London's congestion charge two years on

[ablarc]

Press Centre-Transport for London
Press release
18 February 2005

Two years on - congestion cut, more reliable buses, and £170million to invest in London’s transport system

Congestion has been cut, buses are quicker and more reliable and the West End continues to do well since the introduction of the congestion charge two years ago.

At the start of the scheme the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, called on commentators and detractors to give the scheme two years before deciding whether the scheme was a success or failure.

The Mayor said: “Two years on and the congestion charge continues to be a success and prove the cynics wrong. Congestion in the zone is down by 30 per cent, bus services are improved and pollution has been cut. London’s West End is doing well, with figures from the Society of London Theatre showing that theatres took their best ever revenue in 2004 and achieved their second best audience numbers since records began in the 1980s.

“After years of chronic congestion, central London is moving again. The scheme is clearly working and the majority of Londoners now support it.”

Michèle Dix, Director of the Congestion Charge, said,

“The scheme’s detractors predicted chaos and confusion, and that London would be turned into a ghost town. Two years on and the reality is that congestion has been cut, buses are quicker and far more reliable, businesses are doing well, more people are entering the zone, and London is a far nicer place to work, live and visit.”

Within the charging zone conditions have remained stable since the start of the scheme:

traffic has been reduced by 15%
congestion has been reduced by 30%
accident rates have fallen by up to 5% due to congestion charging
reduction of 12% in emissions of NOx and PM10 from road traffic within the zone
increased traffic speeds
excess waiting time for buses reduced by 45% within the zone
60% reduction in disruption to bus services
retail footfall is now outperforming the rest of the UK and is returning to a pattern of year-on-year growth
the charge has had no identifiable effect on the number of business starting up or closing down within the zone compared to the rest of London
no effect on property prices
the Society of London Theatre has indicated that the congestion charge does not seem to have affected businesses in the West End area generally
£170 million pounds will be raised by the end of the financial year to invest in London’s transport system (2003/4 - £80million, 2004/5 - projected net revenue of £90million).


Many improvements have been made to the scheme since its introduction including:

lowering the threshold of the congestion charging fleet schemes from 25 vehicles to 10
making the three charging days that fall between Christmas Day and New Year's Day 'non-charging' days
extending the SMS text messaging facility
allowing payment by additional credit and debit card types; revising the definition of resident's vehicles
removing the financial criteria for the National Health Service patients' reimbursement scheme
improvements to the 100 percent discount for registered holders of Blue Badges.


TfL is also currently consulting on the following changes:

to raise the charge from £5 per charging day to £8 per charging day for those not on fleet schemes;
to raise the charge from £5.50 per charging day to £7 for vehicles on the automated fleet scheme; and from £5 per charging day to £7 for vehicles on the notification fleet scheme;
to discount monthly and annual charges by 15 percent;
to reduce a number of administrative charges.


TfL is also progressing further measures to make the charge easier to pay, including:

an enhanced website
more petrol stations accepting payment
an enhanced public information on payment by SMS
an information leaflet to be sent to 36 million households across the UK as part of DVLA correspondence.

[jimi_d]

Only snag is that it doesn't say how many more people are actually riding the buses...

[Budgie]

Originally posted by jimi_d

Only snag is that it doesn't say how many more people are actually riding the buses...

I don't believe that bus and the underground have ever had a ridership problem. I could be wrong I suppose.

[ablarc]

Originally posted by Budgie

I don't believe that bus and the underground have ever had a ridership problem. I could be wrong I suppose.

London does have a ridership problem on the underground: too many riders. That's why Livingstone's thrust is to get people on buses, which--with traffic flowing more smoothly--are now more viable transport alternatives.

Transport for London intends to modernize the entire Underground system over the next fifteen years at a cost of billions.

This guy really knows what he's doing. And he has the political courage to get it done. At first, unpopular; then toast of the town. We need some politicians like that in this country.

[noj]

There have been some mutterings about small businesses being affected by the Congestion Charge, but generally I believe its seen as a good thing. Purely from a selfish point of view I am well in favour as London is a lot nicer place to walk around now

On a related theme, how much nicer is Trafalgar Square now? The reduction in traffic from the congestion charge and the opening up of the Square through the diverting of the remaining traffic has made it far better and a lot nicer public space. Now we just need to get rid of the pigeons....

