Introduction

Congestion pricing is one of several transportation governance mechanisms that can be pressed into service in a city.^[1] However, it should be evident that it would follow a set of transportation governance tools that have already been appropriately provided in a specific city and not precede them. Consider a city that has already gone ahead and rolled out public transportation, adequate roads, and non-motorised transport facilities, such as bicycle tracks and pedestrian walkways, and imposed fuel pricing or carbon taxes. Yet, the mobility challenge of congestion remains and is not getting adequately addressed by the other transportation infrastructure and governance instruments. This is where congestion pricing can serve as an effective transportation tool to reduce congestion. The aim combining several approaches would be to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and encourage sustainable transportation options.^[2] Furthermore, it should be clear that this congestion pricing is primarily a demand-side management instrument,^[3] aimed at discouraging private transport, particularly cars.

Congestion pricing is defined as “a way of harnessing the power of the market to reduce the waste associated with traffic congestion.”^[4] In simpler words, congestion pricing is an additional charge levied on users to control excess demand and manage congestion. It is also known as ‘value pricing’ or ‘congestion charge’. The strategy helps regulate demand during periods when there is little room to increase supply. The concept can be applied to a variety of public services―air travel, rail travel, bus travel, power consumption or shipping. This paper looks at congestion pricing in relation to city roads.

The concept of congestion pricing as a strategy to address urban traffic congestion is not new. Economists have promoted congestion pricing since the 1950s.^[5] William Vickrey, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, is said to be the first proponent of the idea; in 1952, he recommended that fares be increased in peak periods and high-traffic road sections.^[6] He was aware that congestion pricing was perceived by people as a tax increase, which he thought was merely a gut reaction that failed to consider that if the motorists’ time were factored in, it would really amount to net savings.^[7] The economist lamented what he believed was an unfortunate fact of political life―those who opposed the imposition of a congestion charge felt its impact acutely and made the maximum political noise, while potential beneficiaries remained less aware and failed to throw their weight into the political balance.^[8]

Among his principles of efficient congestion pricing was the idea that charges should closely reflect the marginal cost of each trip in terms of the impact on others and that charges should vary smoothly over time. He was not in favour of exemptions and advocated that all vehicles should be charged without exception to maintain the integrity of the market pricing principle. He favoured heavily curbing parking, and if at all permitted, it should be priced to mirror the marginal social cost^[9] of occupying a parking slot, considering the inconvenience caused to other would-be parkers facing the added difficulty of finding a parking space. He also feared that political interference and bureaucratic bungling could spoil the game.^[10] Both tend to favour the status quo, despite the evidence that efficiency mandates a significant disruption in activity patterns.

The concept of congestion pricing has been helped by improvements in technology. It is now possible to receive payment through the process of automatic vehicle identification and electronic toll collection while vehicles continue their journey at usual speed.^[11]

As technologies innovate, city authorities are preparing for or already moving towards the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) that does not require on-road infrastructure to track a vehicle.^[12] Instead, it employs satellite location systems that determine the vehicle’s position and measure location and distance travelled to levy congestion charges. The example of Singapore is discussed later in this paper.

In the context of city roads, congestion pricing may be defined as a charge imposed on users of specific, overcrowded roads to reduce demand and usage during peak hours of traffic and ease congestion. For this purpose, one or more ‘congestion zones’^[a] are demarcated.^[13] The concept works by shifting peak-hour travel to other transportation modes or to off-peak periods. Even if a small percentage of commuters gets removed from peak-period traffic on a highly congested roadway, overall mobility and efficiency improve significantly. More vehicles move at better speed through the same roadway.^[14]

There are several types of strategies that get adopted, based on local conditions, to reduce congestion. The strategy of ‘variably priced lanes’ imposes variable tolls on different lanes on a road or highway^[15]—express lanes will charge a toll, whereas other lanes will have none. Some authorities may allow motor vehicles on express lanes if they satisfy the minimum vehicle passenger requirement. This strategy would evidently allow smoother and faster passage through express lanes, compared with the non-tolled lanes. The strategy of ‘variable tolls’ emphasises time-based pricing by imposing high tolls during peak hours and tapering them off during non-peak hours.^[16] This acts as a deterrent to roadway use during congested periods, thus allowing traffic to flow more smoothly during peak times.

