set few clear goals aimed at achieving a sort of equilibrium between transport demand and supply.

Therefore Rome's General Traffic Master Plan includes a strategy to improve mobility, modify modal split in favor of public transport and sustainable modes, increase traffic safety, decrease air and noise pollution, safeguard health, and preserve Rome's historical and architectural heritage. The strategy is to restrict or limit private car use in the city centre and gradually relax these restrictions outside. At the heart of this strategy is mobility demand management, in keeping with the EU policy on sustainable transport.

The scheme is accompanied by complementary restrictive measures on traffic regulation and management, such as the implementation of the Limited Traffic Zones, accompanied by different parking fares depending on city areas, and innovation and improvement of local Public Transport systems.




The Urban Traffic General Plan (PGTU) thus tried to tackle the mounting problem of public transport, mobility, and transport related emissions. The key elements were:

  • Road classification updating according to the relative function (i.e. pedestrian, local traffic, main traffic)
  • Definition of transport demand policies (i.e. controlled access zones, parking pricing)

  • The administration adopted a collaborative approach that brought the PGTU to be envisaged as an element of a broader plan including the Master Plan, the Transport Plan, the Urban Parking Plan (PUP) and other regional and local plans.

  • The PGTU divided the metropolitan area into five, as shown in the figure below, and namely:

  • The historical centre (A), corresponding to the Restricted Access Zone (LZT), has an area of about 6 km2 and shows the highest concentration of business activities (21 thousand workers/km2): less than 1% of the municipal territory hosts 13% of the total workers, while population amounts to only 2% over the total;

  • The central area (B) borders internally the historical centre and externally the railway ring. The area is densely populated and presents a great deal of business activities;

  • The semi-central area (C) borders internally the central area and externally is approximately identified by the inner ring road. The area is characterized by a medium business density and the highest population density (about 11 thousand inhabitants/km2);

  • The peripheral area (D) covers the rest of the urban settlement within the GRA (Great Ring Road). Business and residential density are lower than in the previous cases;

  • Finally the suburban area (E), located externally to the GRA, presents the lowest business and residential densities. During the Seventies, there has been a change in the trends of the natural balance and the migratory balance, which contributed to the doubling of population after the Second World War.


The road pricing scheme in Rome was not introduced under specific legislation but rather evolved from access control zones originally implemented in historical urban center.

The history of access control in Rome began in 1989 when restrictions were placed on vehicle entrances for the historical centre. These restrictions were not enforced in a systematic way until 1994 when municipal police were used to block the entrances into the area. Permission to enter is given free of charge to residents within the LTZ. Other users may obtain permission to circulate and park in the LTZ area if they fall into certain categories (i.e. doctors with offices within the city centre, artisans).

In 1998 this authorization became more complicated, since allowed non-residents were required to pay yearly the equivalent of 12 months public transport passes in order to obtain a permit for the access control area. Furthermore, parking was free for residents (near their home or within their designated neighborhood) but destination parking is burdensome for both residents and authorized non-residents.

Because of difficulty in enforcing this restriction of vehicles by the municipal police, Rome, from October 2001 the electronic full scale Access Control System and flat-fare Road Pricing scheme (ACS+RP) called IRIDE was switched on with the use of 23 entrance gates and a complex control centre located in STA (local transport agency nowadays called ATAC).



Bologna

Bologna, the capital town of the Emilia Romagna region, is a very important traffic hub. The city may be classified as medium sized – as there are about 380.000 residents - however, considering the surrounding small municipalities, it is more appropriate to see Bologna as a metropolitan area with about 650.000 (inhabitants + users).

The following table gives some data about the city of Bologna:

 

 

 

The modal split in the city of Bologna is characterised by a slightly equal percentage of PT and cars (26% and 35% respectively) while motorised two-wheelers share is 11%. As shown in the following figures, the car ownership (54 cars/100 inhabitants, one of the lowest of Italian cities) is decreasing, while two-wheelers (13 motorbikes/100 inhabitants) is raising rapidly; finally, also PT usage is increasing.

