Compromising sustainable mobility? The case of the Gothenburg congestion tax

Abstract

Congestion charging is widely considered an effective policy measure to regulate and reduce car traffic demand and associated environmental and health problems in cities. However, introducing restrictive measures to constrain individual choice and behaviour for the common good has often proven difficult. Using a specific case, the Gothenburg congestion tax introduced in 2013, we study the policy process behind the introduction of the tax and assess to what extent green values were compromised along the way. The tax was made possible by co-financing infrastructure investments, including roads, which seemingly contradicts stated goals of reducing car traffic and emissions. We show how the tax was ‘muddled through’ in a top-down political compromise by a grand coalition where different interests could legitimate their support in relation to the achievement of partially conflicting objectives and projects. However, to declare the regulatory goals fully neutralised would be to underestimate the scheme's direct environmental effects and restrictive potential. Finding a compromise with powerful political and economic interests was necessary to get it off the ground. Once launched, however, it can over time regain its restrictive properties and lead to more profound long-term effects.

Keywords:

• congestion pricing
• sustainable mobility
• infrastructure financing
• environmental policy
• transport planning

Acknowledgements

We would first of all like to thank the interviewees who took the time to participate in this study. We would also like to thank the referees and editors of the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. This work was financially supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas and the Sustainable Transport Initiative, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology (with funding from Vinnova, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems).

Notes

1. The following are cost estimates for different components of the West Sweden Package: Western Link SEK20 billion; Marieholm Tunnel SEK3.5 billion; the Göta Älv Bridge SEK3.5 billion, 2 billion of which were part of the package; and improvements in public transport SEK4.6 billion (http://www.trafikverket.se).

2. In January 2015, the fee will increase to between SEK9 and SEK22 (Government Bill 2010/11:133).

3. Within urban and regional planning and policy in Sweden, regional enlargement – the geographical extension of labor markets and associated longer commuting distances – is embraced as an important means of stimulating economic growth (Amcoff 2009).