Talk:Congestion charge

Health effects, air quality and climate change

For an alternative discussion forum, see HNH2035 discourse site.

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC improves air quality (airquality)
Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme doesn't significantly affect air quality in cities. Closing statement: Not accepted. There is evidence from several cities that congestion charges have improved air quality. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--arg3: . Carbon footprint caused by stationary traffic or ‘vehicle idling’ resulting from gridlock across urbanized advanced economies. The fuel that is consumed while stationary in traffic results in higher emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants, which leads to poorer air quality, particularly in urban areas. --Jouni (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC) --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 28.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) A ←--arg4: . I support the noted argument that congestion charge could have a positive impact on quality. For instance, the congestion charge trial in Stockholm in 2006, based on measurements, it was estimated that this system resulted in a 15% reduction in total road use within the charged cordon. Total traffic emissions in this area of NOx and PM10 fell by 8.5% and 13%, respectively. --User:Ehab Mustafa (talk) 12:18, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) A ⇤--arg5: . While Congestion pricing in Stockholm did reduce traffic emissions the reduction (especially along the most densely trafficked streets) was not sufficient for compliance with air quality standards. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:20, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B ⇤--arg6: . Although you can define the word 'significantly' of the statement in such a way that only reductions below air quality standards are significant, it is not recommended. This is because health impacts of air pollution are more or less linearly related to exposure, and therefore any reduction in exposure will also lead to some reduction in health impacts, whether the levels are above or below standards. Standards do not imply a threshold in health effects. --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B ←--arg7: . I support the noted argument that congestion charge could have a positive impact on quality of air because a study of congestion pricing in Stockholm between 2006-2010 found that in the absence of congestion pricing that Stockholm's "air would have been five to ten percent more polluted between 2006 and 2010, and young children would have suffered 45 percent more asthma attacks. --User:edem agbenowu (talk) 12:18, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ←--arg8: . London Congestion pricing scheme brought significant reduction in the emissions of NOx and PM10 due to increased vehicle speed. Reduction in CO2 emissions was almost 20%. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 13:29, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense, unattackedstand: defense) A ⇤--arg8837: . Air quality improved in Stockholm, as verified by measurements, after congestion charges. Stockholm is a fairly similar city than Helsinki. --Jouni (talk)--Jouni (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--arg4: . reused by --Jouni (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ←--arg5: . reused by --Jouni (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ←--arg7: . reused by --Jouni (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ⇤--arg9: . By reduction of traffic flows, the release of several pollutant emissions also reduce over time. For example, Daniel and Bekka (2000) have showed that the emissions can decrease for 30% in highly congested parts of Delaware, US. --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 13:36, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) B ←--arg10: . While Congestion charge scheme initially reduced the number of vehicles entering central London, the congestion levels since 2012 were back at pre-2002 (pre-Congestion charge) levels. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:02, 15.5.2017 (UTC) --Tamara Gajst (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ⇤--arg11: . Congestion charge scheme to a significant extend affect the reduction of air pollution and promote air aquality according to Transport for London (TfL) Levels of nitrogen oxides (NOX), fell by 13.4% between 2002 & 2003, and carbon dioxide, as well as the levels of airborne particulates (PM10) within and alongside the congestion charge zone. According to the report from TfL since 2002, the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) produced by diesel exhaust has become a serious problem, reporting that the annual mean NO2 objective (of 40 μgm-3 or 21 ppb) was exceeded at all kerbside and roadside monitoring sites across central and greater London during 12 months between 2005 and 2006 and no areas within the Congestion Charge Zone reported NO2 levels above an upper limit of 200 μgm-3 (105 ppb). If this practice continue and also extended to other parts there will be great reduction in air pollution --User:Margaret Arogunyo (talk) 14:35, 15.5.2017 (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)B ←--arg12: . I think the discussion got out of context. When I wrote this statement I was referencing to the case of Helsinki. According to the summary of the environmental impact assessment of congestion charge in Helsinki, the decrease in the traffic carbon dioxide emission will range from 3% to 5%. The significance and the worthlessness of congestion charge implementation in Helsinki are questionable in environmental aspect especially if compared to other alternative, for instance: use of environment-friendly types of fuel. --User:Ehab Mustafa (talk) 21:22, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: defense) B ⇤--arg13: . The statement is about cities in general, not specifically Helsinki. So the discussion is relevant. It might be a good idea to start another discussion about air quality specifically in Helsinki. In that discussion, the resolution of this discussion can be used as an argument. It is a good idea to borrow information from other cities if we do not have direct measurements of impacts of congestion charges on air quality in Helsinki. --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B ⇤--arg14: . The results from a study conducted in 2011 demonstrated a sharply declining gradient in black carbon levels from the outer zone, without traffic restrictions, to the more central areas where there was the congestion traffic charge called “Ecopass” and the pedestrian zone (i.e. in Italy, Milan) --Zahra Shirani (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) B ←--arg15: . Evidence from a study performed at 2003 manifested that the congestion charge has a short effect on the improvement of the air quality and the levels of annual average nitrogen dioxide did reach pre-CCS conditions after 4 years, which may account for the limited improvement in air quality. --Zahra Shirani B(talk) 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ←--arg16: . In a study performed in Canada it was shown that there is a direct link between congestion and air quality since vehicle emissions such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (the major precursors to urban smog) are 250 percent higher under congested conditions than during free-flowing traffic. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ----arg17: . Is this not rather an attack against the statement? Or actually, this is an attack IF ALSO there is evidence that congestion charge actually reduces congestion. --Jouni (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--arg18: . Report from 2011 found that there is little evidence that Congestion charge scheme in London has improved air quality. Programme specific contributions of overlapping programs dealing with air pollutions are hard to identify (i.e. in London LEZ, CCS). --Tine Bizjak (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC may improve health (health)
Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme will improve the populations’ health. Closing statement: Partly accepted, since there is evidence about change of transport mode (increased walking, cycling etc.), however it is hard to estimate direct effects on health. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg19: . Congestion scheme can encourage walking, cycling and using public transport, and may thereby reduce individual’s sedentary habits leading to an increase in populations physical activity that might affect the growing burden of obesity. --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:23, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ⇤--arg20: . Evidence for potential positive physical activity related health effects due to congestion pricing schemes is weak. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:28, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) B ←--arg21: . Congestion charge can lead to reduction in road traffic related casualties and injuries. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:03, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ⇤--arg22: . Building roads with the intent of speeding up traffic usually generates extra traffic --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:23, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) C ⇤--arg23: . Not relevant in the context of affecting traffic flows with other means than building or not building roads. Or are you saying, based on an analogy, that congestion charge cannot actually reduce traffic volumes because those drivers who are not willing to pay are simply replaced by those who are, without any change in traffic volumes? --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B ←--arg24: . Congestion charge scheme which leads to investments in infrastructure such as building more roads in order to speed up the traffic may (according to some evidence) lead to extra traffic and thus no improvements of populations’ health. The type of investments made by the Congestion charge revenues can thus have negative (as well as positive) effects on health. --Tine Bizjak (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ----arg25: . OK, then your original argument #22 only applies IF revenues are directed to infrastructure investments. In Helsinki, for example, this probably will not be the case. --Jouni (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: comment) B ←--arg26: . To alleviate traffic congestion in Central London, the Mayor introduced the Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) in February 2003. In this study life expectancy and socioeconomic inequalities was modeled. In London overall, 1888 years of life were gained. More deprived areas had higher air pollution concentrations which also experienced greater mortality benefits compared to the least deprived areas. . --Zahra Shirani (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, unattackedstand: defense) A ⇤--arg27: . Based on the study conducted and published by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) London in 2011, it was found that there is little evidence that congestion charge scheme has improved air quality. Using modelling and comparing air pollutant measurements within the congestion charge zone with those of control sites located in Outer London this researcher concluded that it is difficult to identify significant air quality improvements from a specific program—especially one targeted at a small area within a large city, with this founding, air pollution is still eminent and congestion charge scheme located and practiced in a particular place in a country can not combat or stop the health effect that is associated with air pollution. --User:Margaret Arogunyo (talk)(UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B

