Congestion charge

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype assessment. The page identifier is Op_en7782
Moderator:Jouni (see all)
Upload data Show results

Congestion charge is a method to internalise external costs of car traffic in cities. Discussion of this topic can be found on the talk page and also on a discussion website.

Question

What reasons are there for implementing or not implementing a congestion charging system in a city? What relevant values exist? What value combinations result in which implementation strategies?

• Specifically, how much would different implementation strategies reduce personal car kilometres in Helsinki?

Scoping details

Boundaries The questions are generic, but we aim to look at the issue also specifically in Helsinki. We look at the current situation. Intended use and users The assessment is intended firstly for decision makers - authorities of the city of Helsinki. Secondly the information derived from the assessment is valuable for other stakeholders. Examples of these are: businesses (especially those directly affected by the congestion charge), tourists and other people visiting the area and local population. Besides providing information that can be helpful in the decision making process the assessment can serve as a mean of increasing general knowledge of the congestion charge as it includes, summarizes and relates different aspects of the topic. Participants Students on the course Decision analysis and risk management 2017. Participation happens on this page (including the related talk page) and also on Google Drive, which contains three things: Real-time online editor for the three tables for Items, Relations, and Evaluations. Real-time online editor for the causal diagram below. Real-time online chat that happens on a Google Document. Decisions and scenarios There are different options considering the implementation of congestion charge. The main two scenarios are: to realize the congestion charge scheme or not. The implementation of congestion charge can be achieved in different ways considering different aspects (health, air quality, economic etc.) identified in this assessment. Different ways of implementation can therefore also represent various possible scenarios. Timing The assessment will be performed during April-May 2017.

Answer

Insight network about a discussion on congestion charge. The focus on this discussion is on whether congestion charges improve air quality or not.

Main conclusions based on discussions:

• Congestion charge scheme improves air quality in cities.R↻
• Congestion charge scheme may improve the populations' health.R↻
• Some people see congestion charges as constraints of individual choice, while others see it as an opportunity and motivation to nudge choice and behaviour to something that makes people happier in general.R↻
• Transformation of urban space will probably not encourage more use of roads and cars.R↻
• Reduced congestion improves mobility despite new charges, and therefore the net utility to travelers has been positive. However, this requires good implementation. R↻
• Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is partly unfair but follows the polluter-pays principle.R↻
• Congestion charge may prevent the occurrence of tragedy of the commons.R↻
• To ensure air quality standards, the congestion charge scheme needs to be dynamic.R↻
• Congestion charges may be inefficient and not economic in the future if mobility services reduce traffic flows.R↻
• Equal distribution of congestion charges may not be fair, but discussion is ongoing. D↷

Rationale

An insight network of causal links related to congestion charge.

Calculations

Impacts of congestion charge plans

This code estimates the impacts of different congestion charge plans on the kilometres driven by car (and thus climate emissions) based on Figure 21 on a HSL study.

+ Show code- Hide code # This is code Op_en7782/ on page [[Congestion charge]] library(OpasnetUtils) library(tibble) library(plotly) objects.latest("Op_en6007", code_name="hnh2035") # pushIndicatorGraph dat <- tibble( Hinnoittelumalli = c("Vinjetti", "Portti S", "Portti 2", "Portti V", "Kilometri", "HLJ"), Muutos = c(-2.7, -2.3, -3.0, -4.3, -3.5, -6.0) ) pushIndicatorGraph( plot_ly( dat, x = ~Hinnoittelumalli, y = ~Muutos, type = 'bar' ) %>% layout(title="Ruuhkamaksumallien vaikutus ajoneuvokilometreihin", xaxis=list(title="Hinnoittelumalli"), yaxis=list(title="Ajokilometrien muutos (%)")) , 91 )

New insight network of discussion

+ Show code- Hide code # This is code Op_en7782/ on page [[Congestion charge]] library(OpasnetUtils) objects.latest("Op_en3861", code_name="makeGraph") # makeGraph dat <- scrape(page="Talk:Congestion_charge", type="discussion", n=1, wiki="opasnet_en") gr <- makeGraph(dat[dat$paradigm=="science",]) render_graph(gr) export_graph(gr, "Insight network about a discussion on congestion charge.svg")

Links to variable pages

This code is old and uses igraph package.