The ‘zone-based strategy’ or ‘cordon pricing’ levies a charge to enter a congested area, typically a city centre.^[17] This scheme was initiated for the first time in Singapore in 1975, followed by London in 2003 and Stockholm in 2006. The strategy of ‘area-wide’ or ‘system-wide pricing’ imposes a per-kilometre charge on all roads within a specified area depending on congestion levels.^[18] This scheme was introduced in the Seattle metropolitan area in 2005‒2006.^[19]

Rising Traffic Congestion in Cities

There has been a growing global concern in cities about the increasing trend of traffic congestion on urban roads. The TomTom Traffic Index (2024),^[b] which measures road congestion in cities around the world, covered 501 cities in 64 countries^[c] in its latest survey.^[d],[20] TomTom calculates congestion by “collecting all the travel times in a given period in a given area” and then compares them with the “lowest travel times from when traffic time is in a totally fluid state.”^[21] Congestion then is expressed as a percentage, which denotes the increase in travel time due to excess traffic.^[22] The most worrying finding from the survey is that the majority of the cities covered show a worsening trend in congestion, with average travel times increasing by several seconds per 10 kilometres. According to TomTom, out of the 501 cities surveyed in 2024, 379, or 76 percent experienced a decline in their overall average speed compared with 2023.^[23]

Traffic gets impacted in cities by a combination of static and dynamic factors. Static factors include the design of road networks and complex intersections, speed limits set in high-density areas, and traffic signals. Dynamic factors are peak-hour or seasonal traffic surges, driver behaviour, unexpected obstructions such as accidents, construction projects, road closures, and rerouting of traffic.^[24] Weather phenomena such as rain, snow, and fog affect visibility and slow down traffic, making road conditions particularly challenging.^[25]

Country-wise data from other sources corroborate the findings of TomTom. The US Census Bureau, for example, has stated that the capacity of US roads was “consistently overwhelmed” and congestion had become a “chronic problem” throughout the country.^[26] In 2017, a motor vehicle commuter spent, on average, 41 hours between two points,^[27] or an increase of 8 percent over 2010. In Nigeria, as per a survey, 57.8 percent of the respondents said they spent between 30 and 60 minutes in traffic; 28.7 percent spent one to two hours, and 10.4 percent spent about two to three hours in traffic every day while commuting.^[28] In India, a 2021 study revealed that daily commuters spent an average of 1.5 hours or more in some of the larger cities during peak hours.^[29] In China, data showed that two-thirds of the larger 655 Chinese cities suffered from traffic congestion during rush hours, and this problem had been spreading to two-tier and three-tier cities as well.^[30]

The primary cause of road traffic congestion worldwide is the rise in the number of cars. Experts estimate that there are 1.47 billion passenger cars in the world.^[31] Approximately 70‒80 million cars are sold each year, with China, the US, and Europe leading in sales.^[32] It is also estimated that by 2030, there will be around 2 billion cars, given the data showing that annually, about 70‒80 million new cars are sold and around 40 million vehicles are retired on account of age, accidents or regulations.^[33] Road construction cannot keep pace with the rising number of vehicles. More cars, therefore, will mean more vehicles per sq km. of roads. The total number of registered cars and cars per 1,000 people, as of 2024, are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of Cars, and Per 1,000 People, by Region (2024) (Global Car Data)

Source: World Bank, OICA^[34]

Consequences of Traffic Congestion

Traffic congestion has serious negative consequences on the urban environment, city economy, individual health, and overall city efficiency. First, traffic congestion adversely impacts city air quality, and causes increased noise pollution and heightened exhaust emissions.^[35] Vehicles caught in slow-moving traffic burn more fuel because of idling and stop-and-go driving. It has been established that due to interrupted and congested traffic flow, emissions from cars and auto-rickshaws on Indian city roads are inordinately higher than during normal, off-peak hours.^[36] One study in India estimates that pollution at intersections is 29 times higher than in free-flowing traffic.^[37] Additionally, air pollutants that comprise carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM)^[e] are released in the atmosphere.^[38]

These factors increase the volume of respiratory ailments in the city, as fine particulate matter is inhaled and gets lodged in the lungs. Such particles can also settle on roadways and get carried into waterways as runoff, polluting everything downstream.^[39] Alternatively, vehicle tyres can kick particulate matter back into the air from roads, further increasing its hazardous impact.^[40] Such air pollution is responsible for chronic lung diseases and high blood pressure, and increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.^[41]