Individual choice

----arg28: . I added a few resolutions as examples. Note that you can write a resolution even if you expect new arguments. A resolution is always temporary anyway, because at any time a new important argument may show up and change the resolution. So be bold and write resolutions to discussions. --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC may constrain choice (indivchoice)
Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme constrains individual choice and behavior. Closing statement: Partly accepted. People disagree on this, and some see congestion charges as constraints, while others see it as an opportunity and motivation to nudge choice and behaviour to something that makes people happier in general. Because this is a value judgement, there is no need to reach a consensus. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--arg29: . Urban dwellers are more geared towards behavioral adjustment, since they are aware of the dynamic of distributions of the costs of congestion on house hold and their societal sense of belonging. Therefore, the incidence of such costs and benefits affects the preferences and in turn the willingness to build coping strategies will emerge by acceptance. Hence this can only apply to urban dwellers the case with suburbia and rural surrounding still needs more attention. --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) B ⇤--arg30: . Congestion charge does not constrain individual choice, because there are enough other options available if an individual wants to avoid charges. --Jouni (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) A ←--arg31: . A congestion charging scheme has the potential to significantly impact travel behaviour, and in particular on departure time switching if the scheme adopted is based on a variable charging structure. If a scheme is introduced with variable charges applied during the day, shifting peaks or peak spreading will be an outcome. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ←--arg32: . Congestion scheme can promote sustainable mobility if the revenue is invested in public transportation infrastructure . --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:01, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ←--33: . In London Congestion charge scheme lead to increased use of public transport (50-60%), avoiding the areas (20-30%), car sharing (15-25%), reduced number of journeys, increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:11, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ←--arg34: . In a study performed in 2007 on "Behavioral adjustments and equity effects of congestion pricing" the final result was that any effects that may arise from using the toll revenues was completely disregarded and considering gender, the comparison of males and females suggested that males, in general, might fare better than females because they benefit much more from larger travel time savings. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ←--arg35: . A worker and a nonworker have quite different utility functions and this affects the choices they choose and higher congestion price causes more drivers to change the departure time to before the congestion pricing period. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ←--arg36: . Constitutional laws interpret the congestion charge as a tax. Taking into account its possible advantage and drawbacks, it is questionable how to socially promote the idea of congestion charge in a society already committed to a high level of taxation. --User:Ehab Mustafa (talk) 22:00, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) C marketing is not relevant here. ⇤--arg67: . Marketing is not relevant here. --Pieta Tuomisto (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) ←--arg37: . Finland is sparely populated country, this applies to the city of Helsinki. By restricting access and mobility in the only livable region in the whole country, you kill the idea of having a city. --User:Ehab Mustafa (talk) 22:38, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: defense) B ←--arg38: . Congestion charges might not achieve its primary goal of reducing pollution, improving public health, the environment, and quality of life. However, it might end up restricting people's freedom of movement which may increase people's expenses and have negative effect on emergency medical situations. --User: Margaret Arogunyo (talk)(UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B

Economy

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC does not increase traffic (caruse)
Opening statement: The economic viability of tariffs and transformation of urban space will encourage more use of roads and cars. Closing statement: Not accepted. Although this is possible, the experience from London shows that these side-effects can be managed. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg39: . Most economic decision in urbanized economical cities needs to overcome elements such as cost and convenience of toll collection, especially on down town streets. Nevertheless the regressive distributional impact, since lower income people spend a larger proportion of their income on commuting and have less work schedule flexibility, lack of trust in government to dispose of toll revenues wisely, and benefits that in some cases are so small as to be insignificant. These all can contribute for increased mileage attempting to look for either alternatives of escape the cost. --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ⇤--arg40: . 10 years after Congestion charge was implemented in London 10% reduction of traffic volumes was observed. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:28, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) B ⇤--arg41: . In the nearest future, this will only encourage other means of transportation that can reduce traffic like cyclying and trekking to reduce air pollution and charges. -- Margaret Arogunyo (talk)(UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, unattackedstand: attack) B