 

 

 

 

LTZ (Limited Traffic Zone)

To keep integral and to protect the attractiveness of the historical city centre, and also to improve urban air quality, in 1989 the municipality introduced a Limited Traffic Zone, which covers an area of 3.2 km2 and basically matches the historical centre.

The aim of the progressive introduction of traffic restrictions is to reconcile mobility demand with the low capacity of the mediaeval city centre (for traffic circulation and parking) which, in the past, has often led to such heavy congestion that it distorts both architectural and environmental values and thus produces a very negative impact on the quality of life of the whole historic centre.

The LTZ access is based on authorising system and since 2005 the Municipality has activated an IT-based pricing system called “SIRIO”. So 10 cameras were installed at the main LTZ access points. Between 7.00 a.m. and 8 p.m. every day except Saturday, the system automatically issues fines to car drivers not authorised to enter the LTZ. In parallel another IT system called “RITA” (14 cameras) has been put into action for controlling bus lanes 24 hours a day to avoid unauthorised cars driving in PT dedicated lanes and within the historic centre when forbidden. All the streets which give access to the city centre and the bus lanes are currently equipped with cameras in order to check if the vehicles accessing in the city centre are authorised. The cameras are able to read all car plates, check them with those contained in the database of authorised vehicles and, in case of violation, send the transgressor’s data to the Municipal Police Dept which will issue a fine. Inside the LTZ there is another area called “T”, very important for public transport; in this area the restriction are higher than in LTZ and also here the access is controlled by IT system. People not allowed to access the LTZ can buy a daily ticket for 5€ or a 4-days for 12€ (in this second case the days of use should be consecutive). In addition to access restriction for non authorized vehicles, the deployment of these IT systems has the following 2 key goals:

  • the improvement of Urban Public transport (UPT);

  • the introduction of pricing policies to reduce existing access permissions as foreseen by the new Freight City delivery Plan.

 


Stockholm

Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, with about 765 000 inhabitants in the municipality and 1.9 million in the whole county. A third of the inner-city area consists of water and the townscape is framed by bridges that link the city’s islands to the mainland. High levels of traffic and a radial infrastructure network make the transport system in Stockholm very strained and vulnerable. About 500 000 vehicles pass in/out of Stockholm’s inner city every weekday. 70 % of all passengers travelling to the inner city during the morning peak period use public transport. Traffic in the Stockholm region has risen rapidly due to economic and population growth as well as increased travel.

In Stockholm, a full-scale congestion charging trial took place between January 3rd and July 31st 2006, followed by a referendum on September regarding the future of the congestion charge. Following an overall ‘yes’ vote from the citizens of Stockholm city but an overall ‘no’ vote from the surrounding municipalities, the new government decided to reinstall the congestion taxes from August 2007.

The purpose is to reduce congestion in and around the city centre, thereby improving accessibility and also the environment in the most densely populated areas. The charging system is designed as a toll ring, with the charges varying over the day according to the congestion levels. Car passages to and from the inner city decreased by about 20 % during the trial as well as during the initial month of the permanent system. On the surrounding road network outside the charging zone monitoring show both an increase and decrease in traffic.

The congestion charge trial in 2006 was accompanied by a package of public transport improvements, where the main part was the addition of new bus lines from the suburbs to the city centre. Improvements were also made in park&ride facilities. During the trial, public transport increased by about 7 %. Public transport is also enhanced in the permanent charging scheme, but the commitment of the new government is somewhat different from that of the trial. The revenues from the charges will now be reserved for road infrastructure in the region.

In Sweden, congestion charges are classified as a “tax” rather than a “fee”. This means that it is the state that collects the congestion charges, since local government bodies can only collect taxes from their own citizens. The National Road Administration is responsible for collecting the charges and administering the system, while the city of Stockholm is responsible for monitoring the impacts of the scheme.



