1. v v Gunnar Johansson, Road User Charging Budapest | November - 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation The Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial BACKGROUND SOLUTION DESIGN MAIN CHALLENGES PERFORMANCE IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION TRAFFIC IMPACT LESSONS LEARND

2. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 2 Situation in Stockholm Inhabitants  1,9 million in the county of Stockholm  760 000 in the city of Stockholm  275 000 in the Stockholm inner city Travel & transportation  560 000 vehicles cross the inner city cordon per working day  73% of all personal trips across the inner city cordon during rush hour is by public transport  2,5% car ownership increase per year  Lack of capacity in between the northern and the southern halves of the region (road and rail) BACKGROUND

3. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 3 Situation in Stockholm BACKGROUND

4. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 4 73% of all personal trips to the inner city during rush hour is by public transport - but the road congestion still cause the society huge damages External impacts  Congestion estimates cost 600 to 800 million Euro per year  361 severely injured & 18 traffic deaths  10 – 100 cases of cancer caused by atmospheric pollution  50 000 inhabitants exposed to over 65 dBA BACKGROUND

5. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 5 Mission: Find a way to keep the congestion at the present level but take into account the estimated socio-economic and demographic changes for the future “Present situation”Future Estimated traffic speed relatively to free flow speed Classifications of speed reduction;  RED= 65 -100%  BLU= 50 - 65 %  GREY= 0 - 50% BACKGROUND

6. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 6 There are now way to sustainable reduce the congestion in the City of Stockholm without Congestion Charges Conclusion:  Just building new road lanes generate more traffic and new bottlenecks – takes long time to implement and cost a fortune  Improved public transport services do not reduce congestion as it do not attract car users significantly - and cost a fortune  A combination of Congestion Charges, road investments and improved public services is needed to reduce congestion - and is a win-win solution BACKGROUND

7. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 7 The Stockholm Trial project  Trial period from Jan to July 2006  Referendum Sept 2006  Revenue used for public transports  Charges –Variable charges, 0-2 Euro per passage in or out of the city –No charges during low traffic period –Max charge 6 Euro per day –Lidingö exemption rule SOLUTION DESIGN Congestion Charges Improved Public Transport New Park & Ride

8. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 8 How does the system work? 2 Information is matched with registered vehicle. Fee is added to the owner’s account Call-centre operations managed by IBM The gateway registers the vehicle A 1 Picture is taken of the vehicle’s licence plate. ABC 123 B IBM has designed, built, implemented integrated and runs the congestion charging system 3 Way of payment Transponder/direct debit Bank/Giro 7-eleven/ Pressbyrån

9. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 9 MAIN CHALLENGES To design a “state-of-art” OCR solution to meet the agreed service levels was a challenge

10. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 10 City of StockholmTransport of Stockholm Swedish Road Administration Tax AuthorityIBM Ministry of Finance Enforcement Courts Bravida Connecta Elan IT Resource eWork Manpower Nordea Posten Reitan Servicehandel Sverige AB Riz IT SAP Stokab Sweco VBB AB VÄGBELYSNING I SVERIGE AB FORTUM DISTRIBUTION AB NOFA VÄGVERKET PRODUKTION Focus Neon Ministry of Industry … Q-Free MAIN CHALLENGES To coordinate partners, 200 change requests and deliver an “end to end” solution & service in time was a challenge

11. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 11 Payment channels  Transponder/direct debit 63%  7-eleven/ Pressbyrån 24%  Bank/Giro 13% Transaction and appeal volume  Passages at control points46 500 000  Passages liable for the tax33 500 000  Number of tax decisions14 400 000100%  Appeals to the tax Authorities13 0000,09%  Appeals to the County Administrative Court6650,005% Efficient payment cannels and low number of appeals (Jan-July 2006) PERFORMANCE

12. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 12 99.99% operational reliability is a result of built in redundancy Total number of lane hours 148 174 Lost operational time, number of lane hours 57 (0,038%) Non-identified vehicles 1% PERFORMANCE

13. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 13 Customer Services Most common questions:  Payments and accounting  Onboard units  Company enquiries  General information  Balance statement PERFORMANCE

14. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 14 Media was very critical before ”go alive” System launching day Focused on the expected chaos IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION

15. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 15 The congestion charging policy and solution was a target for media Before the launching date Solution, transponders and project costs IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION

16. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 16 Immediate positive press focused on the huge impact One day after

17. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 17 System performance exceeds all expectation Some weeks after System performance exceeds all expectation IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION

18. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 18 The swing in the opinion came after 3 months IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION Referendum in the City och Stockholm YES: 51,7% NO: 45,6%

19. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 19 Number of passages reduced by 90 000 to 115 000 per day (20 – 25%) compared to last year 2005 2006 End of trial period TRAFFIC IMPACT

20. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 20 Peak traffic was reduced and accessibility improved TRAFFIC IMPACT

21. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 21 The impact exceeded all expectations Improvements also for non car users  40,000 new daily public transport passengers  Congestion reduced by 30 – 50 % in the City Centre  Increased efficiency in public bus transports  Taxi drivers increased revenue by 10-20%  Inner-city retailers not negatively effected  Better environment - emission reduced by 12-14% in the City Centre  Attitudes was changed from negative to positive  Revenue EUR 90 M per year TRAFFIC IMPACT

22. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 22 Why is the Stockholm project a success? Policy and scheme design  The clear defined objective was exceeded  The charging scheme was simple and fair  The impact was visible for everybody and well communicated Technical system  The users were well informed before the start  The system worked from day one  Very low number of errors generated by the system LESSONS LEARNED

23. Stockholm Congestion Charges Budapest | November 2006 © 2006 IBM Corporation 23