Transportation planners around the world were waiting with anticipation to see how the electorate in Stockholm would vote on whether to continue with their controversial congestion charge.
Results are in, and they’re tight. From the International Herald Tribune:
Near-complete results for the Sunday referendum showed that 51.7 percent of Stockholm voters approved the traffic toll, while 45.6 percent voted against it.
The congestion fee was contested when city officials introduced it in a seven-month trial that ran between January and July.
But public opinion swung in favor of the charges after studies showed that weekday traffic on average dropped 20 percent during the trial, while pollution decreased 9-14 percent
A city analysis showed permanent congestion fees would bring a net profit of nearly 500 million kronor (€54 million; US$69 million) a year — money that would be spent on improving public transportation and better roads.
The debate is not over yet. New centre-right governments (still left by the rest of the world’s standards) at both the national and civic level are not predisposed to support a permanent introduction of the charge, given opposition from the Stockholm suburbs.
Which points again to a fascinating anomaly about road pricing.
You would think, in principle, that right-wing governments would be strongly in favour of road pricing. Here, after all, is a way for the market to regulate the distribution of a scarce resource by sending proper pricing signals to individuals, who can then make their own informed choices. Better yet, it provides a stream of revenue to fund the alternative – more transit – that also serves those negatively affected by the charge. And the money doesn’t have to come solely from general revenues or other taxes. Best of all, the system actually works, and delivers what it promises.
What’s not to like?
And yet proposals for road pricing turns right-wingers into raving socialists. There’s nothing so heart-warming as to hear a conservative politician defend the right of the poor working person to use the road already paid for through taxes. So let’s spend billions to build more roads to deal with the congestion created by building all the ‘free’ roads in the first place. It’s all about ‘the psychology of the previous investment’ – and to hell with ideological consistency.
One other observation for the moment: the effects of congestion charging seem remarkably similar in those cities that have introduced it. A 20 percent drop in traffic occurred both in London and Stockholm.
I’d be interested in more debate about what type of congestion charges would be best. Tolling the Port Mann but none of the other bridges seems to me unfair: why should someone from Surrey have to pay but not someone driving in from Poco? Tolling all bridges puts those who must drive over a bridge at a disadvantage (someone from Poco or Port Moody may not have to pay despite driving more than someone who has to cross a bridge).
I’d advocate for a charge based on total amount driven that could be done through ICBC. Drivers that drove less than their target could even get a rebate at the end of the year. On the other hand, there is no incentive to drive off-peak in this scheme, apart from the congestion itself.
I welcome suggestions at better ways of accomplishing congestion pricing in the Lower Mainland context.
Any way this goes, we must dramatically increase the available public transit for people to be able to effectively respond to the increased cost of driving. Otherwise, congestion pricing does indeed punish poor folk who need to get to work.
“You would think, in principle, that right-wing governments would be strongly in favour of road pricing. Here, after all, is a way for the market to regulate the distribution of a scarce resource by sending proper pricing signals to individuals, who can then make their own informed choices.
…
And yet proposals for road pricing turns right-wingers into raving socialists”.
actually, i wouldn’t think right-wing governments would do anything in principle. i don’t know why so many people make the mistaken assumption that right-wing politics prefers a “free market” approach anymore, when all the evidence is to the contrary. sure, 50 years ago, when the choice was between socialism, and welfare state capitalism (in the liberal nations, communism and facism, of course, existed elsewhere) the right was solidly on the “free market” side, and was a mix of conservatives, who were within the liberal tradition, and even outright liberals. now that the choice is between the “flexicurity” state and the corporate state, the right-wing is solidly on the corporate side, dominated by reactionaries on the outer fringe of the liberalism. they’ve kept their rhetoric, though, and somehow they are still fooling a lot of people. the main difference is that the “free” in “free market” now means “free” as in “free beer” not “free” as in “freedom” (to paraphrase richard stallman).
Congestion charges worked in London and Stockholm because there were viable alternatives to driving. Here we have a real problem. Until there is a new revenue stream from the congestion charge, we cannot provide alternatives.
And yes, congestion charges need to be imposed system wide, not just on the one bridge, which raises jurisdictional issues, and we still need to deal with east west flows on the Burrard peninsula which do not cross any bridges.
Look, no-one said this was going to easy!
I heard from a source in Sweden that the surrounding communities voted solidly against (around 60%), whilst the city was 53% for.
The whole vote is only a recommendation – as there will be a government change, nobody knows what will happen next.
Does anyone have a link to the actual results?
A congestion charge for Vancouver would only work if it restricted flow into the downtown peninsula – NOT the Burrard Peninsula. i.e. the London congestion charge zone does not extent into the suburbs – it restricts access to the core of the city. Of course, the problem with implementing such a system in Vancouver, is that downtown Vancouver is not the singular focus of most commuters in the region. And since the biggest congestion point in the region is in the suburbs (Port Mann), it wouldn’t necessarily impact that choke point, especially when only 20% of the Port Mann Bridge traffic is headed for downtown Vancouver.
If you are wanting to “catch” suburb to suburb commuters, a region wide system of road tolls would be required. Personally, I think that placing tolls on bridges is unfair to those making short trips who are forced by geography to cross a bridge, and I would favour a distance-based tolling system instead.