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC does not restrict mobility or growth (capital)
Opening statement: Congestion charge schemes will restrict urban mobility and human capital growth. Closing statement: Not accepted. Although congestion charges may restrict mobility, there is evidence that the reduced congestion has actually improved mobility despite new charges, and therefore the net utility to travelers has been positive. However, this requires good implementation. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg42: . The tension between the demand side of transformation and the supply side of governance of cities with out a clear vision on urban transit can be problematic. The mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economical growth, hence the increased living expense of commuting for a younger population can contribute to framing the city as economically hostile or expensive. more effort should be aimed toward different tariffs to different categories rather generalized schemes. --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ⇤--arg43: . In as much as mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economic growth the delay associated with traffic could as well serve as disincentive for people to move into these locations.The faster someone can transact business in a location the more likely the individual will tend to conduct business in that location.Hence it might be difficult for younger population to see such places as economically hostile.Moreover as non-productive activity for most people, congestion reduces regional economic health. --Edem Agbenowu (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) A ⇤--arg44: . 300 new buses and new or changed bus routes were introduced at the launch of London congestion charge scheme – showing that introduction of Congestion charge can increase the mobility and human capital growth. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:59, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) B ←--arg45: . Journey times in London reduced by 14% - indicating potential for increased mobility --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:08, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) B ⇤--arg46: . A short term time-frame is related to immediate behavioral changes. For example, one can economize on the number of trips and do most errands in one round. Such behavioral changes are mostly induced by price signals and informative measures. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) B ----arg47: . Accessibility and economic performance are closely related. Good accessibility can facilitate economic growth. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:05, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment, personaltine: comment) B

How to read discussions

Value discussion: Toxicity charge is problematic (toxicity)
Opening statement: Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is unfair. Closing statement: Partly accepted. It is unfair in a sense that it affects more the poor, who have high-emitting cars. On the other hand, it is fair according to polluter-pays principle. Which form of fairness is more important is a value judgement. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg48: . Older cars that do not meet Euro 4 standard paying an extra £10 charge on top of the congestion charge to drive in central London, within the Congestion Charge Zone is unfair because the fact that a car is old does not necessarily indicate that the emission levels are high --Edem Agbenowu (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) A ←--arg49: . People living within the congestion charge area shouldn’t pay the same amount as people driving there from outside. (i.e. In Milano residents have 40 free entries and after that discounted cost of 2 instead of 5 euros). --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:10, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) C ⇤--arg50: . Argument is irrelevant in this discussion, which is about additional charges based on assumed toxic emissions. Maybe you should start a new discussion about a fair distribution of charges and move this argument there. --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) B ←--arg51: . Only 10% of PM10 is due to exhaust emissions. Depending on the road the increase of driving speed may both increase or decrease the overall PM10 emissions. --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 13:45, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: true; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) C not related to fairness of toxicity charge ⇤--arg52: . The ones responsible for the pollution should bear its price according to the “Polluter pays principle” --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:14, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, personaltine: attack) B ⇤--arg53: . A possible way to increase the efficiency of pricing structures would be to take existing structures as a starting point and try to increase their efficiency specially the efficiency of cars and vehicles by making them more differentiated. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) B ⇤--arg54: . Although this may be true, it it does not tell whether pollution-based charges affect the rich and the poor differently. --Jouni (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (type: relevance; paradigms: science: attack) ----arg55: . The purpose of congestion charge is to discourage traffic in the city centers but some mobile equipment do not have any emmission standard and by extension might not pay any congestion charge attributed with emissions in London examples are vehicles with less than 4 wheels, those with 2-stroke engines,hybrid vehicles,quadricycles but these means of transport could as well cause congestion in the city center --Edem Agbenowu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) B ----arg56: . I see this as a defens rather than a comment. It supports the view that toxicity charges are unfair. --Jouni (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC prevents tragedy of commons (tragedy)
Opening statement: Congestion charge may prevent the occurrence of tragedy of the commons. Closing statement: Accepted. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg57: . In any situation within a shared-resource system such as roads, individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.The introduction of effective congestion charges will serve as a measures that may reduce congestion through economic incentives and disincentives --User:Edem Agbenowu (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) A

How to read discussions

Value discussion: CC needs to be dynamic (dynamic)
Opening statement: To ensure air quality standards, the congestion charge scheme needs to be dynamic. Closing statement: Accepted. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg58: . Congestion charge should cover all seasons and hours of the day and should dynamically adapt according to meteorological conditions for pollution dispersion and contributions from different pollution sources. --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:23, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) A ----arg59: . I changed the argument from comment to defense, because it clearly supports the statement. --Jouni (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--arg60: . Traffic congestion is essentially dynamic. Since the traffic system has memory and and conditions at one point in time has an impact on conditions later on the same day. Therefore the timing of trips is fundamental and must be taken into account by economic analysis so when there is less time provided for one trip the car has to be in the area for a limited period which affects the amount of pollutants it release in the air. The dynamic aspect of traffic congestion impacts the air quality due to the connection between the timing and the length of commutes and the release of the pollutants in the air. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) ←--arg61: . Yes, the congestion charge scheme need to be dynamic in its practice and the policy should be implemented in all seasons and should also be practice in there places not just in a single place but rather more area in a particular city. --User: Margaret Arogunyo (talk)(UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) A

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: CC is innefficient in the future (inefficient)
Opening statement: Congestion charges will be inefficient and not economic in the future. Closing statement: Conditionally accepted. If technology reduces traffic flows, congestion charge will become an unviable solution. However, they are efficient in a situation where there is otherwise costly congestion. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--arg62: . Congestion is not only costly. It also has impacts on the local economy, it affects the functioning of labor markets, and it is an offsetting force balancing urban agglomeration effects therefore, it can have a more efficient impact on the economic in future. --Zahra Shirani (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--arg63: . If traffic flows decrease, the acceptability and economic viability of congestion charges will degrade. --Jouni (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, unattackedstand: defense) A ←--arg64: . When automatic cars (robot cars) show up in cities, this reduces the traffic flows significantly because the number of privately-owned cars reduce and MAAS (mobility as a service) companies aggregate more trips into fewer cars. --Jouni (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense) B ⇤--arg65: . Predictions say that traffic flows will increase, not decrease in Helsinki (REF?). --Jouni (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack, unattackedstand: attack) B

How to read discussions

Value discussion: Inhabitants must be subsidised (equality)
Opening statement: Equal distribution of congestion charges is not fair. People living within congestion charge area should not have to pay the same amount as people from outside. Closing statement: Accepted. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--arg66: . In Milano residents have 40 free entries and after that discounted cost of 2 instead of 5 euros. --Tine Bizjak (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defense, personaltine: defense) A

Materials that can be used

These are Finnish (focusing on Helsinki) discussions or proposals about congestion charge. The web pages are linked through Google translator so that the text shown is automatically translated text from Finnish to English. Mostly it works fine, but be aware of mistakes.