Oslo

The Oslo metropolitan region is the smallest of the Scandinavian metropolitan regions. Just over 1 million people currently live in the two counties of Oslo and Akershus, which cover a total of 5,400 square kilometers. The region is the national centre of administration and distribution, and the hub of Eastern Norway. Eastern Norway has two million inhabitants, almost half of Norway's total population, and geographically makes up one quarter of the country. Population densities vary within the region, the highest densities found along the four railway lines out of Oslo. Both Oslo and Akershus experienced strong population growth during the 1990s. Efficient, safe and environmentally friendly transport is considered to be essential to growth and development in the Oslo-region.

From 1970 and towards the end of the 80’s the number of cars increased significantly in Oslo. The investments in new road capacity did not reflect the increase in traffic and the results were deteriorating conditions on the roads and for the environment. The general lack of public funds for road investment in Oslo forced the politicians to consider other options. A new initiative was required to raise money for investments, the Oslo toll ring (Oslo package 1).

The Oslo toll ring (Oslo package 1) started in 1990. It was initially planned as an ordinary toll road to finance tunnels under the city centre. However, before it was established, the municipality of Oslo joined forces with the neighboring county, Akershus, and opted for a package to finance several other projects as well. Later in the process, it was also decided to earmark 20 per cent of the revenue for public transport infrastructure investments.

A few years after the toll ring introduced, and following extensive road investments in the region, there was a growing concern about car traffic increasing more rapidly than expected, as well as a lack of infrastructure investments in the public transport infrastructure system. In 1996, the Norwegian parliament invited the local authorities in the Oslo region to develop an enforced public transport plan based on national and local co-financing, to meet this challenge. This plan (Oslo package 2) was launched in 1998 and approved by Parliament and the local authorities in 2001.

Oslo package 2 is a supplement to the existing Oslo package 1 and consists of an increase in the toll of approximately €0.25 per trip making the single fare NOK 15 (approx €1.9). The increase is earmarked for public transport infrastructure investments. In addition, the package includes an increase in the public transport fare of approximately €0.10 per trip, earmarked for rolling- stock investments. The planning of Oslo package 2 involved two counties and several different authorities and organizations. Investment in public transport was expected to double as a result. The main elements in the first four-year period (2002-2005) were railway investments (60% per cent of expenditures), a new metro ring (20% per cent), terminals/stations (11% per cent), and priority measures (9% per cent). The co-financing plan for Oslo package 2 also involved extraordinary national funding and public-private partnership funds from the redevelopment of the old Oslo airport. In the table below, the status quo (ordinary funds) is compared with the extraordinary funds raised by Oslo package 2.

The Oslo toll ring was due to end in 2007. As the end of the toll ring came closer, two alternatives were examined. Either the toll ring could be removed, as happened in Trondheim at the end of 2005, or a new toll scheme, “Oslo package 3” could be introduced. The politicians opted for the latter. Because the planning started late, it was decided to continue the original toll ring (“Oslo package 1”) until a new scheme was in place. The plans for Oslo package 3 were presented by a working group in May 2006. Most political parties accepted the general concept of the package after long negotiations. The final scheme will be presented to the Parliament in two steps. The first step focused on increased fares, new toll plazas and the possibility to use some of the revenue for public transport operation. The new system for urban road user charging passed Parliament in March 2008 and collection started in two steps in July and October the same year. The second part will be presented to the Parliament in march/april 2009 and will focus on the organization of the package and the plans for investment. Oslo package 3 will run until 2027 making 20 more years of urban tolling in Oslo.


Bristol

The West of England sub region is made up of Bath and North East Somerset, the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. An all-purpose unitary council governs each of these four areas. The four councils are working together as the West of England Partnership to tackle transport and other major strategic issues in the sub region.

Around one million people live in the West of England, with Bristol being the biggest major urban centre. The population of the sub-region is set to grow by 19% and the number of jobs by 26% by 2026.

The prosperity and growth of the west of England has lead to greater car ownership and increasing road congestion is a cost to the economy and is set to worsen over time with the expected rise in region’s population. Despite economic growth the region also contains significant pockets of deprivation and disadvantage, which suffer from poor transport links.