Driving through congestion on a regular basis is likely to contribute to obesity, risk of diabetes, heart disease, and strokes.^[42] Long commutes are also associated with a disinclination to socialise, which can lead to loneliness and clinical depression. Frustration, anger, and road rage are the other psychological phenomena that have been observed among those who regularly endure long commutes. It can heighten overall stress and cause sleep loss.^[43] According to figures shared by India’s Union Road Transport Minister, there were 155,000 road rage cases in the country in 2019. This rose to 183,000 in 2020 and to 215,000 in 2021.^[44] In the US, 12,610 injuries and 218 murders were attributed to road rage over a seven-year period.^[45]

From an economic perspective, congestion imposes heavy costs on drivers in terms of delays, expenses associated with idling in traffic, and time lost. The World Bank lists four direct costs of traffic congestion. They are the cost of travel time delay for both commuters and freight; the cost of travel time unreliability in passenger transportation; the cost of additional fuel consumption; and the cost of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions on account of excess fuel consumption.^[46] Additionally, traffic congestion negatively impacts public goods such as by hindering the ability of first responders to reach emergency sites quickly.^[47] Urgent assistance may get delayed in emergency situations,^[48] whether it is fire engines needing to quickly reach a burning building or ambulances carrying critical patients who require urgent care needing to swiftly reach hospitals, or police responding to distress calls. Such delays could possibly cost human lives.^[49] For instance, the Bengaluru traffic police reported that in 2021, 175 accident victims died while being taken to hospitals for emergency treatment. This number increased by about 67 percent to 292 in 2023.^[50] In California, it has been estimated that increased monetary damages from fires and emergency medical services on account of traffic amount to US$95‒285 million per year.^[51]

With such experiences in the background, cities have had to consider imposing congestion charges. The most notable cities that have already taken up the challenge of imposing congestion charges are Singapore, London, Milan, Stockholm, Gothenburg, New York City, and Durham. In 2023, it was reported that cities such as San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Seattle, and Auckland were exploring congestion pricing.^[52] For these local governments that are still debating the imposition of congestion pricing and the right strategy to employ it, the policy debate may be a long-drawn process.^[53] Some other cities tried but their proposals were popularly rejected. These included Edinburgh, Manchester, Hong Kong, Bogota, and Jakarta.^[54] This paper discusses some of them in greater detail in the succeeding sections.

The Benefits and Disadvantages of Congestion Pricing

The upside of congestion pricing is that apart from achieving reduced congestion in restricted zones, there is a positive impact on the quality of air because of reduced vehicular emissions. In London, for instance, because of reduced emissions after the imposition of a congestion charge, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) levels decreased by 13.5 percent and particulate matter by 15.5 percent.^[55] In Stockholm, the results proved to be more dramatic. Congestion pricing resulted in the reduction of childhood asthma by nearly half.^[56] Along with this, noise pollution gets reduced. Apart from meeting operational costs, revenue from congestion charges helps in the upkeep and improvement of the transportation system.

Reduction in idling time has economic benefits as more time is available for productive use. Studies in London have also revealed that a better traffic situation in a restricted zone leads to an appreciation in property values in that zone. Home buyers are ready to move into the restricted zone because of better traffic conditions and because residents living in the zone enjoy a 90 percent waiver on the charge.^[57] However, the scheme has faced some degree of criticism for not being equitable. It places a heavy economic burden on those who need to enter the restricted zone on a regular basis. Besides, it dampens retail business and general economic activity in the restricted zone.^[58]

Critics of congestion pricing who find it inequitable argue that, in essence, it is an imposition of cost on a hitherto free service―use of congestion zones during peak hours. Therefore, those who frequently need to access congestion zones or are less well-off will have to shoulder additional costs and may run the risk of being priced off the zone.^[59] Others may have to forego vital trips on account of the expense.