• The environmental council of the city of Helsinki suggests (9th May 2017) that regional congestion charges should be available for cities and the cities also should get the money collected. [44]
• Osmo Soininvaara, a member of Helsinki City Council, suppports congestion charges. These are his arguments:
  • 3rd April 2017: congestion charges are effective in reducing traffic jams, they reduce emissions, and they collect money for the city. [45]
  • 4th April 2017: even if a congestion charge punishes poor people (who can afford to sit in the current traffic jams but cannot afford the charges), the benefits (see previous point) spread to the whole community. [46]
• The Helsinki Regional Transport Agency HSL is planning congestion charges. News from February 2016.
  • Yle [47]
  • HSL:s own news [48]
  • Helsingin uutiset (a local newspaper) [49]
• Report on congestion charges in Helsinki, 2016 [50]
• Background report on congestion charges, 2015 (in Finnish with English summary) [51]
• Autoliitto (Car Drivers' Association) opposes congestion charge in Helsinki (2009) [52], (2011) [53]
  • Hannu Oskala argues against Autoliitto's statements (2012) [54]
• Summary page of HSL material about congestion charge (mostly Finnish only) [55]
• Helsingin kaupunki. Ruuhkamaksut tehokkain keino parantaa Helsingin ilmanlaatua nopeasti. (12.01.2017) [56]
• HSL (11.2.2016): Tiemaksut varmistaisivat Helsingin seudun kestävän kasvun [57]
  • Helsingin Sanomat [58]
  • Helsingin Uutiset [59]
  • Kauppalehti-blogi [60]
• LVM. (2011) Helsingin seudun ruuhkamaksu. Jatkoselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 5/2011. [61]
• LVM. (2007). Joukkoliikenteen houkuttelevuuden ja käytön lisääminen eri liikkujaryhmissä. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 63/2007. [62]
  • Talouselämä-uutiskommentti [63]
• LVM. Tienkäyttömaksujärjestelmät. Esiselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 17/2006. [64]

Scientific articles about congestion charge and health

• doi:10.1126/science.aaf3420
• doi:10.1016/j.jth.2015.08.002
• doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.912615
• doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.004
• doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.01.002
• doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.015
• doi:10.1080/13547500902965252
• doi:10.5172/impp.453.10.2-3.269
• doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.030
• doi:10.1136/jech.2003.012385

Translations from the Finnish assessment report [65]

2.4 Eligibility of pricing

Economics theories, designing measures, and impact assessments are usually normative analyzes that answer the question of what should be done. An alternative, positive approach alternative describes institutional (situations based on habitual systems and organizational structures) where only certain things can be done, that is, acceptable. Decision-making systems are combinations of normative and positive operating environments.

For example, in London, the main parties objected to setting a congestion charge. However, in 2003, a Mayor-independent candidate, Ken Livingstone, who had promised to implement congestion charges, was elected as mayor. The mayor of London has executive powers in such matters, where the views of the main parties were irrelevant. Before the mayoral elections, the Labor Party had separated Livingstone and set a formal candidate, but it did not end in the election. London congestion charges proved to be a success, and in the subsequent mayoral elections, Livingstone was again the Labor Party's official candidate and won the election.

The political backdrop of the Stockholm congestion charge test, on the other hand, was based on the fact that the Swedish Green Party promised support for the Social Democrats' government if a congestion levy test was launched in Stockholm. In this case too, wider political and regional decision-making was largely ignored. The government that made the payments was lost in elections, but despite this, the new Swedish government decided to stabilize Stockholm's congestion charges because the benefits of the scheme were clear and the public opinion had turned to the side of the payments.

London and Stockholm congestion charges are good examples of pricing-related decision-making and policy specificities. Göteborg's decision-making has progressed through a wider process. London and Stockholm congestion charges are also good examples of how fast the resistance to congestion charges can turn out to be accepted when the positive effects of the payment start to appear.

Economics theory, studies and practical experience show that road tolls are a useful tool for transport policy. However, road user charges and congestion charges have not yet reached a well-established position in politics. The main reason is that they have no widespread support from citizens and politicians. The admissibility of road user fees is a challenge. In the 2007 study "Effects of Land Use Fees in Finland. Preliminary study "(LVM publications 35/2007), the subject matter was widely considered.

Congestion as a phenomenon and vehicle pricing as a measure are complicated things to understand. For example, car makers do not always consider pricing as a particularly effective means of reducing congestion as they misjudge the volume of traffic that needs to be reduced in order for traffic to flow without congestion. The formation of congestion is a complex phenomenon and it is difficult to estimate the total number of traffic and disadvantages. Generally, it is estimated that the reduction target would be about 50%, even if the congestion would be eliminated by a 15% reduction. This is because the congestion increases steeply when the bus reaches its capacity.

Congestion charges also tend to be strong opposition, as motorists feel that they are the victims of congestion and are not the cause of the congestion, and therefore the management of demand through payments is seen to be unfair. Even if one extra minute does not seem like a lot, 1500 more people in the same band feel the same. Every new car driver who travels to the crowd will, in addition to the slowdown in the journey they are experiencing, also have an additional extra delay.

It is easier to accept individual access fees for bridge, tunnel or new lanes, as it is easy for people to experience the benefits of a new connection or service that is cost-effective. The admissibility of congestion charges increases, if the implementation of the payment involves improving the quality of the transport system, for example in the form of bottleneck investments. Generally, in the ex-post evaluation, approval will be greatly enhanced when it is seen that demand control works and mobility is more smooth even through concrete investments financed through pricing.

Opinion polls show that the use of premium revenue is a very important factor for the acceptability of road user charges. Support for payment systems will increase considerably if it is decided beforehand that the premium revenue will be redirected to traffic. Usually, people consider it important to allocate premium revenue to the development of public transport, traffic routes and environmental damage reduction. It has also been found that improving the living environment and increasing road safety will greatly increase acceptance of payments. Instead, allocating funds to lowering other taxes or filling the state budget is not considered acceptable.

