www.curacaoproject.eu CURACAO - coordination of urban road-user charging organisational issues Funded by the EU
Urban Road User Charging Online Knowledge Base
Comparison of OBJECTIVES on our case studies
The overall goal is to produce a mechanism that encourages modal shift away from private transport to public transport. This shift will occur by reducing the current number of private trips to the centre, both destination and through trips, on-street parking management, adjustment of PT supply and PT tariffs, according to the pricing scheme proposed.
The reduction of congestion and lowering of pollution through road pricing is expected to improve the health conditions of residents and visitors to the restricted area. Currently, the historical centre suffers from high pollution – in particular benzene, CO, NO and PM10 – which are potent health risks, especially for children. In addition, these reductions in disbenefits from transportation can lead to improved attraction to the historical centre and, subsequently, economic growth. Rome’s fiscal objectives for road pricing are to dedicate all revenue to mobility related projects.
The pricing policies in place in Rome include both payment for on-street parking and payment for accessing certain areas of the city. The main objective pursued since the beginning of the Access Policies in Rome, going back to the late 80’s, has been the protection of the unique cultural heritage of the city from the dangerous effects of traffic pollution. The turning point was the implementation of the LTZ system with “electronic gates” in October 2001.
Limited Traffic Zones (LTZ) are used to restrict vehicle access to residents and essential users (many of whom must pay a yearly charge) and are supported by paid parking schemes in surrounding areas.
The general idea is to forbid access to cars, increase the supply of Public Transport and increase the number of parking pricing slots along the LTZ cordons.
The revenues have to be used to recover the environmental externalities rising from the traffic pollution and to invest on new PT infrastructures.
LondonIn 2007 Transport for London (TfL) reported 1 that the congestion charge had made a direct contribution to achieving four of the Mayor of London’s transport priorities, as set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy of 2001, which were to:
The primary objectives of the Stockholm trials during 2006 were to reduce congestion, increase accessibility and improve the environment. The purpose of the (full-scale) trials was to test whether the efficiency of the traffic system can be enhanced by congestion charges.
The secondary objectives of the trials were:
In the permanent scheme, revenue is to finance new road infrastructure investments.
The objective of Oslo package 1 is to finance investments in infrastructure. This includes both road infrastructure and, to an increasing extent, PT infrastructure investments. Future use as a means for traffic restraint is also an open possibility, but congestion relief was not an objective per se.
Oslo package 2 is a plan for new and upgraded infrastructure and rolling stock for public transport in Oslo and Akershus. It is financed by an increase in tolls and a fare increase in public transport. Thus, the objectives are still the same – to raise revenue to be used for infrastructure investments.
The objective to raise revenue for investments is reflected in several ways. First of all the toll plazas were located with this as a purpose. As a result they are placed on the main roads into Oslo and located so that they form a “water tight” ring, catching most traffic with the least adverse effects and operational costs. With this location, only a few local roads had to be closed with as few toll plazas as possible. Furthermore, the toll is only collected on the inbound traffic. This significantly reduces the operating costs.
The pricing objective is also reflected in the fee structure. There is no differentiation between peak and off-peak. Furthermore, the fee is also collected at weekends and nights. To make the toll ring more acceptable, heavy users may purchase monthly or yearly passes limiting the total fee they must pay. The pricing system is far from what would have been if congestion charging was the objective.
The document ‘Our Future Transport’, published in October 2007, sets out the approach of the West of England sub-region to developing its TIF bid.1] Demand management measures in the form of congestion charging are just one part of a large package of transport measures which taken together aim to:
On the A12, and in The Netherlands in general, traffic congestion is a growing problem not only with respect to accessibility, but with increasingly with respect to air quality and climate change. In the reference period prior the experiment, the average reported free-flow time on this motorway segment was 20 minutes, the average congestion delay 16 minutes.
The purpose of the experiment was to study whether reward stimulus could be a possible control instrument to influence mobility behaviour. In this way, congestion could be reduced at relatively low cost and in quite short time. As a secondary outcome, the negative effects of new infrastructure could be prevented.
The experiment provides scientifically based insight into the effects of positive stimuli on the participating drivers. Until now, researchers could have only made predictions based on surveys and models. Now they have their first practical experience, where different techniques and rewards have been combined into a unique experiment.