'Red Ken' is good I think for the city, and fairly popular amongst Londoners I'm led to believe. And, as you say, he has the courage of his convictions which helps a lot.

[Budgie]

Originally posted by noj

Now we just need to get rid of the pigeons....

The pigeons was the only reason I stopped there..... oh, part from the New Years skinny dip in the fountains. How about the confined space of Picadilly Circus?

[noj]

There's a book called 'The London Pigeon Wars'. Its very good, highly recommended, especially if you're into pigeons

Piccadilly - first step, get rid of the Trocadero and the associated chavs will hopefully then disappear

(thats the post 30 noj speaking....)

[jimi_d]

Originally posted by ablarc

London does have a ridership problem on the underground: too many riders.

It's not quite as black-and-white as all that. There are three lines which have too many riders: the Northern Line (mainly the Charing X branch), the Central Line, and the Victoria Line. Other lines have plenty of room. The average District Line train is only 70% full in rush hour. More needs to be done to encourage people to use the subsurface lines (the Met, District, East London, H&C, and Circle Lines). One very good way would be to resume through running of commuter trains onto them (this was suspended for World War II and never resumed). The problem here is administrative/political, mainly owing to the fragmentation of the railways.

[quote]That's why Livingstone's thrust is to get people on buses, which--with traffic flowing more smoothly--are now more viable transport alternatives.{/quote]

It's all he can do until he gets control of the trains.

Transport for London intends to modernize the entire Underground system over the next fifteen years at a cost of billions.

Or rather they are using expensive private finance to do it. In the end it just leaves the taxpayer paying more for less.

This guy really knows what he's doing. And he has the political courage to get it done. At first, unpopular; then toast of the town. We need some politicians like that in this country.

Pity about the Government.

Originally posted by noj

There have been some mutterings about small businesses being affected by the Congestion Charge, but generally I believe its seen as a good thing. Purely from a selfish point of view I am well in favour as London is a lot nicer place to walk around now

People don't realise how walkable London is. Central London is actually very small. I've walked from Charing Cross to Euston before (I wanted to visit the university bookshop on Torrington Place in the middle of a cross-London transfer) - it was almost nice.

On a related theme, how much nicer is Trafalgar Square now? The reduction in traffic from the congestion charge and the opening up of the Square through the diverting of the remaining traffic has made it far better and a lot nicer public space. Now we just need to get rid of the pigeons....

It really is much improved. The pedestrian area should be extended down Whitehall IMHO.

'Red Ken' is good I think for the city, and fairly popular amongst Londoners I'm led to believe. And, as you say, he has the courage of his convictions which helps a lot.

My one irritation is that the government used the former GLC boundary for the new GLA, thus denying plenty of real Londoners the chance of voting for him!

[Journeymouse]

Originally posted by Budgie

oh, part from the New Years skinny dip in the fountains.

Ummmm... you do know what people do in that water, don't you?

[Budgie]

Originally posted by Journeymouse

Ummmm... you do know what people do in that water, don't you?

Hey, it's London and with so many French around you always have to watch your step. There was this time I was in Hampstead Heath and a bus load of Frenchies lined up and ...... I'll stop there.

Sorry for getting so far off topic, but Journeymouse started it.

[Luca]

“I don't believe that bus and the underground have ever had a ridership problem. I could be wrong I suppose.”

The ‘tube’ (subway) is overcrowded to an extent that would be criminal, under UK law, if instead of transporting people it transported animals. I take the ‘tube’ twice daily and I can assure you it’s enough to turn anyone into an enthusiastic supporter of 24-lane highways built right into town, possibly razing St. Paul in the process. (Rant)

“Transport for London intends to modernize the entire Underground system over the next fifteen years at a cost of billions.”

They’ve been fighting about this for about 15 years. In France or the US, this would have been done long ago. Repeat: the tube is a disgrace. Third world country stuff.

“This guy really knows what he's doing. And he has the political courage to get it done. At first, unpopular; then toast of the town. We need some politicians like that in this country.”

