Almost Five Months Since the Congestion Charges Referendum

By Sara Möller

Nearly five months has passed since the people in Gothenburg voted no to congestion taxes. This article will present a background, the way to the vote and what has happened afterwards. Some people involved have been interviewed and they have also expressed their views about why the congestion taxes are still alive.
     There are different views, but they all agree that something must be done to improve the environment in the center of Gothenburg.  

---

Beside the autumn elections in 2014, there was also a referendum in Gothenburg municipality, to retain the congestion charges or not. In January 2010, the City Council in Gothenburg decided to introduce congestion taxes. A decision by the parlia­ment was taken in May the same year, to introduce the taxes, 1’st of January, 2013.

The question about main­taining the taxes after the next election was already raised in the autumn 2012.

The people in Gothenburg collected signatures from more than 10% of the voters and the question was raised in the city council who voted about it in May 2013. At the vote of the City Council in May 2013, it was decided that it should be an advisory referendum together with the other elections in September 2014. It was only people who lived in Gothenburg, who were allowed to vote.

The result in the question “Do you consider the congestion charges shall continue in Gothenburg after the 2014 election” – the result was a clear “No”, with 56.9 % from the no-side.

Although the result – the taxes are still there
Referendum is only advisory, which means that you do not need to apply the results.There are many reasons that the congestion charges have been maintained, even if the people voted for something else. The introduction of the congestion taxes in Gothenburg is a result of a law decision in the parliament.

Should it be eliminated, a decision must be made on several levels. Firstly by Gothenburg politicians, then by the Western Swedish Package of five contract­ors and finally in parliament. There are also more reasons for the introduction of conges­tion charges and to keep it in the future. Beside the improvement of environmental conditions in Gothen­burg and the reduction of congestion, the fees  will partially finance the Western Swedish Package.

After the referendum, the executive office in Gothenburg have made a study on alternatives to the congestion charges; alternatives that are as good for the environment and reduce congestion as much. The results were presented to the board of the municipality in December 2014. The report stated that the congestion charges are the best action to improve accessibility and to reduce the conges­tion. It was also demonstrated that car traffic declined in 2013 compared to 2012, which is considered to be positive for the environment.

Martin Wannholt (M), city councilor and Joakim Rosdahl (C), say in his debate article, published in Göteborgs Posten in January this year; the report gives a wrong picture about the impact of the congestion charges. In the report which compares the traffic situation between the year 2012, it will say before the congestion charges were introduced, and year 2013. Wannholt and Rosdahl stated that by using data from 2014, the comparison is more relevant. The car traffic through the congestion stations increased again during 2014 and the positive effects of the congestion charges was less.

A removal of the congestion charges would also mean that there is no money for the implementation of the Western Swedish Package.  An alternative way to finance it, if the congestion charges were removed, is being investigated by the board of the executive office. The results of the investigation will be presented in February. But already in October Anneli Hulten (S), chairman of the municipality of Gothenburg, expressed that the agreement with the West Swedish Package and financing through congestion charges will be kept.

She also states that it is not possible to increase the council tax, which would be needed if the congestion charges were removed.

I present to you now the views from local inhabitants being interviewed about the congestion charges. These three people are all affected in one way or another. 

The following questions were answered:

What’s your opinion about the referendum regarding the congestion charges? How did you vote? The congestion charges remain – what’s your opinion?

Kerstin Möller, Vallda
- I think it was unnecessary, because there were no plans or possibilities to change the earlier decision.
- I didn’t vote because I live in Vallda.
- It is not relevant with toll boundary located far away outside the city center and not motivated in an environmental perspective. I commute daily from Vallda to Sahlgrenska and never go into the city. It is the same situation, when I go and visit my family in Vänersborg and only use te highway E6. The traffic situation was only improved in the beginning of 2013, and now it’s the same bad situation as before. But I realize that someone needs to finance the West Swedish Package and need to improve the environment.

Lotta Osbeck, Gothenburg

- Personally I thought it was a bad option to have a referendum on this.

- I voted yes, because I could actually use public transportation, but driving a car is more convenient. I also believe congestion charges are needed for the traffic situation in Gothenburg and to finance Western Swedish Package. Also it is bad for the environment that we drive so much in the inner city.

- I see it from two perspectives; it will be too expensive for me because I am driving a lot. And that the congestion charges are needed in a large perspective in order to expand the road network and to improve accessibility. But, I believe that the tax stations are located too far outside the city.

Charlotte Lovén, Gothenburg

- I think it was a great idea to perform a referendum, because there were a lot of opinions about the congestion charges and it is a controversial question both for politicians as well as the public.

-  I voted against the congestion charges.

- I think it is important to move around freely inside Gothenburg without paying anything, because we already have road tax. It is wrong that you have to pay just to pass outside the city, for example when you travel south of the city. But I promote a car free city, from an environmental standpoint. But then you have to reduce the prices on public transport in order to make people more motivated, not like now when they just raise the costs.

Improvements necessary – but how?
To summarize views in the interviews there are different opinions on congestion taxes, but everyone thinks that the toll boundaries are located too far from the city centre. Kerstin Möller who drives daily to Gothenburg confirms Wannholt’s and Rosdahl’s debate article that the traffic in the past year has increased significantly. They all think it is important to improve the environmental situation and there are needs for better financings regarding the public transportations. But there are doubts if it was the right decision to have a referendum.

FACTS: Congestion charges is a tax that is charged in a small number of cities, in order to reduce the traffic so that the environment and the accessibility will be improved. Gothenburg introduced it in January 2013 with the purpose to make the environment better, reduce the traffic jam, and also finance the west Swedish packet. In January this year the prices was increased and remains valid. The tax is charged weekdays between 06.00 A.M. -18.29 P.M.  and varies among 9-22 kr.

 FACT: West Swedish Package is an agree­ment with several attending parties (city of Gothenburg, the Swedish transport administration, Gothenburg region association of local authorities, Region Halland, Västra Götaland) Congestion charges partly finances the West Swedish package. Several investments for public transport­ations, roads and railways are included. These investments also include the West Link, a tunnel to be built in Gothenburg. The investments will contribute to a better traffic flow and an improved environment.