"In London and Stockholm, the results are convincing"

Cities will have "opportunities" to set up urban tolls. François de Rugy, minister of ecological transition, said again this Thursday on
 the BFMTV set. This will be one of the measures contained in the
 a mobility orientation project to be presented to the Council of Ministers in the autumn.

Urban congestion: "It is not the State that will decide or impose it", insists François de Rugy https://t.co/Fc77zgNMcw pic.twitter.com/cMdsMEjNFU

– BFMTV (@BFMTV) October 18, 2018

A legal device allowing local authorities who wanted to experiment was already included in the Grenelle II law of 2010, but these devices have never been tested in France. Conversely, this tool for managing transport flows is already in place in London and Stockholm, respectively for fifteen and twelve years. Senator
Fabienne Keller (Acting) has investigated these two examples, which she says have "convincing results", and has just submitted her report to the Senate.

What should be done in the first place to ease tensions around urban tolls?

Already, the denomination is not adapted. The term "congestion rate", chosen by the government, seems to me more appropriate. The idea is not to punish but to change behavior. The observation is that an extra car in the hypercentre has many negative externalities: it aggravates congestion and accidentology, degrades the air quality, and also generates greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of these externalities does not only weigh on the motorists but on the community as a whole.

And then, a toll, if we refer to those highways, it's something we pay by habit. The amount is fixed, whatever the day of the year, whatever the time. The devices in place in London and Stockholm are very far away.

How do these devices work in both cities?

In both cities, tolls operate at the same times. That is to say during the day, from Monday to Friday. It is a good idea to target only the moments when car traffic is spontaneously too important but to guarantee free night, weekends and holidays. On the other hand, London has chosen a restricted field of application: its hypercentre, an area of ​​21 km². In Stockholm, although the agglomeration is less populated, the perimeter is twice as wide – 47 km ² – spreading widely on the suburbs.

The logic of tariffs is also different between the two cities. London has chosen a relatively high price [11,50 livres soit plus de 12 euros], but lump sum: the motorist pays the toll only once a day, that it enters the protected area only once a day or that it enters several times. The rate in Stockholm is much lower: it varies from 1.6 euros in off-peak hours to 2.7 euros in peak hours. On the other hand, the motorist must pay every time he enters the protected area, even if it is several times in the same day. There is still a ceiling of 11 euros.

What has been the impact of these congestion rates in both cities?

In London, the total number of vehicles accessing the city center on weekdays rose from 185,000 in the early 2000s to 125,000 today, a decrease in traffic of 60,000 vehicles. As a result, congestion has decreased by 30% and the number of accidents by 40% compared to 2003. Still in London, in the area subject to toll, CO2 emissions decreased by 16% between 2003 and 2018, those Nitrogen dioxide 8% and PM10 fine particles 7%.

The scheme has also had positive consequences in Stockholm, where the number of daily cordon crossing has increased from 450,000 in 2005 to 325,000 in 2015, a decrease of 28% in ten years.

Are these devices being challenged today in these two cities?

In Stockholm, only 40% of people were supportive of the scheme initially. The municipal authorities therefore decided to introduce it on an experimental basis initially, over six months. At the end of this period, the toll was suspended and a referendum was held. The "yes" narrowly won with 51.1% of the vote and 74.7%. The congestion charge has therefore been restored and has operated continuously since then. The latest polls show that 74% of people are "for" today.

What are the conditions for a congestion charge to be relevant?

It is already necessary that the agglomeration concerned reaches a certain size – a population of 300.000 inhabitants seems to me a minimum – and that it is affected by car congestion which causes delays and atmospheric pollution. It is also necessary that this kind of projects be considered at length and concerted with the population well in advance. London and Stockholm, for example, have introduced tariff exemptions and tax credits for the most vulnerable populations, those who have no choice but to use the car to get to work or simply to work, who make long distances … This point is indispensable to my eyes.

But it is equally important, even before the tolling system is commissioned, that the city be provided with a very efficient transport network. That is to say, it is able to provide real alternatives to the car, and able to accommodate the surplus of travelers that the "congestion rate" has convinced to leave the car in the garage.

If we take the example of the Paris region and its saturated public transport network … Is it too early to implement a "congestion pricing" device?

Perhaps, but the coming achievement of the Grand Paris could in any case be an opportunity to seize. It is up to each territory to take charge of the file and decide whether or not it is time to introduce a device with a "congestion rate". But there is nothing impossible. It's already working in London, Stockholm and Milan.

Above all, another positive spin-off, the revenues generated in these cities by this "congestion rate" have made it possible to improve public transport in London and Stockholm. Bus networks in particular, but also to maintain the roads in the Swedish capital. It is another prerogative for these urban tolls to be accepted by the population: the money generated must be reinvested locally in improving transport infrastructure.