Some amount of equity has been injected in some cities by excluding or discounting certain groups of individuals or vehicles. However, this negatively impacts congestion itself and compromises the very purpose for which congestion pricing has been employed.^[60] Academicians studying the equity angle of congestion pricing are of the view that equity should be formally incorporated in the planning process itself instead of retroactively. It should be considered alongside factors such as cost, revenue generation, and several implementation issues.^[61]

Best Practices

Singapore

In 1975, Singapore became the first country in the world to introduce congestion pricing on its streets that led to the Central Business District (CBD) of the city.^[62] During the 1960s and 1970s, the economy of Singapore grew at a brisk pace, as did its population.^[63] In 1965, Singapore’s GDP per capita was around US$500. This jumped to US$2,500 in 1975 and US$22,000 in 1998.^[64] Economic prosperity led to a rapid rise in car ownership. In 1965, there were 104,729 passenger cars and the figure jumped to 247,808 in 1990. This marked an increase of about 55‒81 cars per 1,000 population.^[65] This further resulted in heavy congestion on roads.

The CBD that saw a five-fold rise in employment was especially tormented by congestion.^[66] To tackle this situation, Singapore introduced the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) in 1975. This was a tool primarily to control traffic volume. To begin with, ALS was a manual system of tolls. Motor vehicles entering a restricted zone were required to pay a flat fee from Monday to Saturday during peak hours (7:30 am to 10:30 am).^[67] In 1989, ALS added evening peak hours (4:30 pm to 7:00 pm) from Monday to Friday.^[68]

While ALS was successful in reducing congestion, almost by 20 percent^[69] within the first few months, the implementation of the scheme threw up a number of issues that needed solutions for the smooth functioning of the scheme.^[70] The system’s flat fee failed to capture the number of trips a car was making to the central zone per day. Its manual and labour-intensive fee collection system was error-prone, and this problem deepened as the restricted zone expanded. While traffic congestion in the restricted zone reduced appreciably, it had no impact on car ownership that continued to increase and congestion worsened outside the restricted zone.^[71]

To combat these weaknesses, the transport administration of Singapore came up with a number of refinements, including updated technology, and implemented these in phases.^[72] In 1994, it was decided that the smart card system for Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) would be introduced.^[73] ALS was further modified with regard to operating hours. It also came up with schemes such as the Shoulder Pricing (1994),^[f] and the Weekend Car Scheme (1991), subsequently revised and called the Off-Peak Car Scheme (1994),^[74] and further modified in 2010.^[75]

The Weekend Car Scheme offered car owners, new or old, the option of saving on car registration fees and road taxes, provided they agreed to use their cars only on weekends and public holidays, and during off-peak hours at night.^[76] Cars registered under the scheme carried red licence plates with white lettering. The goal was clearly to allow car ownership and usage without adding to traffic congestion.^[77] These cars accounted for a peak of 8 percent of all registered cars in 2010.^[78] Thereafter, a downward trend was observed.

Furthermore, in 1998, Singapore completely discarded the manual system of road pricing in favour of electronic road pricing. Today, it is a fully automated system that sets rates for drivers to use roads based on location, time of day, vehicle type, and real-time speeds.^[79]

Subsequent data that are available with regard to congestion pricing in Singapore clearly establish the positives that flowed. Congestion did get reduced in the restricted zone and this led to more reliable travel times.^[80] Additionally, Singapore made substantial investments in public transportation systems as well as bicycling and walking networks, coupled with transit-oriented development. As a result, more people opted for buses and trains.^[81]

Today, Singapore boasts the most sophisticated urban electronic road pricing system in the world.^[82] Congestion charges are automatically levied on vehicles entering the restricted zone as they are equipped with in-vehicle transponder units. However, Singapore is working on the next generation of technology whereby its electronic road pricing system will be replaced by a more advanced satellite-based system.^[83] This global navigation satellite system will permit greater flexibility in pricing and provide more tools for managing travel demand.

Furthermore, since 2016, the strategy of allowing expanded vehicle ownership has been replaced by a strategy of greater usage of public transport, shared transport, and active mobility.^[84] As a supporting strategy, Singapore first restricted car ownership to a mere 0.25 percent annual increase and then froze the car ownership at 2018 levels.^[85]

London

The capital city of the UK turned towards the idea of congestion charges in 2003. Prior to its implementation, the city suffered from heavy congestion, with the average traffic speed being slower than 12 km per hour.^[86] It was estimated that the city lost between £2 million and £4 million every week due to time wasted in traffic jams.^[87]

In February 2003, the city launched the London Congestion Charging Scheme, covering, to begin with, an area of 22 sq. km. In a later phase, this area was almost doubled.^[88] The charge was set at £8, applicable from Monday to Friday between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. However, environment-friendly vehicles were exempted. An elaborate network of cameras across the congestion charge zone records car number plates and cross-references them against a register of cars that have paid the charge. Drivers who do not pay the congestion charge within three days receive a penalty charge notice for £160.