The broad aims of the Durham charging scheme were:
The following objectives were identified in Edinburgh’s Local Transport Strategy:
For the Integrated Transport Initiative (preferred strategy) the key objectives were defined:
And for the charging scheme specifically:
Ecopass aims to:
Thus, using CURACAO terminology, the objectives are:
Due to the small size of the LTZ and its narrow streets that are unable to support a strong mobility demand, the access control scheme in Bologna is mainly based on an authorisation process (for PT, residents, freight operators, etc.) and not on a general road pricing model.
However, in order to give some flexibility to the road users, the road pricing scheme was inserted in the context of the City Freight delivery Plan (approved on the 6th March 2006) that has been the key instrument through which the City of Bologna has rationalised the freight delivery in the city area. It is strictly connected with the existing and future IT systems. The overall goal is to decrease the number of vehicle km while providing the same level of service and to deploy less polluting “clean” vehicles. Thus, beyond the deployment of “clean” vehicles, the rationalisation of the freight deliveries will allow to maximise the load of each lorry or truck directed to the city centre. Through such rationalisation, a higher number of goods will be delivered with the same pollution impact as before, or a lower pollution will be generated to satisfy the current freight demand.
The Freight Delivery Plan has 4 main objectives:
The goal of the Bergen toll ring was to speed up a solution to the increasing traffic problems in Bergen. Thus, the pricing objective was to raise funds for road investment.
Also with the new Bergen programme, the pricing objective is to raise funds for investments. This time, however, the use of the revenue will be split between road investment and investments in public transport infrastructure, primarily a new city tram. With the introduction of the Bergen programme, road pricing has been discussed. However, the political parties have been reluctant to introduce such schemes.
Traffic Impact Assessments/Transport Appraisals suggest that there will be an additional 20,350 ‘new’ trips (all modes) in the morning peak period by 2021, an increase of approximately 20% compared to 2006 figures. This is predicted to cause increased delays on major routes in the county.
In the city of Cambridge city itself, increased levels of congestion are predicted to cause:
The figure below illustrates the results of traffic modelling and the predicted number of trips given various scenarios.
In a ‘do nothing’ scenario, the number of car journey trips is predicted to increase to over 300,000 by 2021 from a baseline of approximately 275,000 in 2006. This is shown in the ‘Projected 2021 journeys’ column in the figure below.The predicted impact of a ‘combination of improvements’ or measures, indicates a fall in the number of car journeys to approximately 260,000, if substantial public transport, walking and cycling and highway improvements are introduced. This package of measures is considered an important component of the proposed scheme.
In support of the package of measures already mentioned there are a number of improvements that are planned and these are shown in the following figure.
The proposals, as illustrated, include:
Dutch National Case
The choice made for the new way of paying for mobility is based on four principles:
It is Manchester’s economic success that has become its ‘Achilles’ heel’ in that the prosperity of business and economic growth in the area is the main cause of one of its greatest problems and future challenges: congestion.
It is argued that if left unchecked, congestion in Greater Manchester will not only result in greater pollution, poor air quality and higher carbon emissions but will also damage the local economy.
It is estimated that congestion could cause the loss of around 30,000 jobs in the next 15 years1].
It is considered that the numbers using public transport to commute into Manchester have risen by approximately a third since 20002]. Overcrowding is a recognised problem on the local rail and Metrolink networks.Improvements and extensions to the public transport system included the further development of Metrolink (the light rail / tram system) and were part of the planned £2.7 billion (€3.2 billion) public transport investment package. It should be noted that in the case of Metrolink this was in addition to a £0.6 billion (€0.7 billion) funding package that was confirmed during 2008.
2] Greater Manchester Future Transport – approximation. NB no actual number supplied.
Nord-JaerenThe goal of the Nord-Jæren package was to prepare a coordinated development of the transport system in the region with regard to all modes. The toll system was set up to co-finance this package with as low burden as possible for the inhabitants.
The objective of pricing was to raise private sector revenue to feed an urban transport investment package, initially intended to be financed 60 % by user fees and 40 % by government funds. However, the differentiated charges and the absence of seasonal passes had a secondary demand management objective. Motorists had to pay per trip (with limits) and they paid more during peak periods. Still, the pricing system was not intended to manage congestion, since the peak toll was set low, and the peak/off-peak differential was small.
|© 2006 - 2007 CURACAO | The information on this site is subject to the EU disclaimer and a copyright notice
Web site developed and maintained by the REC
Project funded by the 6th framework programme