No toasts for that imbecile. They car congestion is marginally better in places (of course!) but it’s brain-numbingly bad in the West End due to unbelievably bad anti-car schemes.

Ken is also keen to build more public housing mega tower blocks. He is a liability.

“On a related theme, how much nicer is Trafalgar Square now? The reduction in traffic from the congestion charge and the opening up of the Square through the diverting of the remaining traffic has made it far better and a lot nicer public space. Now we just need to get rid of the pigeons....”

I moved to London 11 years ago. You could drive to the West End, find parking (paying handsomely, fair enough) and enjoy a night out. They have progressively strangled car access. The result is that most of the West End is now simply a tourist trap with no locals to speak of other than a few yobs from the burbs. Really depressing, tawdry and about as hip as a big great unhip thing. Compare to Notting Hill or even Shoreditch.

“…The average District Line train is only 70% full in rush hour. More needs to be done to encourage people to use the subsurface lines (the Met, District, East London, H&C, and Circle Lines). ….”

Buddy, I RIDE the District Line every day (well…when it’s actually running). 70% full? Maybe compared to Gulag/Concentration Camp cattle cars… (sorry for the flippant reference, but hey, I’m a daily victim)

“That's why Livingstone's thrust is to get people on buses, which--with traffic flowing more smoothly--are now more viable transport alternatives.”

They HAVE improved bus service. Still took me an hour and a half to cover the distance from the West End to Chiswick (a few miles), though. Horrendous. Cars, in the form of taxis, are ALSO public transport. They should license maybe treble the number they have now. Would solve the minicab ‘problem’.

“There have been some mutterings about small businesses being affected by the Congestion Charge, but generally I believe its seen as a good thing. Purely from a selfish point of view I am well in favour as London is a lot nicer place to walk around now”

It is being opposed fiercely in its planned expansion. Ultimately, I agree with using cost to ration access, since the physical space is limited. I am REVOLTED by the further limitation of what is physically available by idiots like Ken and some councils.

“People don't realise how walkable London is. Central London is actually very small.”

I’ve walked it every which direction, being able bodied and before I had little children. Central London is several miles across (Zone 1). Try walking it with small children or if you are elderly or have even a slight mobility impairment. The best thing that ever happened to London is the Westway. They should built a half dozen in all directions. Either that or pave the Thames over as a highway/parking lot.

“My one irritation is that the government used the former GLC boundary for the new GLA, thus denying plenty of real Londoners the chance of voting for him!”

You mean the real Londoners who moved out of London so they too could have their 10ft by 10ft garden?

[The One]

I hear there is a TV tax in London.....that requires monitoring by the "TV police", maybe that tax should be raised as well.....
An increase to about $15 a day to drive the downtown Oh my GOD Has anyone been keeping track of the local business community or done a study to see if there is a drop in retail/commercial business as a result of the congestion pricing? But then again, I understand $$$ $$$ why Brit's wouldn't want to eat out in their own country How about the socio-economic message being sent- Keep the poor in their public transportation and give the roads back to the rich (and their nice cars) What ever happened to the AMERICAN dream......whoops....forgot we were talking about England......

he he he........

[jordanb]

OTOH, the beneficiary of the TV Tax, the BBC, is the best news organization on the planet, and is far better than anything in the United States.

[The One]

Originally posted by jordanb

OTOH, the beneficiary of the TV Tax, the BBC, is the best news organization on the planet, and is far better than anything in the United States.

So I take it the BBC doesn't have to resort to charging millions per advertisement??? or is it that they just can't make it on the advertising revenue alone....?

Anyway, because London has such a wonderful public transportation system in place (compared to many other parts of the world and most of the US in my opinion), the relatively rich are the only one's that can afford to drive in that country anyway, when considering the taxes, gas prices and vehicle costs. Kind of like Singapore I would guess, not being able to drive a vehicle that's over 10 years old and paying huge taxes for the right to drive is defacto congestion pricing. Paying a comparativley tiny fee for a sticker is nothing compared to the real cost of vehicle ownership in those places.....but it only works because of the extensive public transportation system already in place......