By 2006, the congestion charging zone experienced a 26-percent reduction in congestion.^[89] Other benefits included reduced pollution, increased bus ridership, and raised revenue, totalling £122 million in the 2005‒2006 fiscal year.^[90]

The revenue generated from congestion charges first goes towards covering the operational costs of the scheme and the rest contributes to the upkeep of the city’s public transport system.^[91] Current assessment of the scheme suggested that some of the reduction in congestion was offset by taxis and other service vehicles that occupied the vacated space and that stood exempted in the scheme.^[92]

The scheme has met with larger success in discouraging older and polluting vehicles from entering central London and led to a sharp decline in the use of diesel cars. These results have helped improve air quality in the city.^[93] However, it appears that congestion charge, while helping maintain traffic at the same level, has not had a significant impact on the reduction of road traffic. As TomTom’s annual traffic index report shows London continues to be among the most congested cities around the world.^[94] The city would have to employ additional, tougher parking and ownership regulations to improve traffic.

Stockholm

The capital of Sweden, with a population of about one million, is one of the smaller cities that are implementing a congestion tax. The process began in 2006, when the Swedish Parliament approved a pilot programme to test the implementation of congestion tax involving the Stockholm city centre.^[95] This was despite two-thirds of residents disapproving the tax.

The pilot, extended to seven months, comprised three separate initiatives. The first was the augmentation of public transit in the city.^[96] This saw the addition of 197 new buses, the opening of 16 new bus lines, and the expansion of services on the existing routes. The second was the construction of park-and-ride facilities. As part of this initiative, parking lots were added outside the city so that people in remote locations could leave their cars and use public transit.^[97] The third was the imposition of a congestion charge in the city centre.

During the pilot, congestion dropped dramatically by 30‒50 percent and in the subsequent referendum, two-thirds of citizens voted in favour of the tax being made permanent.^[98] The congestion tax was then introduced permanently in 2007. During the subsequent decade, the city’s population rose by 10 percent. However, surprisingly, the city’s traffic levels went down by 22 percent.^[99]

The city administration issued transponder tags to cars for installation.^[100] These triggered automatic payments when the vehicles passed through the control points. For those vehicles that did not have transponders, cameras photographed the front and back licence plates. The image was automatically conveyed to a processing facility for digitisation, and this was cross-checked against vehicle registration data. Over time, Stockholm replaced the above-cited technology and is now using video analytics for licence plate identification.^[101]

Data reveal that the city has gained through the reduction in congestion cleaner air, easier commercial transport and logistics, more money getting ploughed back into city infrastructure, and faster emergency vehicle response times.^[102] Stockholm’s success was instrumental in inspiring Gothenburg, the second largest city in Sweden, to implement a congestion tax in 2013.^[103]

New York

In the US, New York was the first city to enforce a congestion charge on vehicles that entered Manhattan’s CBD. The charge became leviable from 5 January 2025. The restricted zone stretched from 60^th Street to Battery Park, the southern tip of the financial district, and covered a total distance of 13 kilometres.^[104] A fee of US$9 was levied from 5:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekdays and from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekends on cars entering the CBD; US$14.40 on small trucks and non-commuter buses; and US$21.60 on larger trucks and tourist buses. During off-peak hours, there is a 75-percent discount.^[105] The charge is payable once a day,^[106] irrespective of the number of trips made by a motor vehicle. Specified categories of vehicles have been afforded exemption. These include emergency and government vehicles, school and commuter buses, low-income drivers, and those who are not able to use public transit because of a medical condition.^[107]

The objective of the congestion charge was to ease the city’s traffic congestion in Manhattan as well as raise money for public transportation.^[108] The benefits that it expected would flow to the city were reduced traffic and travel time, safer streets, reduced emissions, more resources for public transit improvements, and a positive contribution to the city’s quality of life.^[109] This was a long-pending reform in New York, as the city transportation officials had been batting for it for decades. During his tenure as the city mayor, Michael Bloomberg pursued the matter (2007) seriously.^[110] However, many stakeholders were not convinced that congestion pricing would be effective, highlighting the negative impact on equity.^[111] Despite such objections, the city has gone ahead.