Tamara's and Tine's variable page on Congestion charge impacts on air quality.

----#: . https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5dY4ezoJ5FOWFdnT2NoS0tfa28 Google Drive Work Environment--Ehab Mustafa (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

+ Show code- Hide code library(OpasnetUtils) library(OpasnetUtilsExt) #library(gsheet) library(reshape2) library(igraph) oprint(google.point_kml) oprint(google.show_kml_data_on_maps) if(FALSE){ items <- gsheet2tbl("https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10EuSt-YonlHQyNELCAftSiZ72jAsPKhw5q5MqQhbY10/edit")[1:6] relations <- gsheet2tbl("https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10EuSt-YonlHQyNELCAftSiZ72jAsPKhw5q5MqQhbY10/edit#gid=781892235")[1:8] evaluations <- gsheet2tbl("https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10EuSt-YonlHQyNELCAftSiZ72jAsPKhw5q5MqQhbY10/edit#gid=1821973371")[1:8] index <- rbind( cbind(items[c("ID", "Name")], Table = "items"), cbind(relations[c("ID", "Name")], Table = "relations"), cbind(evaluations[c("ID", "Name")], Table = "evaluations") ) index <- melt( index, measure.vars = c("ID", "Name"), variable.name = "Column", value.name = "Identifier" ) index <- index[!is.na(index$Identifier),] if(anyDuplicated(index$Identifier)) { cat("Warning: The following names are duplicated:\n") oprint(index[index$Identifier %in% index$Identifier[duplicated(index$Identifier)],]) } #colnames(items) <- paste(colnames(items), "I", sep="_") #colnames(relations) <- paste(colnames(relations), "R", sep="_") colnames(evaluations)[colnames(evaluations)=="Evaluation"] <- "Predicate" relations <- rbind(relations, evaluations) } objects.latest("Op_fi5642", code_name = "preprocessing") jy2 <- jy for(i in 1:ncol(jy2)) jy2[[i]] <- as.character(jy2[[i]]) jy2 <- jy2[1:100,] it <- data.frame( Name = c(jy2$Subjekti, jy2$Objekti), stringsAsFactors = TRUE ) it <- it[!duplicated(it$Name) , , drop = FALSE] jygraph <- graph.data.frame( jy2[c(1,3,2,4:ncol(jy2))], directed = TRUE, vertices = it ) plo <- plot.igraph(jygraph, vertex.label.cex = 0.8, vertex.label = NA, vertex.size = 2, #V(jygraph)$vsize, vertex.color = "Skyblue2",#V(jygraph)$vcolor, vertex.shape = "circle",#V(jygraph)$vshape, vertex.frame.color = "Black", vertex.label.family = "Helvetica", edge.color = "Black",#E(jygraph)$ecolor, edge.width = 0.5, #E(jygraph)$ewidth, edge.arrow.size = 0.5, layout = layout.fruchterman.reingold ) l <- layout.fruchterman.reingold(jygraph) oprint(l) ###################################### #library(maptools) #library(RgoogleMaps)

Dependencies

In order to reach the sustainable mode of transport, road charges can be used. They can smoothen the trip and transport chain, control the congestion, make the transport system conveniently accessible and enhance the competitiveness of public transport. The road charges can take part in a compact urban structure of the core area, the rail corridors and the centers of the municipality.

Road charges will cause costs but their costs are relatively low in comparison to the costs that congestions will cause in the lack of these constructions for the road users.

In order for the road charges to be effective, new legislation that give permission for them to be constructed is required to be implemented. Fixed-term experimental legislation can be an alternative for this administration.