It is estimated that, in the West of England, at least €430m is lost to the economy each year due to time spent in congestion, and this is expected to rise to almost €750m by 2016.

The real problem hotspots are central Bristol and Bath, where poor air quality, delays and unreliable journey time are placing a huge amount of pressure on existing infrastructure and services.

The impact of increased traffic levels in the central Bristol area has caused public transport to be badly affected, impacting mainly on reliability and journey times. This has a direct effect on confidence and willingness to use public transport and acts as an impediment to promoting modal shift.


Durham

Durham city has a unique character and contains many fine buildings. The quality of the landscape surrounding the city centre afford it a unique setting amongst the historic cities of England and it is now a major tourist attraction.

Durham contains a number of major national and regional employers. It has remained a centre of economic activity in an area that has experienced decline of its traditional mining industries.

Major road building project in Durham in the late 1970’s have been followed by a continuation of land use patterns. As Durham has continued in largely the same fashion, the problems of its existing city centre structure have compounded year on year for access and parking requirements of the many different users of the transport system.

Durham is a historic city facing the issue of rising traffic levels into the historic centre, much of the activity being generated by tourist traffic. In order to manage the level of traffic entering the centre of Durham, local decision makers decided to introduce charging for those vehicles wishing to access the historic core, in essence the Market Place, cathedral and castle.

The scheme is designed to resolve the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians when accessing the historic centre.

Following the UK Government’s legal provision for Local Authorities to introduce congestion charging, Durham County Council was the first authority in the country to implement a charging scheme in 2002. Durham has also looked at expanding the current scheme via the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) scheme. Two of the most likely charging options considered were:

  • The implementation of a point charge on the through road with traffic potentially being diverted onto improved infrastructure;
  • Introduction of an increased cordon charge with a reliance on improved Park and Ride and public transport.

The current traffic situation in Durham is as follows:

  • Lack of road space. The historic nature of the city and the river valley topography mean that road widening is not an option
  • The provision of bus and cycle lanes – has been limited due to the lack of road space to make this feasible
  • All the main radial routes are congested in the morning and evening peak periods
  • Total gridlock is only avoided in the very central area because the traffic is held back and stored on the approach routes.

The Hague

The word “Spitsmijden”is a Dutch idiom stating the intention to avoid peak traffic. The Spitsmijden experiment in The Netherlands is not about a regular road pricing scheme, but about rewarding car drivers for avoiding to drive during peak hours.During the 50 working days experiment, 340 frequent drivers looked at alternatives for driving during morning peak hours over the stretch of the Dutch A12 motorway from Zoetermeer towards The Hague.

On weekday mornings, this segment of motorway is heavily congested with vehicles being heading for The Hague, which constitutes the centre of a daily urban system, with Zoetermeer as one of its suburbs. There are few alternative routes or ramps along this stretch of motorway, which made the trial relatively easy to control. The trial was launched on 2 October 2006 and ended on 24 January 2007.

 

The participants were rewarded if they succeeded to avoid driving during peak hours and it worked. The number of participants driving in peak morning traffic was halved. This was a promising result for an experiment that used a traffic management new technique unique for The Netherlands. A close cooperation with scientists, industry and government made this possible.

Currently, three Dutch universities and Goudappel Coffeng are investigating stated and revealed participants behaviour, in order to estimate the benefits on society, the reasons for participation and the strategies to gain a reward. The second phase of Spitsmijden will focus on long-term operations, probably with an experiment between the cities of Gouda and The Hague. In the meantime, some organisations use the success of Spitsmijden to implement rewarding schemes in case of road works.

 


Edinburgh

Edinburgh is a world-famous city. To some it is known for culture: the major International Festival every August, the Fringe festival, or the more recent Hogmanay events. To others it is associated more with history: the Castle, the Royal Mile, pipers and tartan. It has a unique cityscape and urban heritage: the medieval old town and the 18th century ‘new’ town have been designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. It is a tourist city on a world scale with a unique setting.

