Lina Susanti, Land Transport Authority of DKI Jakarta & Dirk van Amelsfort, WSP Sweden

Congestion charging  Travel time: flow travel time 10 minutes 16 minutes 46 minutes All vehicles are charged in congestion charging, but the objective is that the only the last 3 cars disappear.

Environmental effects LondonStockholmMilanGothenburg CO2-16.4%-13%-22%-2.5% (region) NOx-13.4%-8%-10%Uncertain PM2.5n.a. -40%Uncertain PM %-13%-19%Uncertain

Traffic effects of congestion charging LondonSingaporeStockholmMilanGothenburg Traffic volume -16% (2006) -30% charge- able vehicles, +25% busses, +15% taxis, +49% bicycle -21% ( ) -44% after ALS -10%-15% after ERP compared to ALS - 20%-30% for other extensions of the system -20% across the cordon -34% (-49% in user of heavy polluting vehicles) -10% across cordon, -2.5% vehi­cle- km in Gothenburg Travel times-30% delaysspeed criteria charge levels between kph and kph -33% in delays -17% in con­ gestion +7% bus speed, +4.7% tram speed % reduction median travel time on cor­ ridors Public transit ridership +18%n.a.+5%n.a.+6%

Congestion charging in a wider transportation context Congestion charging Reduced demand for car travel Improved travel time and travel time reliability Reduced emissions Reduced claim on urban space Generates revenues More space for other modes Funds for investment in other modes

Jakarta congestion charging plans  ERP will be implemented on Jl. Sudirman, Jl. MH Thamrin and Jl. Rasuna Said in South Jakarta  Before procurement: quality assurance is needed to ensure positive outcomes  Longer term: the corridor ERP will need to be embedded in a larger plan/policy for congestion charging  We are trying to set up a project where we can help Jakarta with our experiences from Stockholm and Gothenburg