Costs are really important in this case. Therefore the revenue of the road charge needs to be spent for the area in which the road charge is implemented. It should be considered that the funding for the area stated by the state or municipality is not influenced negatively because of the existence of the road charge.

The transport system and the urban structure have to be optimized effectively in terms of socio-economic aspects that can be somehow tackled through the costs. Pressure can be caused in the planning since the road charges cause a high financial burden for some individuals that will lead to modification in their travel habits.

Road charges enhance the city centre's role as service, employment and commercial hub. However, the attractiveness of the zone between the rings for commercial uses will decrease.

Minimization of negative externalities of traffic demand on road network.

• Road pricing (key economic tools)
• Profit target (pricing model)
• Improvement of traffic network system, minimum environmental impact,
• Definition of congestion is decreasing transporters natural speed.

The available information from different cities where congestion pricing was implemented suggest that congestion charge can have positive effects on the air quality in the city (e.g. it can have a role in reduced levels of NOx, CO2 and PM10 emissions).

Discussions

These resolutions are based on discussions by participants of Decision analysis and risk management 2017 course. The detailed discussions can be found from Talk:Congestion charge.

• Congestion charge scheme doesn't significantly affect air quality in cities. Resolution: Not accepted. There is evidence from several cities that congestion charges have improved air quality. R↻
• Congestion charge scheme will improve the populations’ health. Resolution: 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. R↻
• Congestion charge scheme constrains individual choice and behavior. Resolution: 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. R↻
• The economic viability of tariffs and transformation of urban space will encourage more use of roads and cars. Resolution: Not accepted. Although this is possible, the experience from London shows that these side-effects can be managed. R↻
• Congestion charge schemes will restrict urban mobility and human capital growth. Resolution: 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. R↻
• Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is unfair. Resolution: 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.R↻
• Congestion charge may prevent the occurrence of tragedy of the commons. Resolution: Accepted.R↻
• To ensure air quality standards, the congestion charge scheme needs to be dynamic. Resolution: Accepted. R↻
• Congestion charges will be inefficient and not economic in the future. Resolution: 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. R↻
• 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. Resolution: Resolution not yet found. D↷

Items

These tables are being written to Google Sheet (for easier user interface) and copied here from time to time. See Google Sheets.

Contents of Items table

Column	Explanation
ID	Unique identifier of the row.
Name	A short descriptive name for this row. Used when making a reference to this row.
Timestamp	Time when the row was added.
User	Who added the row (first name)
Type	It the item a factual statement (fact) or value statement (value); or decision, action or variable?
Description	Verbal description of the content of the row.

Items(-)