But it is also a very modern city, with a vibrant and growing economy. The (re)establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 has renewed its role as a capital city. The financial services sector is booming, and it has a world-wide reputation for research and innovation. Population and employment in Edinburgh and its surrounding region are increasing, in contrast to the rest of Scotland. Some economic indicators illustrating the success of the economy include1]:

  • Average disposable income in Edinburgh is amongst the highest in the UK
  • Edinburgh identified as the city with the fastest growing economy in the UK;
  • Edinburgh is the UK’s second most important financial centre, after London;
  • Edinburgh is the UK’s second overseas tourist destination after London.

Population within the Lothians – Edinburgh and its immediate hinterland – is forecast to grow by 50,000 over 15 years, while employment growth is focused very much on the city itself, with an extra 35,000 jobs over the same period (see table below). These substantial increases reflect the city’s success. The consequence is an expected shortfall in labour supply in and around Edinburgh, which will inevitably mean more in-commuting over longer distances. Travel in the city’s wider catchment area will increase, adding to the pressures already faced by the road network and rail services.

One of the contributory factors to Edinburgh’s success is undoubtedly the quality of life and environment it offers to its residents, workers and visitors. To attract key financial services staff, and tourists, these factors count and the city must maintain its competitive edge against global comparators. Transport is one area on which the city is benchmarked by investors and visitors.



Social concerns are also driving the need for action. An important objective for the city is to improve access to employment and other facilities for socially excluded groups. Despite a very low rate of unemployment overall, deprivation and social exclusion are still to be found in some areas and amongst certain groups.

1] EDINBURGH AND THE LOTHIANS STRUCTURE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015: Supporting Statement, Edinburgh, 2003.


Milan

Milan, the capital of Lombardy, has a population of 1.3 million people. It is the biggest industrial city of Italy with many different industrial sectors. It is a magnetic point for designers, artists, photographers and models. Milan has an ancient city centre with high and interesting buildings and palazzos, which is why so many people from all over the world want to see the city of glamour.

Milan has the third-highest concentration of particle matter (PM10) among large European cities, both in terms of average annual level and days of breaching a European Union limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, according to a 2007 study of 26 European cities by the environmental group Legambiente and the research institute Ambiente Italia, and sponsored by Dexia SA. Particle matter pollution mainly originates from traffic, heating, and industry.

In Lombardy each day 5.7 millions of people are going to move towards urban areas, 95% inside the region itself. 75% of daily transits are made by private vehicles, 14% by public transport system. About 54% of daily transits are for work, and among these roughly 48% are directed to Milan urban area.

Finally, we have to consider geomorphology and climate of the valley (Pianura Padana) of Lombardy, with the Milan urban area placed in the centre of it. Northern Alps range is a sort of barrier that makes difficult to clear the air from pollutant emissions.

So one of the key issues leaded by the actual major of Milan, Mrs. Letizia Moratti, during last campaign for local elections, was focused on the goal to start up for the very fist time an experimentation of road pricing in Milan, aiming to reduce pollution and congestion in the urban area.

That’s why in a bid to reduce pollution, the City of Milan has introduced a Toll charge similar to London’s Congestion charge, known as Eco Pass for all polluting vehicles entering the main city centre of the Cerchia dei Bastoni area. Ecopass came into effect on 2 January 2008. It is an innovative way of improving mobility and safeguarding both public health and the environment. Ecopass will help to heighten awareness of the effects of peoples’ behaviour on the environment and to build a more eco-friendly city.

London

London is a major global business, financial, and cultural centre. The city is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world and its popularity has increased over the years due to continued economic growth.

 

The population living within Greater London was estimated to be 7,512,400 in 20061]. An estimate of the population living within the original central London Congestion Charging area is 136,0002].

 

Central London covers approximately 10 square miles (26 square kilometres).