[jordanb]

Originally posted by The One

So I take it the BBC doesn't have to resort to charging millions per advertisement??? or is it that they just can't make it on the advertising revenue alone....?

As far as I'm aware, the BBC does not run any advertisement. They're basically the state broadcasting organization. But because they have a revenue stream independent of the manipulations of Parliament (unlike our Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which must rely on the Congressional budget), they aren't beholden to political masters and are quite willing to take the ruling government head-on (as they have done with Blair over Iraq).

Originally posted by Luca

They’ve been fighting about this for about 15 years. In France or the US, this would have been done long ago. Repeat: the tube is a disgrace. Third world country stuff.

This is really a joke. Well, maybe not in France, I don't know enough about their transportation funding. But in the United States, any transportation project that doesn't involve covering the earth with a carpet of asphalt must face a pitched 20-year battle over funding.

[jtmnkri]

Originally posted by jordanb

This is really a joke. Well, maybe not in France, I don't know enough about their transportation funding. But in the United States, any transportation project that doesn't involve covering the earth with a carpet of asphalt must face a pitched 20-year battle over funding.

In New Jersey, lots of rail projects have been funded and built recently. One reason they get done is the state taxpayers kick in massive funding. Large rail projects are not politically or financially feasible in most states. New Jersey is an exception. Many people blame the Feds for failing to fund rail, when the biggest problem is actually the unwillingness of state governments to pay their share. Here are some examples:

River Line - 2003, connects Trenton and Camden, $1.1 billion for 34 miles

Hudson Bergen Light Rail - initial segments opened 2000-2004; connects Bayonne, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Weehawken; total cost at least $2.3 billion for 21 miles

Secaucus Junction station - 2003, enables transfer between Hoboken-bound trains and trains bound for New York Penn Station, $600 million

Montclair Connection - 2002, reduces commute from some North Jersey suburbs to midtown Manhattan by 10 to 15 minutes, $60 million for 1,500 feet

[jtmnkri]

Originally posted by jordanb

This is really a joke. Well, maybe not in France, I don't know enough about their transportation funding.

These recent newspaper quotes tell you all you need to know about the quality of French and American public transport.

France:
"Planes, trains and metros were canceled, and postal workers and teachers stayed home in a nationwide day of defiance Thursday against government economic policies -- notably plans to let the French work longer hours. For Paris, where commuters crammed aboard the few trains running, the timing was unfortunate. The strikes coincided with a visit by Olympic inspectors assessing the French capital's bid to host the 2012 Summer Games."

United States:
"New York's hopes of staging the 2012 Olympic Games were boosted Thursday when the city's labor unions agreed to unprecedented no-strike pledges.
'If the Games come to New York in 2012, union workers across the city will make sure it and all activities leading up to it will be a magnificent success,' president of New York's Central Labor Council Brian McLaughlin said."

Which public transport system do you think is a joke now? Funding doesn't matter if the human garbage workforce doesn't bother turning up when it counts most.

[Journeymouse]

Originally posted by The One

So I take it the BBC doesn't have to resort to charging millions per advertisement??? or is it that they just can't make it on the advertising revenue alone....?

The BBC run multiple tv and radio channels, through public funding raised by TV licensing across the UK (not just England ). It is currently about £110 p.a. for a colour tv licence. All tvs should be licenced and the fine can be £1000 or a short custodial sentence (imagine living that one down in the lock-up!). They also have several enterprises (i.e. production companies and such) that produce the majority of their own programmes and bring in further funding when they sell the programmes abroad. It does not advertise other channels or products. It doesn't stop them running 'trailers' of future programmes, but there are no commercial adverts. The BBC is often refered to as "Auntie", as it's a big organisation with definite views of its own. As has been noted, these sometimes run counter to the government opinion.

Here endeth the lesson...

[noj]

Originally posted by Luca

Ken is also keen to build more public housing mega tower blocks. He is a liability.

I've said it before on other threads, but we have two choices in this country with regards housing provision. We either build up, or we build out. Mostly theres a balance being promoted which involves high density schemes which are well designed. Of course we've got to avoid the mistakes of the 60's, but I think high density schemes can be built that are well designed and sustainable. Does Ken want to build public housing 'mega blocks', or mixed use, mixed tenure 'mega blocks'? Theres a big difference.