Obs	ID	Name	Timestamp	User	Type	Description
1	I1	Air Quality	20.5.17 0:00	edem	fact	congestion charge affect air quality
2	I2	Health	15.5.17 0:00	edem	fact	Congestion charge scheme will improve the populations’ health
3	I3	Choices	15.5.17 0:00	edem	value	Congestion charge scheme constrains individual choice and behavior.
4	I4	Roads usage	15.5.17 0:00	edem	value	The economic viability of tariffs and transformation of urban space will encourage more use of roads and cars.
5	I5	Capital growth in	29.4.17 1:07	edem	value	congestion charge schemes can restrict urban mobility and human capital growth.
6	I6	Toxicity charge unfair	15.5.17 0:00	edem	value	Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is unfair to old car users
7	I7	Prevent misuse of shared resource	15.5.17 0:00	edem	value	congestion charge prevents the occurrence of misuse use of shared resource
8	I8	economic	15.5.17 0:00	kaisu	value	financially cost-saving
9	I9	effect on traffic	15.5.17 0:00	kaisu	fact	changes the traffic flow both in terms of space and time
10	I10	Congestion charge need to be dynamics	15.5.17 0:00	Tamara	value	To ensure air quality standards, the congestion charge scheme needs to be dynamic
11	I11	Choose CC system: none, VE1, VE3	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	decision	Decision for the city council to make: to choose one congestion charge policy or none.
12	I12	Investment and implementation costs	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Costs occurring from the investment and operation (on annual basis) of the congestion charge system
13	I13	Number of cars during rush hours	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Number of cars during rush hours on important busy streets (answer to this variable can most easily be described as a map with congestion situation on different streets)
14	I14	Tax revenue	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Amount of taxes collected from the congestion charge system
15	I15	People's values	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	indicator	People's values and attitudes about congestion charge, freedom to drive etc.
16	I16	People's behaviour	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	decision	Actions that people take based on their values, economic incentives, and practicalities
17	I17	Transport mode distribution (car, bus, bike, walk)	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Numbers of people in different traffic modes in Helsinki (especially during rush hour)
18	I18	Reachability of downtown and suburban areas	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	How accessible different places in the city are, in respect of time or money needed to go there, or their attractiveness
19	I19	Active transport (physical exercise)	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Amount of physical exercise that people do to reach the places where they are going rather than because of training (also known as active transport)
20	I20	Air pollution and CO2 emissions	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Emissions that occur from the traffic (specified spatially and temporally, because rush hour emissions expose more people than otherwise)
21	I21	Climate and health impacts	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	indicator	A summary indicator of climate and health impacts of congestion charge policies
22	I22	Economic impacts	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	indicator	A summary indicator of economic impacts for different stakeholders (citizens, car drivers, overall societal impacts, companies in downtown or suburban areas)
23	I23	Need-based pricing model	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	value	Pricing modeling strategy based on planned profit target should be avoided in this case.
24	I24	Urban structure	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	variable	Tariffication of urban space will contribute to physically dissect Helsinki into price zones
25	I25	Social modification	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	value	Social space should be a citizen entitlement
26	I26	Segment-based toll gate strategy	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	value	Utilise toll gate strategies based on segments
27	I27	Pilot driver behavior	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	value	Drivers to behavioral shift should be weighed before piloting (using heuristic analysis based on nudge theory)
28	I28	Social activities should be planned	16.5.17 0:00	Jouni	value	Social activities and commercial accessibility should be planned before implementation so smart solutions won't create a constraint

Relations

Contents of Relations table

Column	Explanation
ID	Unique identifier of the row.
Name	A short descriptive name for this row. Used when making a reference to this row.
Timestamp	Time when the row was added.
User	Who added the row (first name)
Subject	Name or identifier of the thing we are talking about
Predicate	Predicate of a sentence (i.e. a verb describing a relation). For list of relations, see Structure of shared understanding
Object	Name or identifier of a thing, or number (see above)
Description	Verbal description of the content of the row.

Relations(-)

Obs	ID	Name	Timestamp	User	Subject	Predicate	Object	Description
1	R1		15.5.17 12:00	ehab	decrease in 10 % PM emission	affect	Improvement of Air Quality
2	R2	Health	15.5.17 0:00	tamara	reduction in road accident	supports	Improvement of Health
3	R3	Choices	15.5.17 0:00	Amr	improvement in public transport patronage	supports	Affect Choices
4	R4	Roads usage	15.5.17 0:00	Tine		against	Encouragement of Roads usage
5	R5	Capital growth	15.5.17 0:00	Amr	Viable increase in bussiness occupancies out of Helsinki center	against	Against human capital growth in center of helsinki
6	R6	Toxicity charge	15.5.17 0:00	edem	equal tariff scheme	supports	Toxicity charge unfair
7	R7	Shared resource	15.5.17 0:00	edem	effective usage of road	makes relevant	Prevent misuse of shared resource
8	R8	economic	15.5.17 0:00	kaisu	Climate and health impacts	associates to	economic
9	R9	effect on traffic	15.5.17 0:00	kaisu	effective usage of road	affect	effect on traffic
10	R10	Congestion charge needs to be dynamic	15.5.17 0:00	Tamara	Congestion charge need to be dynamics	support	Congestion charge needs to be dynamic
11	R11	Choose CC system: none, VE1, VE3	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Choose CC system: none, VE1, VE3	affect	Tax revenue
12	R12	Investment and implementation costs	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Investment and implementation costs	affect	economic
13	R13	Number of cars during rush hours	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Number of cars during rush hours	affect	Reachability of downtown and suburban areas
14	R14	Tax revenue	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	tax revenue	makes relevant	decision of council to choose a congestion charge
15	R15	People's values	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	People's values	support	Prevent misuse of shared resource
16	R16	People's behaviour	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	People's behaviour	affect	Transport mode distribution (car, bus, bike, walk)
17	R17	Transport mode distribution (car, bus, bike, walk)	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	effect on traffic	affect	People's behaviour
18	R18	Reachability of downtown and suburban areas	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	reachability of downtown and suburban areas	support	active transport(physical exercise)
19	R19	Active transport (physical exercise)	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Active transport (physical exercise)	affect	Improvement of Health
20	R20	Air pollution and CO2 emissions	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Air pollution and CO2 emissios	affect	climate and health impacts
21	R21	Climate and health impacts	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	Climate and health impacts	makes relevant	Tax revenue
22	R22	Economic impacts	15.5.17 0:00	Jouni	tax revenue	affects	economic impart