1] Office for National Statistics (2007) Mid-2006 Population Estimates estimated resident population Selected age groups for local authorities in the United Kingdom.


Bergen

Bergen is located on the western coast. With a population of close to 250’000 inhabitants, it is the second largest city in Norway. The Bergen region has a population of close to 350’000.

Bergen was the first Norwegian city to introduce a toll ring scheme. On January 2, 1986, toll collection was introduced on the main roads into Bergen. Due to the geographical location it was possible to make a tight ring with fee collection on only 6 locations. The fact that there had been toll roads in Bergen and the surrounding areas over a long period of time prior to the toll ring, may explain why Bergen was the first city in Norway to introduce such a scheme. At that time, only the city of Singapore had a somewhat similar system in the entire world.

The background for the system was an increase in the traffic and a lack of public funds. The Local Public Roads Administration was a driving force behind this solution, both formally and informally (Bekken and Osland 2004). Two alternatives were put forward: Either the city could rely on public funds and have a suitable trunk road system within 30 years, or they could introduce a toll ring and have the same trunk road system in 12 years. One of the slogans for the tolling system was “As many as possible pay as little as possible for the shortest period as possible for a common good – a suitable trunk road system” At the same time a local political coalition between the major political parties was established. The Bergen toll ring was due to expire at the end of 2000. However, it was prolonged for two years awaiting the new Bergen program.

In 2003, the toll cordon was prolonged through the Bergen Programme. This new package has one very heavy public transport infrastructure investment; a new city tram (“Bybanen”).The main supporters of the city tram were the politicians from the centrum and left wing parties. They managed to have the tram “hooked” on the planned road investments, of which almost all politicians were supporters. The broad compromise for the entire package was based on this combination of road investments and one large public transport investment. The proposal met resistance from the Public Roads Administration both locally and nationally. They were critical of the alternative use of road funds, questioning whether the city tram ws a good alternative to road investments. There were also discussions of changing the toll system in a direction more in line with road pricing. However, one of the major parties in the coalition between the Bergen toll ring is an opponent to anything resembling road pricing. Some of the other parties have also been skeptical. The alternative to prolongation was to introduce a system with two rings and differentiated fares. The expected potential negative response by the voters also influenced the decision. While the city tram has been a place where the political parties were able to mobilize voters, they decided to step carefully on the issue of road pricing.


Cambridge

Cambridge is situated approximately 50 miles (80 kilometres) north-east of London. It is arguably best known for its university but the high-technology centre known locally as “Silicon Fen” is also a key centre of employment.

Cambridge’s population in 2001 was 108,863 (that included 22,153 students), and the population of the urban area which includes parts of South Cambridgeshire district is estimated to be approximately 130,0001].

Cambridgeshire County Council, in their Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006-11, set out a series of objectives, transport targets and programmes for addressing the challenges the county faces. The plan identifies 2 key tools, “widening choice” and “managing demand” to achieve their aims.

The LTP sets out a package of measures that include improvements to bus services, demand management measures that include road pricing and funding mechanisms to realise their aims such as the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF)2].

To date, TIF funding has given Cambridgeshire County Council the opportunity to explore and develop an innovative proposal for a £500 million (€600 million) transport investment package of measures that would complement a road pricing scheme.

61,800 new homes will be built in the Cambridge sub-region in the 20-year period between 2001 and 2021. This is part of a national government requirement for new homes across the UK. This is locally supported through development plans. This will inevitably add pressure to the road network and necessitate demand management measures to alleviate congestion.


1] Office for National Statistics (2001) “United Kingdom Census - Key Statistics for urban areas in England and Wales”.

2] TIF is a Central Government – Department for Transport – pump priming funding mechanism.


Dutch National Case

Since 2005 (Parliamentary approval), the Netherlands government is working on a system to introduce a kind of road pricing nationwide, for lorries and private cars alike. The first start is scheduled in 2011 for lorries and in 2012 for private cars up to 2016. At the same time, taxes now collectedfor car ownership, will be lowered and finally abolished in 2018. So, the Dutchroad pricing system, existing out of a lower and an higher part (with apart for time, location and environment), will be paid by the road users.