People must also have options for using a newly priced car. This is why, for example, congestion charges usually involve improving public transport, which must take place at the latest at the same time as congestion charges are introduced. Equality and fairness issues are important to people, and they must be told how these things are resolved.

The acceptability of pricing is also often undermined by the fact that citizens often see new payments as a new tax in addition to the existing ones. Taxes on transport are largely based on fiscal criteria, but because the level of taxes also affects mobility, it would be good to look at their welfare effects critically while deciding on pricing. It should be noted, however, that as a source of funding, the fuel tax is efficient due to its small collection costs and operates in the same way as pricing, especially in relation to performance-based external costs, especially outside congested urban areas. Effective control effects can be obtained by targeting pricing correctly in relation to the existing disadvantages and the potential benefits of potential mobility. For example, the fuel tax on steadily consuming every liter of fuel consumed is not an effective control in this respect.

The key objective for business life is that the logistics costs can be lowered. In delivery chains, timing has a particularly high weight. In Stockholm, for example, the congestion fee reduced the logistical costs of business life and the distribution of deliveries went more efficiently. If road transport charges increase the cost of transport, they should significantly increase the service level.

One argument against congestion charges is regional competition. Centers' shops are already competing with out-of-town shopping centers and, therefore, retailers in the city are afraid that congestion charges for city centers will strengthen the competitive position of external shopping centers. In practice, such effects have not been observed, for example, in Stockholm (Daunfelt et al., 2009), but the effects of the London congestion charge zone were noticeable (Quddus et al., 2007). However, it should be remembered that the attractiveness of commercial services in central cities is also negatively affected by the congested transport system.

Growth in trade can ultimately lead to a more self-reliant community structure. However, the situation may also be the opposite. Better smooth traffic and improved public transport can bring more customers to the malls. For example, in Stockholm, sales of the downtown shopping center increased by 6 percent during the congestion charge test.

One of the basic issues related to road charges is justice, which is defined in different ways, often based on personal circumstances and experience. Often, the fear is that congestion charges reduce the number of trips that are deemed necessary. These include trips to nearby shops, schools and the hospital. Tolls are seen to increase inequality and low-income mobility. However, these disadvantages may be reduced by means of timing of payments or by various compensation methods (eg limiting the number of payments or developing the supply and quality of alternative means of payment).

New technologies raises doubts about functionality issues, complexity, and cost. Endangering privacy is a particularly sensitive issue in connection with new technologies. As stated in Chapter 4.3.5, security and privacy can, however, be managed in an acceptable manner, which is of paramount importance in the case of a mandatory tax or charge imposed by an authority.

3. Methods and premises

3.1 Assessment frame

The criteria for selecting the technical pricing model in Chapter 4 and the price levels were as follows:

• Impact on goals.
• Impact on social economy.
• The amount of revenue required for investments in the HLJ strategy.
• The feasibility of the system (including the ratio between system revenue and depreciation / operating costs) and risks.
• Understandability and acceptability of the system, impact and price level (including the breakdown).

The whole transport system options defined by the working group were compared on the basis of an even larger scale of frameworks, where the objectives of the HLJ Plan and of the more general MAL process were compiled into the framework of Table 1.

Evaluation framework for Helsinki transport strategy

Focus areas	Announced HJL/MAL target	Criteria
Functionality of the transport system	Congestion is under control	Socio-economic cost-effectiveness of the region/transport system Direction of influence, significance and focus on different user groups and regions.
	Travel times predictable
	Travel and transportation chains smooth near and far
Significant environmental impacts	The disadvantages and loads of traffic will be reduced
	Exposure to noise and emissions is reduced
	Climate targets are achieved
The development of sustainable mobility	The competitiveness of public transport is improving
	Cycling is tempting and smooth
	Moving safe in all modes
Growth direction and accessibility	The need for mobility decreases
	Accessibility of sustainable modes
	Accessibility of car traffic is improved
HS competitiveness and economic impact	An attractive, versatile and functional region
	Business conditions are safeguarded
	Job Mobility and Customer Accessibility Improves
Social endurance	Transport costs remain reasonable
	Everyday travel options for different needs
	Dependence on cars is reduced
The investment and operating costs of the system, feasibility and risks as well as the financial aspect

9 Conclusions

Pricing of vehicle traffic is based on the challenge posed by the growth of the transport system

As stated in chapters 3 and 4, for the functioning of the transport system, there is a congestion in the current state of the road network which would be good to remove for the functionality and competitiveness of the region, as the efficiency of the transport system is weakened by congestion by

• travel times increasing,
• the predictability of travel times deteriorating,
• the need for equipment increasing and
• accidents and emissions increasing.

The traffic congestion now focuses on all radial routes, Ring Road I and the city center. Growth in the region is aggravated by the congestion of the road network, which is not managed by the means currently in use. It is important to note that, according to the analysis, the structure and demand of the road network capacity are imbalanced; Part of the network runs smoothly and the capacity is not necessarily effective, and on the other hand some of the network has clear operational problems.

However, the congestion caused by the growth of the region has to be controlled by the functionality and competitiveness of the region. Congestion will only ease in the future for cycles for which the HLJ 2015 Plan has targeted capacity-building measures, for example on Tuusulanväylä between Ring Road III and Ring Road I and in the middle of Ring Road I, but at the whole network level, the congestion will not ease in the 2025 situation but worsens compared to the current situation. A significant increase in the capacity of the entire car traffic network is costly and would further increase car traffic, for example, from public transport.

Financial control is proof that it is an effective way of balancing the demand for transport to take advantage of the service level offered by the entire transport system

The functionality of pricing guidance is based on a number of Nordic, European and international examples, which are presented in Chapter 2. Pricing of vehicle traffic is an effective means of managing congestion as:

• The journey moves to sustainable modes of transport. Particularly for longer journeys to public transport, the average length of journeys increases especially for public transport journeys, and the structure of the region is compressed into rampways.
• Car traffic is redirected as cars are shorter and out of the highest priced areas. In the long term, land use based on accessibility of the car in the region also adapts to steering, concentrating the regional structure closer to the workplace concentrations and efficient rail transport.
• Pricing drives motorists out of congested lanes, causing congestion to diminish, fluency improves. Some drivers can take advantage of improved fluency to meet their mobility needs more effectively.
• In addition, the bottleneck investments made possible by pricing benefits make it possible for the entire network to be smoother and more efficient loading and to keep the need for pricing control reasonably priced.

