Talk:Congestion charge
Health effects, air quality and climate change
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme doesn't significantly affect air quality in cities.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#: . 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. [1] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 28.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . By reduction of traffic flows, the release of several pollutant emissions also reduce over time. For example, Daniel and Bekka (2000) [6] 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) ←--#: . 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. [7] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:02, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#: . Congestion charge scheme to a significant extend affect the reduction of 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 [8] --User:Margaret Arogunyo (talk) 14:35, 15.5.2017 (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme will improve the populations’ health.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . 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. [9] --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:23, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#: . Congestion charge can lead to reduction in road traffic related casualties and injuries.[10] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 15:03, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
Individual choice
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme constrains individual choice and behavior.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#: . 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.[11] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#: . Congestion scheme can promote sustainable mobility if the revenue is invested in public transportation infrastructure [12]. --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:01, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#: . 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. [13] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:11, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Economy
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: The economic viability of tariffs and transformation of urban space will encourage more use of roads and cars.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . 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.[14] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#: . 10 years after Congestion charge was implemented in London 10% reduction of traffic volumes was observed. [15] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:28, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: congestion charge schemes can restrict urban mobility and human capital growth.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . 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.[16] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#: . 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 healt.[17] --User:edem agbenowu (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#: . 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. [18] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 14:59, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is unfair.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . 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 [20] --Edem Agbenowu (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#: . 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. [21] --User:Tine Bizjak (talk) 13:45, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#: . 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 [22] --Edem Agbenowu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: congestion charge prevents the occurrence of tragedy of the commons.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . 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 [23] --User:edem agbenowu (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: To ensure air quality standards, the congestion charge scheme needs to be dynamic.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----#: . 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. [24] --User:Tamara Gajst (talk) 14:23, 15.5.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
|
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. [23]
- 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. [24]
- 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. [25]
- The Helsinki Regional Transport Agency HSL is planning congestion charges. News from February 2016.
- Report on congestion charges in Helsinki, 2016 [29]
- Background report on congestion charges, 2015 (in Finnish with English summary) [30]
- Autoliitto (Car Drivers' Association) opposes congestion charge in Helsinki (2009) [31], (2011) [32]
- Hannu Oskala argues against Autoliitto's statements (2012) [33]
- Summary page of HSL material about congestion charge (mostly Finnish only) [34]
- Helsingin kaupunki. Ruuhkamaksut tehokkain keino parantaa Helsingin ilmanlaatua nopeasti. (12.01.2017) [35]
- HSL (11.2.2016): Tiemaksut varmistaisivat Helsingin seudun kestävän kasvun [36]
- LVM. (2011) Helsingin seudun ruuhkamaksu. Jatkoselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 5/2011. [40]
- LVM. (2007). Joukkoliikenteen houkuttelevuuden ja käytön lisääminen eri liikkujaryhmissä. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 63/2007. [41]
- Talouselämä-uutiskommentti [42]
- LVM. Tienkäyttömaksujärjestelmät. Esiselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 17/2006. [43]
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
English translations of the key points in background report on congestion charges, 2015 [44]
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
| Focus areas | Announced HJL/MAL target | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Functionality of the transport system | Congestion is under control |
|
| 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 | ||