Manchester

Manchester has a population of approximately 452,0001] and is situated within the wider Greater Manchester Urban Area, which has a population of about 2,240,2302]. It is the United Kingdom's third largest conurbation. Greater Manchester consists of ten metropolitan boroughs: Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, and the cities of Salford and Manchester.

In a poll of British business leaders published in 2006, Manchester was regarded as the best place in the UK to locate a business3]. A report commissioned by Manchester Partnership, published in 20074], showed Manchester to be the "fastest-growing city" economically.

The UK Department for Transport (DfT) approved “programme entry” for the package of measures associated with the introduction of a proposed Congestion Charge on 9th June 2008. The aim was to draw on resources from the Government-backed Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).

A 2-ring scheme was planned to become operational from 2013, with a maximum daily charge of £5 (€6) helping to fund a £2.7 billion (3.2 billion) package5]of public transport measures.

However, the scheme was overwhelmingly rejected6] in a referendum on 12th December 2008, leading to the proposals being abandoned by the Passenger Transport Authority. On Friday 19th December 2008 the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) officially agreed to stop proceeding with the TIF proposals.

For illustration, Figure 1.1 shows the extent of the original proposals for an inner and outer ‘ring’ or cordon in relation to Manchester and its neighbouring metropolitan boroughs. It should be noted that modifications were made to both the outer and inner charging boundaries as a result of the consultation. In particular the optional boundary on the inner charging ring was removed.



1] Office for National Statistics (2007) “Mid-2006 population estimates for the United Kingdom”.

2] Office for National Statistics (2001) “United Kingdom Census - Key Statistics for urban areas in England and Wales”.

3] OMIS Research (2006) “Britain's Best Cities 2005–2006” Executive Summary.

4] Manchester City Council (2007) “Manchester – The State of the City”.

5] Approximate conversion based on 1 GBP = 1.11664 EUR, January 2009.

6] On a turnout of just over half the electorate (53.2%), more than three quarters (79%) rejected the proposals.


Nord-Jaeren

Nord-Jæren region is located on the western coast of Norway. Stavanger is the regional capital for about 250’000 inhabitants, including adjacent municipalities. The city of Stavanger is Norway's fourth largest city by population with 119’000 inhabitants.

The Nord-Jæren toll ring started its operation in April 2001, a decade after the other main toll rings in Norway. However, local discussions of a toll ring had been going on since mid 80s, but never gained the necessary political support. The Nord-Jæren package was established despite the lack of political support from two of the municipalities in the region. The other three municipalities, including the city of Stavanger, and the county council supported the package.

The plans for the toll ring passed Parliament. The toll period was set at 10 years, with an option to increase the period to 15 years if necessary.

Trondheim

During the 70's and early 80's, Trondheim experienced significant increases in traffic, accompanied by congestion and environmental problems. In particular, adverse effects resulting from through traffic in the city centre attracted much attention. The proper solution was envisaged to be a network of main roads that would move traffic away from the city centre and dwelling areas. The policy initiative concerning the toll ring originated in 1985, during the last stage of preparing a new transportation plan for Trondheim. The first milestone was a unanimous declaration in the City Council, asking for a feasibility study of a local financial contribution to road construction, provided the State would allocate additional funds.

The initiation phase was inspired by a recent agreement between the central authorities and the city of Bergen on a toll ring that released such an additional financial grant. Thus, the main actors in Trondheim assumed that user fees would give an impetus to road construction that could avert congestion and environmental problems. With ordinary State funds only, completion of the new road network would probably take 35-50 years. With the extraordinary financing plan, construction could be accomplished in 10-15 years. The road investment plans were clearly linked to other policy goals: By-pass roads alleviating the environmental degradation of the city centre were considered a prerequisite for urban renewal. Increased mobility was regarded as an asset that could help attract the flourishing oil industry to the region.