---

On May 7, GMF hosted John Swanson, senior transportation planner for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and a fellow in GMF’s Comparative Domestic Policy program, for a luncheon discussion of his recently completed fellowship in Europe, during which he examined European approaches to long-term regional transportation planning, particularly related to implementing congestion pricing schemes.

 
GMF Fellow John Swanson discusses long-term transportation planning: Lessons from Europe for the Washington Metro Area

As Mr. Swanson posited at the beginning of his presentation, urban road pricing is the “new frontier” of transportation management.  By charging users of the transport network during peak demand, cities and regions can reduce the congestion (and other negative externalities) of automobile traffic.  While the implementation of congestion pricing schemes in London and, to a lesser extent, in Stockholm, has garnered much international attention, there are still only a handful of cities that have successfully followed suit, and none of them in the United States.  The political ramifications of imposing a cost on something that voters expect to get for free remain a significant barrier to bold changes in transportation policy.  Mr. Swanson’s presentation focused on the ways London and Stockholm planners have engaged the public in these changes, and the extent to which these programs are now considered successful.

After a brief introduction that outlined the growth of the Washington region and the resulting need for a comprehensive land-use and transportation policy overhaul, Mr. Swanson laid out the particular contexts for both London and Stockholm in making the switch to congestion pricing.  While there were and still are significant differences between the two cases, one commonality was the high level of preparation that went into the launch of the policy. John then put forward the key themes/lessons that emerged from his research, which included:

1.    Trust: In London, the metropolitan government rebuilt and refocused the public’s belief in the ability of local government to get things done when it implemented congestion pricing. In Stockholm, the congestion pricing trial period was constructed to confirm citizens’ belief in the ability of the public sector to implement something complicated.
2.    Show the benefits: Investing in public transportation, particularly in the bus network, was a crucial component of both the London and Stockholm plans, as it gave people a viable and efficient alternative to their cars.
3.    Public Information: In both London and Stockholm, a lot of money and creativity were invested in providing the public with information to make sure the new policies were given every chance to work.  There was also a focus on developing transportation culture (not just a car culture) through public education.
4.    Luck, timing and preparation: People (NGOs, citizens, academics and politicians) had already invested significant time and effort into developing the concept, and so were ready to move when the opportunity presented itself.
5.    Incremental change is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact may be the best way to build awareness of the cost of driving among the public, and to allow that awareness to play a role in the public discourse.
6.    Clarity of Purpose: Congestion was a recognized problem in London and Stockholm. Leaders in those cities didn’t need to waste time convincing the public of that fact.  Other long-term challenges facing those cities were also clearly articulated and understood.  Short-term transit improvements were needed (desperately needed, in London’s case) and on a longer-term basis, more transit capacity is required. Those plans are in place and moving forward. Conversely, in Manchester, where a referendum on congestion pricing was decidedly defeated (by 80% of the public), congestion was not a major issue and therefore the public was less willing to accept the change.
Mr. Swanson’s research was supported by the Bank of America and the Compagnia di San Paolo through GMF’s Comparative Domestic Policy Fellowship program, which provides opportunities for practitioners and policy-makers working on economic and social issues at the urban and regional policy levels to meet with their counterparts across the Atlantic and discuss policies and measures that have been implemented.  Fellows return from their time overseas equipped with the ideas and insights necessary to effect significant and lasting positive change in their own communities.