1 / 22

Mattias JUHÁSZ MSc in Civil Eng. Departmental Eng., PhD student

XV Conference of the Italian Association of Transport Economics and Logistics (SIET) "Transport, Spatial Organization and Sustainable Economic Development" Venice - September 18-20, 2013. Mattias Juhász – Tamás Mátrai – Gergely Gál

herman-neal
Download Presentation

Mattias JUHÁSZ MSc in Civil Eng. Departmental Eng., PhD student

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. XV Conference of the Italian Association of Transport Economics and Logistics (SIET) "Transport, Spatial Organization and Sustainable Economic Development"Venice - September 18-20, 2013 Mattias Juhász – Tamás Mátrai – Gergely Gál The possibility of introducing congestion charging in Budapest - assessment of the theoretical alternatives Mattias JUHÁSZ MSc in Civil Eng. Departmental Eng., PhD student Department of Transport Infrastructure, Széchenyi István University 2013.09.27.

  2. Budapest and its agglomeration • Capital of Hungary (since 1873): • 525 km2, 1.700.000 inhabitants • Geography:Buda hills – Danube – Pest plateau • 2 level municipal governance:23 districts + Municipality of Budapest • Political, commercial, financial andcultural center of Hungary • Agglomeration (81 settlements): • 2538 km2 • 800.000 inhabitants

  3. Transport system of Budapest • Modal Splitinthe city: 60% PT / 40% car • Road network: • Full length of the road network: 4500 km • Length of the main road network: 1200 km • 9 Danube crossings for road(including M0 bridges) • Over 1000 traffic signaled intersections • 1.700.000 car trips/day (600.000 from the aggl.) • Public transport network: • Underground (3+1), suburban railway (5), tram (32), trolley bus (16), bus (206), night bus (38), boat (3), other (3) • Length of the public transport network: 1100 km • Number of stops and stations: ~4700 • Rolling stock: app. 3000 vehicles • 1,39 billion passengers/year, 5,16 billion pkm/year

  4. Main problems • Unpredictable financing • Lag in PT fleet renewal • Unsecured funding for maintenance • Lack of investments • Growing motorization • Deterioration of public transport system • Road congestion in the city centre • Air quality problems • Too centralized road network(bridges) • „We got used to …” • Residential parking problems • PT fare reductions • Limited strategic planning

  5. Reasons why the idea of congestion charging arose in Budapest? • Significant increase in the number of vehicles (+25%) • Deterioration of publictransportation (80% > 60%) • Centralizedtransportnetwork • Limited spaceinthe city centre • Urban sprawl (250.000 peoplein 25 years) • Decreaseintheaveragespeed (35 >> 20 km/h) • External cost from road congestion has become one of the largest transport-related cost in Budapest (Erhart, 2007)

  6. Internalization of external costsAvoid a social trap…

  7. The story of congestion charging in Budapest • Studiesin 1992 and 2001 • 2007: weshouldtrycongestioncharging(experiencesfrom London and Stockholm + peak of trafficvolumes) • Studiesin 2008 and 2009 (pre-feasibilitystudy) • 2009: resolution of the European Commission on the EU subsidy of metro line M4(congestion charging as a supplementary measure in order to achieve environmental targets) • 2010: a thoughtlesspoliticalcampaign (CC for free PT) • 2011-2013: detailedfeasibilitystudy

  8. Ahead of an awkward decision • 2013 – the feasibility study is ready with detailed suggestions • Municipal elections in 1 year • It would be very difficult to accept the proposal(acceptance is around 25-30%) • But it would be also unpleasant to reject it(M4 metro resolution) • However, the deadline is quite hazy(“end of the 2007-2013 programming period”) • „Negotiating with the EU about prerequisites” seems to be the political solution for some time

  9. Feasibility analysis • Politically- and publicly-wanted analysis(Shall we introduce it? How much is it?) • Difficulties as there wasn’t any goals but there were some hard restrictions • „Complex goal” (revenue, congestion, environment)led to a very comprehensive analyses of the theoretical alternatives and kept every detail open • MCA, CBA, CEA, transport modeling

  10. Feasibility analysis • Zonal, cordon pricing and complex solutions • Investment cost:8-35 mEUR + additional investments (10-200 mEUR) • Operational cost: 8-30 mEUR / year • Estimated revenue: 25-180 mEUR / year • Economic BCR: 3.5-6 • Revenue / cost: 5-9

  11. Official results • Cordon charging in the line of the Outer Ring Road (Hungária-gyűrű) and the Buda Ring (Budai körút)[C3 alternative in the paper] • A gradual introduction is also possible [e.g. C0 (bridges) as a first step and C3 or Z3 as a second] • Keywords: simplicity and cost-efficiency • daily charge • monitoring the inbound traffic • modeled on “Area C” (Milan) • further possibilities in time-based differentiation

