Gothenburg, a rainy city in Sweden, has the melancholy distinction of being one of the smallest cities worldwide to charge a congestion tax.
With limited exceptions, the idea of paywalling the center of a large city is, to me, inherently objectionable, Cities are, by definition, about access. Not all agree with this view!
Kudos to Bloomberg (where the editorial line tends to be anti-car and pro–congestion taxes) for retelling a less than flattering story about the congestion tax in Gothenburg, a rainy city in Sweden (at least those are my memories of the place) that has the melancholy distinction of being one of the smallest cities worldwide (it has a population of 600,000 and a metropolitan area of around a million) to charge a congestion tax — in its case, up to $2.33 a visit.
Traffic has thinned since the policy went into effect in 2013, but, unlike in places like New York or London, it was never much of a problem to begin with. The bulk of collected revenues are financing an enormous and controversial rail project that has been mired in delays and cost overruns.
“Here in Gothenburg, congestion wasn’t that bad, and pollution wasn’t that bad,” said Mikael Ivari, a civil engineer who has worked on local transportation issues for two decades. “The real benefit was the money — which was used for stuff that turns out to not be that useful.”
In other words, the city government regarded motorists as people to be fleeced, because, well, that’s the sort of thing that city governments do.
And what did Gothenburg do with the proceeds of this fashionable form of extortion. Well . . .
[Gothenburg’s] officials saw urban road pricing as a way to unlock matching national funds for a massive infrastructure program they were eager to launch. Their plans revolved around West Link, a monumental rail project that would produce three new underground rail stations, enabling commuter trains to travel directly from one end of the region to the other instead of terminating in the city center (the investment package also included several highway projects).
A massive rail project, eh?
What could go wrong?
Bloomberg:
In Stockholm, congestion pricing’s popularity increased after residents experienced its benefits. But many Gothenburgers remained wary. A newly formed local political party, Vägvalet, built its platform around antagonism toward the tolling scheme and the West Link project, and in 2014, 57% of city residents voted to repeal congestion pricing. (Some of the “no” votes were likely motivated by opposition to West Link, rather than the car fees specifically.) Unable to find another way to finance their infrastructure package, city leaders brushed aside the referendum results. The tolls have remained in place ever since.
Oh.
To be fair, unlike Kathy Hochul’s congestion tax in New York, which is only lightly connected to traffic flows, and is still charged (albeit at a much lower rate) at such peak “congestion” times as 3 a.m., Gothenburg’s bears some resemblance to the charge it claims to be. It is not collected at night or during weekends, holidays, or the month of July (when a large section of the Swedish population is on vacation).
But what about the big train scheme? How’s that going?
I can feel the suspense.
Bloomberg:
The West Link project has blown past timelines and budget estimates. “Five years, ten years — no one knows when it will be finished, or what the costs will be,” said Ivari. Residents grumble about center city streets endlessly torn apart by jackhammers and excavators. (During my visit, I found myself trapped in a maze-like West Link construction zone, growing so discombobulated that I darted across a fast-moving arterial to escape.)
Amazing!
Bloomberg, being Bloomberg, has to attribute some “successes” to Gothenburg’s scheme. And so, by its measures of success, it does. Fewer people (42 percent rather than 48 percent) are taking their preferred mode of transport into the city.
And:
Transit and biking rose from 25% to 29% and from 5% to 7%, respectively (walking remained at 22%).
And:
A 2015 economic analysis found that the city’s congestion pricing program generated €20 million ($23.6 million) in societal benefits per year, largely through slightly faster journeys and cleaner air.
“Societal benefits.”
#Math