Evaluations

Contents of Evaluations table

Column	Explanation
ID	Unique identifier of the row.
Name	A short descriptive name for this row. Used when making a reference to this row.
Timestamp	Time when the row was added.
User	Who added the row (first name)
Subject	Name or identifier of the thing we are talking about
Evaluation	One of the relations listed below. The content goes to column Object. Truth: Either True or False Probability: A value between 0 and 1 Better than: An item or relation that is worse than subject More important than: An item or relation that is less important than subject Utility: A value between 0 (least preferred choice) and 1 (most preferred choice)
Object	Name or identifier of a thing, or number (see above)
Description	Verbal description of the content of the row.

Evaluations(-)

Obs	ID	Name	Timestamp	User	Subject	Evaluation	Object	Description
1	E1	Air Quality	15.5.17 12:00	ehab	reduction in levels of emissions		Improvement of Air Quality
2	E2	Health	30.12.99 0:00	tamara	reduction in road accident		Improvement of Health
3	E3	Choices	30.12.99 0:00	Amr	improvement in public transport patronage		Affect Choices
4	E4	Roads usage	30.12.99 0:00	Tine			Encouragement of Roads usage
5	E5	Capital growth	30.12.99 0:00	Amr	Viable increase in bussiness occupancies out of Helsinki center		Against human capital growth in center of helsinki
6	E6	Toxicity charge	30.12.99 0:00	edem	equal tariff scheme		Toxicity charge unfair
7	E7	Shared resource	30.12.99 0:00	edem	effective usage of road		Prevent misuse of shared resource

• ----#: . Add links to pages that belong to this assessment. --Jouni (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

See also

• Voting age
• Structure of shared understanding
• Osmo Soininvaara: Why we should have congestion charge. 3.4.2017 [1]
• Helsinki: Regional congestion charge would improve air quality in Helsinki. 3.5.2017 [2] [3]

Articles in Wikipedia

• Congestion pricing
• London congestion charge
• Ruuhkamaksu

References

Show details

== Add a discussion item, relation, or evaluation == What kind of thing are you adding?: Item Relation Evaluation A short name for the thing: A description of the thing: Item Is this a value or factual statement?: Value statement Factual statement I don't know Relation The ID of the subject in the relation: What is the relation (predicate)?: connects with (by some non-specified way) can conincide with is an instance of class is a subclass of class The ID of the object in the relation: Evaluation Is the truth value for an item or a relation?: For an item For a relation The ID of the item or relation you want to evaluate: Is the item or relation true?: It is true It is maybe true It is false Current discussion things. What kind of things do you want to see?: Item Relation Evaluation Items to be removed What kind of thing are you removing?: Item Relation Evaluation ID of the thing to be removed: Reason to remove: - Select reason - Item has been handled in other ways Item is irrelevant Item is vandalism (use sparingly)