There are several technical options for tolls and their functionality is linked to the whole transport system and land use

Pricing is a key component of the HJL 2015 strategy, which was not investigated at the time of the plan but by way of example by relying on a functional model of the LVM congestion charge (2009), based on satellite-based technology. This study covered a number of active road toll models for transport (Chapter 4).

According to the study, the working group decided to evaluate the effects of a single pricing model based on the gate zones, which according to the study team was the most economical, clear and efficient model from the different perspectives studied. The lines formed by payment cards follow, for example, the boundaries of the new public transport ticketing and taxation systems, and payments are staggered so that the traffic orientation is in balance with the transportability of the transport system.

However, during the evaluation process, it was noted that if the level of pricing is matched to the social economy correctly and bottleneck investments are planned based on this demand, the road network will utilize more users with more naturally mobile mobility needs. In this case, the disadvantages of pricing (additional cost) and benefits (time savings) are better balanced.

From the point of view of control, it is also worthwhile collecting charges where the external costs occur and its level and the disadvantages disappear. The model included in the impact assessment was also studied as a sensitivity review for larger versions that were found to have positive effects. At the same time, it is also worthwhile to make road network bottlenecks in order to provide useful traffic to the road network without jeopardizing the flow of traffic, without requiring pricing guidance as much as the entire network is in effective use. Public transport projects, on the other hand, will safeguard the level of service of those who move from the road network by means of guidance (otherwise the congestion).

The best performance of vehicle pricing is ultimately linked to its role in the development of the entire transport system and land use, which should be balanced as a whole. The key conclusion of the technical review is that although the study has examined various primitive port models and their implications, it will be possible to plan and evaluate almost unlimitedly different combinations of gate positions and pay levels for which a more complete overall solution can be found than it was now. In any further planning, it is important to thoroughly analyze the pricing system at its best as part of the entire transport system plan and also the land use planning.

The effects of the area level impact of the investigated functional pricing model clearly support the achievement of the regional development objectives as part of the HLJ 2015 Plan and its MAL Framework

The effects of the package of measures, which are examined in Chapter 5, are summarized in Table 5. As has been noted in previous national road toll surveys and international follow-up studies, the analyzes carried out show that vehicle pricing is a viable solution to future problems and set targets. It is particularly effective in safeguarding the functionality and sustainability of the regional transport system. The general improvement in traffic flow caused by passenger car bidding also benefits transport activities. This report does not assume or estimate the impact of payments for goods and distribution traffic. The whole set of measures is economically viable. In other respects, the situation is more complex.

Table 5. Summary of Impact of the Pricing Procedure (VE1).

Focus areas		A summary of the implications for the region's objectives	General additional criteria
Functionality of the transport system	+	Congestion in the fully used road network is controlled by control and bottleneck investments.	An explored package of measures that includes a variety of measures in addition to pricing guidance is also economically viable (+ 20M € / yr) The direction, significance and direction of impacts on different user groups and regions require further development of the functional model and compensation mechanisms.
	+	The travel times of the main freeways are about 10% shorter and are much more predictable thanks to guidance.
	+	Transport chains are smoother, freight traffic does not pay. The level of bus service increases as quality corridors are not crowded.
Significant environmental impacts	+	Traffic disadvantages and environmental loads are reduced by about 5%.
	+	Vehicle noise reduction and emission sources are reduced by 5 or 8%.
	+	Reduction of vehicle speeds reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 3 or 5%, making the achievement of climate targets more likely.
The development of sustainable mobility	+	The competitiveness of public transport improves, 100,000 more
	+	The attractiveness of walking and cycling is increasing, as evidenced by a 2 percentage point increase in the share.
	+	Mobility is safer since vehicle accidents are reduced by 4 or 8%.
Growth direction and accessibility	+	The need for mobility decreases, as the region is compacted and the trips are reduced by 1 or 3%.
	+	SAVU accessibility for sustainable modes will be greatly improved thanks to the investment made possible by road tolls.
	+	Car travel time gains are improved as speeds increase and average travel times are reduced by 5 or 8%.
	-	Total accessibility decreases as tolls are experienced as a travel disadvantage.
HS competitiveness and economic impact	+	The region remains attractive, functional and therefore competitive as the public transport service level, road network quality, congestion management and international connections improve.
	+	Impact on Business / Logistics: The operating conditions of City Logistics will improve and there will be no significant changes to national logistics.
	+/-	Impact on business / trade: The parent city and the districts of KUUMA municipalities will be strengthened as service centers. The attractiveness of the shopping districts of Ring Road I-III is weakened.
	+/-	Impact on business life / jobs: The attractiveness of the capital city is improving and the attractiveness of the work centers in southern Espoo and Kehä I-III is weakened.
	+	Mobility and customer satisfaction is improving.
	-	Costs lower the reachability.
Social endurance	+/-	Transport costs remain reasonable.
	-	Low-cost mobility costs are increasing in some areas.
	+	There are alternatives for different travel needs
	+	Dependence on cars decreases
The investment and operating costs of the zone port system are 20 - 25 M € / yr. The tested functional model is good for feasibility and risk management. The use of toll income as a new financial asset (net of € 150 million / year or € 80 million / year) is an essential part of profitability from a regional point of view.

Although the need for mobility in the direction of the growth of the entire region decreases and the travel time gains of SAVU and car traffic in sustainable modes improve, the monetary growth of the toll charges is necessarily felt as a decrease in overall accessibility, which is a disadvantage. Pricing and transport system development measures also affect the growth directions of the region, as the relative accessibility of the regions will inevitably change. It is still likely that further development of a functional model and compensation mechanisms will be required in order to have the direction, significance and targeting desired.

Comparing the alternative to VE0 60% of the population in the Helsinki region lives in regions where the effect of pricing is neutral, ie the difference between alternatives is small. In regions with attractive pricing disadvantages, one fifth of residents live and the same share lives in areas of healing power.

