London s Congestion Charge Introduction to the Scheme and its Principal Impacts
Introduction Reg Evans Transport economist with Halcrow ROCOL Study (Road Charging Options for London) led Effectiveness Assessment Transport for London Cost benefit assessment published on TfL website Assessment of car travel demand elasticities Work to assess responses to changes in charging scheme
Structure of presentation Why congestion charging in London? The scheme Attitudes towards charging Traffic impacts Economic impacts Wider impacts Where congestion charging is going now In London In the UK
Political background 1984 Thatcher Government abolished GLC 1997 Labour (Blair) Government elected 1999 GLA Act Elected Mayor in 2000 Charging powers 2000 May - Ken Livingstone elected Mayor 20 February 5 congestion charge introduced 2005 July charge increased to 8 2007 February Western extension area added
ROCOL Study 1999 GLA Act Elected Mayor Workplace Parking Levy, Road Charging Revenues for first 10 years to be spent on Mayor s transport strategy ROCOL, 1999: Commissioned by Government Office for London to advise Mayoral candidates on the charging options available to them Had to recommend a scheme that could be implemented in Mayor s first term (2000-2004)
Before charging 2000: Central London off peak traffic speeds around 9 mph - similar to horse-drawn traffic 100 years earlier Business organisations - London Chamber of Commerce, London First transport their number one concern 95% of 16 19 year olds improving air quality, reducing traffic and cleaning up the streets at the top of making London a more pleasant place to live 80% of motorists - congestion and air pollution in London very serious Public transport mode share around 90% to central area in am peak
Air quality (NO 2 ) problem
ROCOL scheme, Implemented scheme, Lobby groups Area Technology ROCOL proposal Implemented scheme Central London as implemented Licence with ANPR enforcement Lobby groups Charge level 5 for cars/vans 5 for all vehicles Retailers 15 for HGVs Hauliers Charging hours Exemptions Weekdays 0700-1900 Emergency vehicles Disabled Weekdays 0700-1830 plus Taxis Alternative fuel Residents discount Theatres Entertainment lobby Taxi drivers Residents
London and congestion charge area
Current scheme area
Current scheme Main business, retail and entertainment areas in Central London All main rail termini Waterloo, Victoria, Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras within charged area 8 charge per day for driving or parking on public roads within charged area between 0700 and 1800 hours Weekdays only not weekends or public holidays Vehicle owner registers vehicle/agrees to pay for a given day by phone, text, on-line, at retail outlets ANPR enforcement cameras photograph number plates of vehicles entering/leaving and within charged area photographs of registered vehicles deleted, of unregistered vehicles retained
Principal exemptions and discounts Exempt licensed taxis and minicabs some specialist vehicles used by emergency services and disabled 100% discount blue badge holders alternative fuel vehicles Residents discount 5 consecutive days driving for 50% of normal daily charge, ie, 4 so resident who drives every day pays 0.80 per day, 90% discount
Use made of discounts
Attitudes towards congestion charge Figure 4.2 - Support towards congestion charging in Central London 100% Introduction of charging scheme (Feb ) One year after congestion charging (Feb 04) Net support (% %) 50% 0% 0-5 -2 30 19 35 20 26-50% -100% Nov/Dec 02 (W1) Jan (W2) Feb (W3) March (W4) April (W5) July (W7) Sept/Oct (W8) March 04 (W10) Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 2,056; W2 = 1,048; W3 = 1,012; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002; W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001) 2
Perception of effectiveness Figure 4.3 - Effectiveness of congestion charging 100% Introduction of charging scheme (Feb ) One year after congestion charging (Feb 04) Net effective (% %) 50% 0% 3 6-6 51 50 57 51-50% -100% Nov/Dec 02 (W1) Jan (W2) Feb (W3) March (W4) April (W5) July (W7) Sept/Oct (W8) March 04 (W10) Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002; W8 = 1,007) 3
Concerns about public transport Figure 4.8 - Will overload public transport 100% Introduction of charging scheme (Feb ) One year after congestion charging (Feb 04) Net agree (%) 50% 0% 20 20 27 10 6-7 -5-9 -50% -100% Nov/Dec 02 (W1) Jan (W2) Feb (W3) March (W4) April (W5) July (W7) Sept/Oct (W8) March 04 (W10) Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002; W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001) 8
Another tax? Figure 4.12 - Just another tax on Londoners 100% Introduction of charging scheme (Feb ) One year after congestion charging (Feb 04) Net agree (%) 50% 0% 42 45 32 27 18 11 22 15-50% -100% Nov/Dec 02 (W1) Jan (W2) Feb (W3) March (W4) April (W5) July (W7) Sept/Oct (W8) March 04 (W10) Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002; W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001) 12
Central area traffic reductions
Traffic by time of day
Western extension traffic reductions
Traffic by time of day
Central area speed changes
Principal economic benefits ( 8 charge) million per year Travel time and reliability Cars vans, goods vehicles Buses Total 260 43 3 Operating costs 28 28 Deterred trips -31-31 Compliance costs -19-19 Accidents 14 14 CO 2 2 2 Air quality 1 1 Total 255 43 298 BCR of 1.7:1
Financial performance FY 2007 million Costs Scheme operation 91 Other / TfL costs 40 Total costs 131 Revenues Charges 195 Enforcement income 73 Total revenues 268 Net revenues 137
Who benefits? Transport sector Road users high-value business trips, taxis, other exempt / discounted vehicles Bus users / operators Cyclists and pedestrians Other sectors TfL: No discernible significant effects positive or negative Financial and business services Public services Hotels and restaurants Retail Commercial property
London A Tale of Two Mayors Ken Livingstone 2000-2008 Introduced congestion charge and Western extension Researched feasibility of satellite-based Londonwide scheme Consulted on 25 per day emissions-related charge Boris Johnson 2008 2012 Will withdraw charge from Western Extension zone if current consultation finds against it Will keep central area charge but no interest in expansion
Government Policy to around 2006 2004 Transport Innovation Fund Large sums of money available for urban transport schemes Direct road pricing measures needed to qualify 12 cities larger and smaller given funding to work up schemes Only Manchester still contemplating direct charging Manchester is having a public vote on its proposals, as Edinburgh did
Early 2007: E-petition Downing Street e-petition Abandon idea of road pricing sinister tracking of every vehicle unfair tax improve our roads to reduce congestion February 2007: 1.7 million hits PM response: No decision made about national road pricing Difficult choice about how to tackle increasing congestion Not a stealth tax on motorists Could be a case for moving away from current system of motoring taxation
Annual Vehicle Excise Duty VED band CO 2 (g/km) per year A <100 0 B 101 120 35 C 121-150 120 D 151-165 145 E 166-185 170 F 186-225 210 G >226 400 VED generates around 5.5 billion per year
Fuel price around 1 per litre Fuel price 34.8p Fuel duty 50.3p VAT 17.5% on duty as 14.9p well as price Fuel duty generates 25 billion per year VAT on petrol / diesel around 7.5 billion
Where is charging going? London May reduce charged area No apparent interest in developing the scheme Other cities Only Manchester actively pursuing for now Nationally On back burner Two main political parties silent on the issue
London was different High level of congestion Very high level of public transport use Few adversely affected most would benefit PT able to handle transferred car trips No urban competition An elected Mayor
What is needed? Time To recover from e-petition To recover from recession Congestion At an unacceptable level Political change Central government to take the lead Acceptance of change to car / fuel taxation Perhaps changed governance of our cities
So currently I am not too hopeful Thank you