  12. Effect on road traffic

  13. Effect on public transport

  14. Results of our assessments • It depends on the goal… • General priority could be: • Cordon charging on the inner bridges [C0 alternative] • Cordon (or zonal) charging in the line of the Outer Ring Road (Hungária-gyűrű) and the River Danube [C2 or Z2 alternative] • Cordon (or zonal) charging in the line of the Inner Ring Road (Nagykörút) and the River Danube [C1 or Z1 alternative] • Cordon (or zonal) charging in the line of the Outer Ring Road (Hungária-gyűrű) and the Buda Ring (Budai körút) [C3 or Z3 alternative] • Gradual introduction of congestion charging would be useful (e.g. 1. C0, 2. C2, 3. C3., 4. time-differentiation)

  15. C0 alternative • Affected daily traffic:360.000 between 7:00-19:00 • Investment cost:around 8 mEUR • Additional investment need:around 10 mEUR • Annual operational cost:around 8 mEUR • Estimated revenue:25-60 mEUR depending on the fees • Time diffentiation could make it fair • Further development would be easier from the revenue • However, there are socail issues…

  16. Conclusions • Road congestion cannot be eliminated by physical measures alone (Eliasson, 2010) • Even it won’t be solved by the credit crunch • Traffic calming isn’t enough, structural reforms needed • User or polluter pays principle • Congestion charging is one of the possible measures • Anyway… we cannot expect that congestion charging will solve everything

  17. Lessons learnt • It is indispensable to have an explicit and relevant goal • Formulating goals and restrictions is a job for policy-makers (in cooperation with transport professionals), while designing the charging system is a job for experts • System design is not working with impossible restrictions or with conflicting interests • After setting the goal(s) decision-makers have to consistently take the responsibility for it • It needs time to plan and implement a congestion charging scheme, so plan the political process accordingly • Communication + conscious and well-timed stakeholder involvement are essential

  18. References • BKK Centre for Budapest Transport - TRENECON-COWI Ltd. (2013): Fővárosi személyforgalmi behajtási díj bevezetése, döntéstámogató tanulmány (Introduction of congestion charging in Budapest, Decision-support study) • Eliasson, J. (2010): So you’re considering introducing congestion charging? Here’s what you need to know - An FAQ based on Stockholm’s experiences. ITF/OECD round table, discussion paper no. 2010-4 • Erhart, Sz. (2007): A budapesti közlekedési dugók okai és következményei (Reasons and consequences of road congestions in Budapest). Közgazdasági Szemle LIV. pp. 435–458. • Juhász, M. (2012): Budapest főváros XI. kerület (Újbuda) városközpont közlekedésfejlesztési kérdései – A Hamzsabégi út fejlesztésének vizsgálata (Transport development issues of the city centre of Budapest XI. District (Újbuda) – Examination of the development of Hamzsabégi Road). MSc thesis. Széchenyi István Egyetem. • Monigl, J. & Berki, Zs. (2001): Modelling the impacts of road pricing in Budapest. Transman Consulting. • Orosz, Cs. & Pásti, B. (2002): Kielégíthetetlen közlekedési kereslet – fejlesztési és finanszírozási lehetőségek Budapesten – útdíjakkal vagy nélkülük? (Insatiable transport demand – development and financing possibilities in Budapest – with or without road charges?) Városi közlekedés 2002/4. • Pápay, Zs., Lukovich, P. & Orosz, Cs. (1992): Útdíjfizetési rendszer alkalmazásának lehetõségei Budapesten (The possibilities in the application of a road pricing system in Budapest). BME Innotech Ltd. • Smeed, R. J. (1949): Some statistical aspects of road safety research. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), Vol. 112. • Smeed, R. J. (1964): Road pricing: the economic and technical possibilities. HMSO. • Városkutatás Ltd. (2008): Efficient transport management in Budapest (Hatékony közlekedés-menedzsment Budapesten) • Városkutatás Ltd. (2009): A fővárosi személyforgalmi behajtási díj előzetes megvalósíthatósági vizsgálata (Pre-feasibility study of the congestion charging in Budapest)

  19. Acknowledgement This research was realized in the frames of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/2-11-1-2012-0001 „National Excellence Program – Elaborating and operating an inland student and researcher personal support system convergence program” The project was subsidized by the European Union and co-financed by the European Social Fund

  20. Thank you for your kind attention! Mattias Juhász mjuhasz@sze.hu

More Related