One fifth of the jobs are located in regions whose pricing behavior has a detrimental effect on the comparison option and a quarter of them are in the areas of healing attractiveness. The differences are very large between regions in the metropolitan area. One third of Helsinki's jobs are in areas of improving attractiveness, while in Espoo the figure is one tenth, and in Vantaa none. Nearly 60% in Vantaa and 45% of jobs in the Espoo and Kauniainen districts are located in regions whose attraction decreases; In Helsinki, there are a dozen jobs in these areas. In the area of the Railway-KUUMA, the jobs are divided into half between the neutral and improving areas of attraction. Bus-KUUMA's jobs are located in almost completely neutral areas.

Shopping and business trips are made mostly off peak hours on weekdays, so the toll rate for the pricing model is lower, as well as at weekends when no toll is charged. For this reason, pricing affects less fluency in mobility and on the other hand, payload is lower than on commuting. According to the results, however, the impact of pricing on the attractiveness of trading and service areas is strongly biased. Households direct their trips to neighboring areas as well as to the best accessible public transport concentrations at the expense of car-based mergers. The center of gravity of the Nuclear Power Center is increasing, but tolls in other parts of the city do not have a significant impact. Pricing does not undermine the conditions for new service concentrations in the city center. The impact is positive for the attractiveness of the service centers and local services of KUUMA municipalities.

Competitiveness criteria that are commonly used in international competitiveness and well-being in cities are the public transport service level, road network quality, congestion management and international connections. A pricing package is a prerequisite for a Competitiveness Comprehensive Plan. The problem is the increase in traffic costs, which is not necessarily a big problem in the whole, as toll revenue can be directed as desired. However, it is clear that if returns are not returned to the region and are properly targeted, pricing is a risk to the region's competitiveness.

Although pricing increases the cost of motoring, they are not expected to grow unreasonably in terms of social sustainability. Improved accessibility supports the attractiveness of residential areas and a balanced demographic structure. The accessibility of services and jobs through sustainable forms of travel will be improved. The development of centers and nodes supports the maintenance of services. Choices for car non-moving are improving. The accessibility of the transport system will be improved.

The investigated functional gateway model is better than new types of mileage models for repayment, feasibility and risk management.

The focus of the impacts on different groups and regions requires a functional model and its price levels to be adjusted, supported or compensated mechanisms

Factors that may have an impact on the growth of the region's growth orientation and the potential for competitiveness are related to targeting effects. For example, the deterioration of the tractive power of the Ring Road / Ring Road III and the rise in commuting costs for workers in low-income workers in the service and production sectors.

In particular, the relationship between pricing on land use and the potential to eliminate or mitigate relative regional handicaps to business life should also be clarified. In the future, the number of payment points, ie the number of frames and cross lines, and the amount of payments should be studied for the vitality and tax revenue of the municipality. Even though the premium income would be lost, employment and other tax revenue in the larger sense, for example in Vantaa, would be the road or the effects of financing road projects.

In this regard, it is worth considering first reducing the target level of pricing financing. Raising the level of funding typically leads to pricing being not optimal for the steering effect and social economy. The pricing option, where tolls are half of the VE1 option, mitigates the deteriorating effect of pricing habitation in areas where the effect on relative accessibility is negative with the tested alternative. The lower pay level also has fewer and fewer areas of accessibility than the areas of weakened workplace accessibility.

Relatively weakening regions can be supported by adjusting the form of pricing zones and the level of payments across the payment system and also by investments. The comparison option VE0 is, on the one hand, only one possible growth orientation growth scenario from many potential. Particularly, the regional development emphasis is reflected in the measures already taken, particularly in the areas of the Länsimetro and Ring Roads, where the accessibility of sustainable forms of transport is developing significantly from the situation in 2012. The relative accessibility impact of pricing is then reflected in comparison with option VE0, so that the accessibility and growth potential of some regions will deteriorate, even if compared to the current situation, they are more in favor of other regions in the region.

The pricing model examined as part of the HLJ 2015 plan is economically viable

According to the calculation in Chapter 6, the result of VE1 is EUR 19.5 million per year compared to the 0 + comparison option, which only executes projects that are running and (by 1.12.2015). However, in the case of pricing, the social economy net result is largely dependent on balancing the growth of motorists' costs and other objectives. The perceived disadvantage of the payment rises rapidly as fees and hence prices rise. When pricing is too strong, users' disadvantages and dissatisfaction grow faster than pricing revenue. Environmental and safety impacts and changes in operating costs and taxes are also included in the calculation.

For this reason, chapter 5 also showed the variation of the model studied (VE3) where payments were halved. Alternative VE3's economic performance is EUR 32.4 million, or EUR 12.9 million more profitable than VE1. According to the socioeconomic calculation in Chapter 6, it is more efficient, as revenues fall less than the net disadvantages faced by users (payload and time and cost savings of congestion).

Profitability and fairness of the model's end-to-end model can be further developed. Sensitivity reviews give this a look. For example, pricing guidance and bottleneck investments are an entity in which they affect each other's needs. If investment is carried out without pricing, bottlenecks can be dismantled, but the region's growth is still causing new congestion problems across the road network. If a mere pricing action is made, the road network may be under-utilized.

Sensitivity assessments also show that the socio-economic cost-effectiveness of vehicle pricing and the need to secure the functioning of the road network will grow significantly if vehicle traffic is growing faster than expected in the forecasts of the calculations. This is also the case if funding for the development of the transport system is unsuccessful as planned, public transport ticket prices will have to increase or economic growth will accelerate, increasing the mobility of residents. The financing levels of the HLJ 2015 Plan and also the Comparative Option are fairly goal-oriented compared to the project-specific so-called " 0+ compared to the benchmarking principles. On the other hand, the need for pricing is reduced if the use of the car becomes more expensive or otherwise decreases.

Time-sensitivity assessments of the differences in efficiency between vehicle traffic and the current 2025 and 2040 demand situation in the current situation (2012) also showed that the need for pricing is constantly increasing. The social cost of the pricing model studied in 2040 was many times higher than in 2025. However, because of the roughness of the calculations, the "right moment" is difficult to determine accurately.

The conclusions drawn from the relative differences between the investigated comparative scenarios are clear, but the net results of the socioeconomic calculations have to be taken into account in the reserve since the calculations still involve a number of uncertainties and development needs, which are dealt with in Chapter 3.