However, the imposition has faced stiff opposition from several quarters, especially from the Republican Party and President Donald Trump. One of the reasons the city administration rushed to impose the congestion charge was the strongly stated opposition of President Trump, who had vowed to scrap the plan after assuming office.^[112] In view of President Trump’s stand, the hurried implementation may, in hindsight, appear unwise, as it runs the risk of being summarily scrapped.

Failed Congestion Pricing Proposals

Several other cities have attempted the imposition of congestion pricing on their city roads. Unfortunately, they have either not been able to go ahead with the plan or the proposals of the city administration concerned have been rejected. The city of Edinburgh, for instance, prepared a congestion charge scheme for its city centre. An elaborate consultation process with several groups of stakeholders was undertaken, culminating in a referendum by postal ballot in 2005.^[113] In the referendum, citizens booted out the scheme by a ratio of 3:1,^[114] and the scheme had to be abandoned. An investigation into the causes revealed that the public were not convinced that the objectives of a reduction in congestion and greater use of public transport would be achieved. However, the primary reason was that car owners were not prepared to bear additional costs for car travel.^[115]

Similarly, ERP was mooted in Hong Kong in the 1980s and a pilot was attempted between 1983 and 1985.^[116] Simultaneously, three separate studies were undertaken (1983, 1997, and 2006) regarding ERP.^[117] However, factors such as the economic situation and local resistance prevented its implementation. The idea was revived in 2015, 2019, and 2020. As of writing, however, ERP still remains a subject under government consideration.

In 2007, Manchester proposed a £5 congestion charge for entry into the city centre. The UK government backed the proposal; however, three local councils―Bury, Trafford, and Stockport―rejected it. To make the proposal more palatable, a sizeable sum of money was set aside for transport investment along with the element of congestion pricing. The whole proposal was put into the public domain for elaborate consultation; it was followed by a referendum. Unfortunately, the referendum resulted in a complete rejection of the proposed scheme. All 10 councils of the area gave a negative verdict resulting in the failure of the proposal.

The Indian Congestion Pricing Scenario

Historically, like many other countries, India pursued a fossil fuel-intensive pathway in the area of transport.^[118] Of late, however, the Government of India and state governments have realised that cities ought to move towards public transportation.^[119] This change in emphasis resulted in the encouragement that was provided to bus rapid transit systems (BRTS),^[120] rail-based city transport such as metro, and bike taxis.^[121] However, with demographic growth, urbanisation, and rising incomes, car ownership has continued to increase, leading to high levels of congestion and air pollution.^[122]

It is now acknowledged that supply-side policies in the form of public transport infrastructure need to be complemented with demand-side initiatives. Therefore, just as in cities of other countries, congestion pricing has emerged as a significant tool in India as well. Many Indian architects, transport experts, and urban planners have also come forward to argue that Indian cities need to impose a similar congestion charge.^[123] India’s biggest cities experience more severe traffic congestion than New York, yet none have deemed it necessary to implement congestion charge. In Bengaluru, India’s most congested megacity, a study found that commuters spent an average of 1.5 hours driving per day and their average trip speed was 14 kilometres per hour. Morning and evening peak hours were about half the speed as congested times.^[124]

TomTom’s Traffic Index 2024 provides the following data about congestion in Indian cities.

Table 2: Traffic Congestion in Indian Cities

Source: TomTom Traffic Index 2024 ^[125]

Some attempts have been made in Indian cities to move forward on congestion pricing. In 2018, the Delhi Lt Governor announced that the government was working on a proposal in this regard for the city of Delhi.^[126] In preliminary surveys, the Delhi Traffic Police identified 21 road stretches where a congestion charge could be levied.^[127] Earlier, in 2018, a parliamentary committee had recommended the imposition of congestion charges on congested stretches of Delhi roads.^[128] The High Court had also demanded a blueprint on decongestion plans in Delhi. However, till date, this has not been acted upon.^[129]

Similar attempts were made by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). It invited a stakeholder focus group, in partnership with the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), to understand the different contours of congestion pricing^[130] and the ways in which one could go ahead with the implementation of a congestion charge.^[131]

As of today, no Indian city or metropolitan region has imposed a congestion charge on its roads. There is clearly a greater degree of ‘political status quoism’ among state leaders regarding reforms in cities, leaving mayors or local councilors of Indian cities with little political freedom to experiment or take independent initiative.