Originally posted by Luca

The best thing that ever happened to London is the Westway. They should built a half dozen in all directions. Either that or pave the Thames over as a highway/parking lot.

Nice one. I'm sure that would work well.

Seriously though, if Ken is that despised by the general London population, they can always vote him out. Does he go up for relection at the same time as the General Election?

Speaking from an English non-London point of view, it appears to me that generally Ken has done a good job.

[ablarc]

Congestion charge to increase to £8 - fleet and regular users to receive discounts

Press release from the Mayor's office

The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone today confirmed a number of major changes to the congestion charging scheme following public consultation.

The Mayor has decided to make the following major changes:
* Increase the congestion charge from £5 to £8.
* Increase the congestion charge for vehicles on the fleet scheme from £5.50 to £7.
* Introduce three charge-free days for a monthly payment and 40 charge-free days for an annual payment of the congestion charge.

The Mayor said: “Congestion charging has been in place for just over two years. It has achieved its key objective of reducing congestion and has also provided an additional stream of revenue to help the funding of other transport measures within my Transport Strategy.

“The charge increase will maintain the benefits currently witnessed in the zone and build upon its success, cutting congestion even further, and raising more revenue to be invested in London’s transport system. Ninety per cent of people entering the zone do so by public transport. This will build on what has already been achieved in terms of extended bus provision, and in due course by providing additional underground capacity. At the same time, a number of measures will reduce the hassle of paying the charge.

“In response to requests from business and fleet operators to make the charge easier to pay and to reduce the impact of the charge on business, the daily charge for vehicles on the fleet scheme will be set at £7.

“In addition, large discounts on monthly and annual payments will make the charge easier to pay for regular users and should lead to fewer penalty charge notices being incurred by drivers who forget to pay the charge.”

These changes will come into effect on July 4, 2005.

Website : http://www.cclondon.com/

[AubieTurtle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

London is going to implement a very hefty increase (now eight pounds, to increase to twenty five pounds) in the congestion charge for vehicles with low fuel efficiency. The 90% discount for those living in the congestion zone (which is being increased in size), will also be eliminated for the same fuel inefficient vehicles.

It looks like as long as there isn't a large enough push back from the public that these increases will continue. It's going to be very interesting to see how these increases change the nature of the city.

[JusticeZero]

(accidental double post)

[JusticeZero]

(accidental double post)

[JusticeZero]

There's actually a catch there.
London is NOT typical; being a pre-auto city, it's streets were never terribly auto-friendly. Parking costs in downtown London were at rates which would make most other city dwellers cringe. The vast majority of people did not drive into London, they took the train. He was able to win support for the congestion charge because most people couldn't afford to take their car into london in any case.

After the charge we see:
Less cars inside the cordon. Congestion OUTSIDE the cordon on the ring road, however, has reportedly become much worse.
More buses in London. However, we also see slightly less people on trains. As the large increase in bus patronage (45% increase) if transferred off of trains is well within the margin for error of trains (2% decrease) we can't be certain on that point. Nonetheless, moving people from trains to buses would not be a good thing necessarily. If the trains are overcrowded, they should improve the trains.

What does this tell us? Well, mostly it just tells us that London is a pretty freakish example.
The other experiment in road pricing has had a rather interesting effect; in Singapore, a tiny, ultra-compact city, flexible road congestion pricing has allowed the ultra-rich car owners to rack up as many miles per car per year as is normally associated with places like Los Angeles.

The end result is that road pricing is probably the right answer for the wrong question, and we really need to go back to the drawing board on it. London is fine because it's not "as we know it".

[mgk920]

I would think that for places like Manhattan (NYC) and downtown Chicago, the fact that it can cost well over $20 to park in a decent location for a day is a very good and more than sufficient defacto 'congestion charge'.

For my visits to downtown Chicago, I normally park in an outlying lot or ramp and CTA it downtown ($2 or so to park and $4 for the CTA round trip), not even bothering with those über-expensive downtown parking garages.

Mike