The financial impact of tolls is significant

Payment levels also determine the revenue of the pricing, which is also part of the HLJ strategy in terms of funding. The impact of the question on the comparison of alternatives depends, of course, on the extent of the investment program and other measures, their financial need and how the costs of financing are taken into account in decision-making.

The set return target includes a provision of 55 million to cover the higher cost of demand for public transport that may result in pricing and a general increase in service levels. For example, in Stockholm pricing has led to a drop in the number of trips and the impact on public transport was less than predicted. Investment levels also depend on both the profitability of the projects and the more general consideration of the financial level of the sensible region. If possible further studies lead to similar conclusions, it may be taken into account in the future definition of the yield level.

The technical feasibility of pricing is good with the tested model

The study did not detect any technical feasibility problems that would prevent the implementation of the investigated zone report system if it were decided to take action. Systems have been in use elsewhere for many years. The charging system is a combination of IT technology (computers, software and connection devices) and physical devices in the roadside and in cars. The average life span of technology is 5-8 years.

On the other hand, the feasibility of a mileage system would be a question mark as there is no experience in passenger transport. With regard to technology, decision-making should be guided by operational needs, predictability of implementation costs and sufficiency of the payment system. Ideal system may have to wait a long time.

The technical solutions described in this report can be considered to represent traditional or near-known solutions for the coming years. If you are looking for performance-based satellite positioning charges for passenger cars (which are nowhere), then a traditional vehicle solution solution is unlikely to be likely for many reasons. A separate retrofit vehicle device is quite expensive and can only be used in the form of a single service, ie tolls. The current implementations are all for heavy traffic. In this case, the vehicles to be equipped are much less and the resulting costs can be included in the freight rates and thus transferred to customers.

On the one hand, technology development can be the doorstep, where new technologies will soon be possible. Different contexts have been considered for example. The potential of smartphones or navigators with regard to the pay-per-view. Already today, a passenger car with a few people may be able to ride several GPS devices: one smartphone per passenger, a navigator used by the driver, and several other devices, such as PCs or tablets. However, these can not yet be used to pay tolls that have their own requirements for safety and reliability. The road toll solution also includes a credible surveillance solution. It is therefore necessary to develop a new overall concept, taking into account the specific requirements of road tolls. From the point of view of the implementer, the situation is ultimately the following: a) Better solutions are expected, ie time when new, yet unknown solutions are viable, b) Do the risk of the developer or first-ever developer in the highly global application-oriented sector, or c) Whether it is available at decision-making, Is reasonably priced, fairly risk-free and stays on schedule.

In connection with the toll road system in the Helsinki region, A possible nationwide system, whereby the role of mileage may change because the system is highly scalable. In this situation, the size of the Helsinki region's scale of systemic cost savings will change significantly in relation to the collection fees.

It is still important to note that even though the recovery technology will later be "better", almost everything else remains intact, such as the basis for the payment and the use of revenues, legislation, organizational solutions (payer and system operator), sales network, surveillance technology, May pose new requirements. Technology choice is therefore not virtually bound by the solution in a very long time, and the pricing model examined in the study is likely to be implemented with both conventional technology and GNSS-based gravity technology. It is also important to note that a possible solution based on a license plate interpretation can be utilized in the control system if you switch to a satellite positioning system, for example.

The introduction requires further action

As noted above, the technical features of the priced pricing model can be further developed in many ways. Decision-making may also require the development of socio-economic evaluation methods. This should be done in the HLJ / MAL context, because optimal control depends naturally on what else in the region is decided to do. Not all of the technical specifications set out in Chapter 4 have been sensible at this stage, such as

• Increase in peak hourly payouts according to the development of traffic jams,
• Validity periods,
• Daytime shears,
• Vehicle categories subject to payment,
• Handling occasional car drivers,
• Security and security
• Potential value-added services.

You should only return to these if you decide to proceed with the planning of the action. Only then will you be able to design technical details.

Some of the questions are those that require more detailed assessment methods because the evaluation method used to investigate the impact of strategic regional investment (HELMET) is virtually impossible as a traffic analysis of the two hourly and hourly hourly conversations, and much of the impact assessment is based on various extensions of these results. The modeling method does not allow for a more accurate analysis of these periods or sufficient analysis of other periods, rather than linking time groups to people, so that the targeting effects can not be reliably investigated. In this respect, only the simulation of direct impacts was based on a separate method.

Implementation path requires its own discretion and impact assessment. The zone gate system can be constructed, for example, in stages, starting from the inner frames, so that the alternative models in Chapter 4 will work in the "series".

Alternative means do not replace the pricing guidance presented in HLJ 2015

The analysis of Chapter 8 shows that alternative, sufficiently impressive package solutions in the light of the growth of the region is difficult to elaborate and analyze using existing methods. Investments did not prove to be effective measures to compensate for vehicle traffic control and the calculation of public transport ticket prices was considered unrealistic without any idea of its financing. Parking policy has the same type of control and also financial impact as pricing, but it would require such comprehensive measures or policies as this can not be proposed by an expert in this study.

The promotion of walking and cycling promoted by expert analysis could in itself be alternatives to vehicle pricing but would require more empirical information on the effectiveness of the measures and also the further development of methods for assessing the impact on transport system level so that their impact could be explored as part of the overall transport system.

In the future, the effectiveness of interference management, movement control, services and intelligence will require more extensive and model-demanding reviews, which will only give a better idea of whether it can be used. Policies are further intensified so that pricing guidance is no longer needed as part of the HLJ strategy.

The methods found in Chapter 8 have been mainly used by the HLJ 2015 process and no pricing has been found to be unnecessary at that stage, indicating the need for a measure. The resources of this study have not been able to make the overall program corresponding to the HLJ plan again, so the effects of the alternative strategy could not be estimated at the same level as in Chapter 5.

It is also important to note that the impact of pricing does not contradict other development objectives of the transport system. Therefore, other measures should not be put in conflict with economic guidance, but the transport system and the whole community structure are a whole. All measures promoting the objectives support this whole and usually reinforce their synergy. This is also due to the fact that the effects of different measures are directed to the mechanisms of a different community structure, so their combinations can be designed so that the negative effects of a single action can be effectively mitigated. Half of the pricing can also be calculated by the fact that different compensation mechanisms are also possible, as net returns can be restored in the desired way back to society.