It would be necessary to concede that over the last decade, traffic congestion and ways to tackle it have become a priority for many Indian cities. Despite the advantages mentioned above, only a handful of cities, as shown above, have been able to go ahead with the imposition of congestion charges. Many others, as previously discussed, have tried and failed while others face fierce public opposition and struggle to find the best possible way to handle their resistance and shift sentiment in favour of congestion pricing policies. Democratic governments, in general, have been wary of facing public criticism and, therefore, timid about proposing its implementation. There is a strong reason why elected leaders in many cities have rejected congestion pricing proposals advanced by officials. Survey results in the US, Europe, and elsewhere have shown that public acceptance of the proposal is low. It, therefore, naturally follows that political acceptability of congestion pricing is also low.^[132]

Stockholm was one of the few cities where congestion pricing was supported through a public vote. This occurred via a referendum in the city where 52 percent of the voters approved the proposal.^[133] Even here, one can see that the vote in favour won by only a narrow margin. An analysis of the vote revealed that better-educated voters and working-age voters favoured the tolls. However, male workers and immigrants were unsupportive. The findings of the study also suggested that a 10-percent decrease in commute time could increase support for the tolling system by 2 percent.^[134] On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in the incremental costs of commuting could result in a 4 percent decline in approval for congestion pricing.^[135]

One of the primary reasons for limited public and political support for congestion pricing is that only its economic benefits are perceived as meaningful.^[136] Politically, leaders find the idea risky and fear it could end up being disastrous. Upfront payment of congestion charge is very tangible, and clearly a liability for drivers and commuters. However, the calculation of time saved, fuel saved, and other benefits from congestion charges is not very obvious. Even if car owners, drivers, and commuters are convinced of the goodness of a congestion charge, it would be far-fetched to expect that they would organise themselves and come out on the streets to support the fee.^[137] Therefore, the political challenge is to engage with people and convince citizens of the virtues of intangibles that have great relevance in their lives. The economic strategy of congestion pricing is much simpler. The political strategy for selling it is much more difficult.^[138]

In the Indian context, rigour in implementation would be required in congestion pricing governance architecture.^[139] Loopholes in execution, unnecessary exemptions, political interference, and poor coordination among departments dealing with traffic may spell doom for any congestion pricing initiative.^[140] This indeed will vary across cities. However, this is an aspect that would need serious thought and robust design and implementation. Additionally, if there are innate weaknesses in capacity within the organisation, such as handling of IT infrastructure, public‒private partnerships could be established to cover those areas of internal operational deficits.^[141]

While applying congestion pricing in Indian cities, one would also have to be careful about the aspect of equity. Imposition of congestion pricing is likely to be vehemently opposed by poorer commuters. Therefore, smaller vehicles would have to be given free passage. This is already being carried out in the country in the case of road tolls. They are generally restricted to cars and commercial vehicles. Two-wheelers and auto-rickshaws are exempted.^[142] Wherever tolls are applied, a graded system of a heavier charge for larger vehicles and a reduced charge for smaller vehicles is also followed. This policy has been found to be successful and acceptable on Indian roads.

Conclusion

Cities that implement one form of congestion pricing or another have shown their capacity to weave through the opposition and market their scheme successfully. Many others have failed. However, where no attempt has been made despite a recognised need, it displays an inability to take strong political decisions and endure the backlash. This may be the principal reason for the non-implementation of many congestion pricing projects in several cities around the world.^[143]

There are other lessons to be learnt from the success stories around the world. The imposition of congestion pricing must be preceded by three essentials. First, the scheme must be well-formulated and should use the best technology available to ensure smooth traffic without confusion at the charging point. Second, the proposal should be well publicised and widely debated among the stakeholders. Any genuine concerns raised must be addressed as thoroughly as possible. This process should allow the administration to iron out opposition from groups that could be turned into supporters. Third, the city must have in place an efficient public transport system that caters to the requirements of its citizens. Cities that do not meet the three essentials should first fulfil them before moving forward with imposing a congestion charge.

Endnotes

• Urbanisation in India
• Urbanisation
• India
• congestion pricing
• congestion pricing impact
• congestion pricing implementation
• congestion pricing in india
• congestion pricing new york
• congestion pricing policies
• congestion pricing Singapore
• congestion pricing system
• congestion zones
• transportation governance tools

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT