Earlier today in my Urban History class, we were discussing the methods that have been employed to handle traffic generation in highly congested urban areas. Someone brought up the Congestion Charge that was implemented in London several years ago and we began to debate its effectiveness. As a class, however, we were unable to evaluate the legislation in relationship to London so we speculated on how it would affect United States cities instead. My question for all of you London area dopers is how has the Congestion Charge changed rush hour traffic in London? Also, what are your feelings about the fee?
I live in London and I’m a driver, so the congestion charge affects me.
Proponents of the scheme claim:
-
it has been a huge success
-
it has reduced congestion in the city
-
it has made people think more carefully about whether they need to drive through the city, or take the car at all
-
that the CC shoujld not be seen in isolation, but as part of a larger policy which has included much greater investment in public transport, e.g. there are now more buses, running more frequently on more routes, than before.
I think each of these claims is dubious. Claims and counter-claims about how much congestion has been reduced, or about ‘average’ journey times through the city, are fought using statistics. Nothing wrong with the science of statistics per se, but when two opposing factions start debating a point with rival sets of statistics, the debate can easily degenerate into pointlessness. There is always a different set of stats to refer to, there are always debates about whose stats are best or most accurate, and about whether some stats were gathered / interpreted by biased parties. Plus, stats can be out of date before they are published.
On an informal basis, I’d say it was my experience, and that of everyone I spoke to at the time, that when the CC was first introduced, it did cause a noticeable reduction on city centre traffic. However, this effect has faded over time, and the congestion has gradualy worsened again such that now it doesn’t feel to me much different from how it was before.
Also, I don’t feel that ‘effectiveness’ is the whole picture. I’m sure that imposing a charge of £1000 per day would dramatically reduce congestion too. But there are other issues here, such as fairness and whether the Mayor of London has the right to charge Londoners to drive on roads that they paid to build in the first place, and pay to maintain. (The principal architect and vsionary of the scheme is the elected Mayor of London, a chap called Ken Livingstone. A hero to some, a villain to others.)
As for the ‘made people think’ argument, I don’t know anyone who drives through the city of London (usually a disagreeable and frustrating experience) for fun or pleasure. Most of the time, people drive through London because they have a need to. This being so, those who face the congestion charge can be divided into a small number of groups. (1) The wealthy, who can afford it easily and don’t care. (2) Those who drive through the city for professional reasons, and have passed the cost on to their business or their customers, so it’s an inflationary measure. (3) Reluctant payers. (4) Those who quite literally cannot afford the charge, and have no way of offsetting the charge, and are therefore effectively banned from driving through London during the day.
The ‘part of a larger policy’ argument also fails for the usual reasons. Politicians are good enough at arguing, with statistics again, that they have invested more money than before in transport. Whether this translates into anyone actual day-to-day experience is a different question. As I said before, I don’t know anyone who drives through London for fun or pleasure. In almost every case, it’s for reasons of necessity. So putting more buses on the roads isn’t a factor. There are many examples of journeys for which a bus will not suffice.
Also, Mr Livingstone may offer more Londoners more chances to use a bus for journeys. But he cannot do anything about the people that one encounters on a bus, especially late at night. Many are drunk and disagreeable, some are violent or have other traits you would want to avoid.
So there you have it. The CC is one of those things that you can either adore or despise. I don’t think it’s fair or right. I don’t think it achieved anything except in the very short term after it was first introduced. I think it was part of Mr Livingstone’s seemingly endless need for career building, power and self-aggrandisement. I think it’s misguided and draconian. This is why I prefer to see it written as CONgestion charge.
Years ago I used to commute to Central London (by train).
Shortly after the congestion charge came out I made a rare visit to London and was astonished at how little traffic there was.
I later heard that they put up the charge as they were raising less revenue than the expected.
I’ve not wandered round Central London recently, if the traffic is back to pre CC levels, then it is a complete rip off.
FWIW, a congestion charge was voted down (something like 90% against) in Edinburgh a few years ago. Correctly, most people recognised it for what it is - a poll tax, discriminating against poorer drivers who have already payed for their use of the roads.
And they’r trying to introduce road pricing throughout the country.
Please, God, let them inaugurate this system in New York City!
FTR, I live in Brooklyn, own a small car, and try to drive the bastard as infrequently as possible. Using a car to go into Manhattan is NEVER a good idea under the current system (which is to let everybody drive in whenever they want totally free over the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges).
I live and work in London and cannot drive (never have, never will).
As a pedestrian, I cannot understand why anyone would want to get from one part of London to another by car and yet, even with the Congestion Charge in place, the roads seems as jam-packed as ever.
I am mightily pleased that the Zone is being extended westwards as far as Shepherd’s Bush (from February next year) despite all the protests from the rich gits living in Kensington & Chelsea, and would be even happier if the Charge was set at a realistically deterring rate - £50 a day, maybe.
I’m not a Londoner, but what I’ve read is that while it’s worked for London, all the traffic that used to go through London now goes around it, moving the congestion there.
I don’t buy it that traffic is back at pre-charge levels. Don’t take the Evening Standard at face value.
As only the rich should be allowed to drive in the city!
The problem is that the alternative, public transportation, is already struggling to maintain the load of commuters here in London. And it’s only going to get worse.
I pay £85.00 month for the privilege of standing on a packed train that is frequently delayed or not even running. And I’m on a good line! I used to live on the Northern Line. Fucking hell, I had to catch the train an hour early just to be able to get on it in the morning!
Opponents of the scheme in London point out that the figures used to compare traffic rates before and after the introduction of charging used half-term (which always has fewer cars on the roads) as one of the weeks measured.
One thing I have noticed is that sat-nav devices (TomTom etc) are now programmed to avoid the congenstion zone, which means everyone ends up on the same few roads skirting the edge of the zone.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that the ability to ‘tax’ should be withdrawn from all bodies apart from the essential few.
It is too easy to come up with environment justified schemes that are really money making wheezes.
I first went to Singapore in 1987, the traffic was horrendous and they charged you for entering the central zone. Then they opened the MRT ( Underground/Subway ) and the traffic disappeared - I’m not sure what it is like now, I’ve not been there for over ten years (blasted Internet).
The congestion charge is just another vain attempt at managing the catastrophe that is London traffic.
Fundamentally, London is just not a vehicle-friendly city. There’s not enough room for cars to drive around, there’s not enough room to park them, the roads are full of potholes and half of them are dug up at any point in time. Throw in big bendy buses, taxies, delivery lorries, tourist coaches and everything else, and it just gets silly. Even if everyone was to take up car pooling and drive compact cars with every seat filled, the roads would still be jammed, public transport would still be filled beyond capacity, and you still wouldn’t be able to park. The congestion charge hasn’t solved all these problems, and getting rid of it won’t solve all these problems either.
It’s now an accepted part of the political landscape, it’s shifted a few factors around a bit, and the politicians are hooked on the revenue it generates, but we’re still waiting for some bright spark to come up with a way of deconstipating the city’s transport.
Maybe charging per cubic metre per vehicle and then subtracting a tenner or so per passenger would help, but then we’d probably see a corresponding increase in fatalities caused by 5 people trying to cram onto a Vespa. You just can’t win.
They just mentioned this on NY1 this morning. While I don’t drive, I do often take car service into the city on weekends. I’m not terribly inclined to support it, maybe if they made an exception for cabs and car service. [Eddy Monsoon]What? What? It’s public! It’s transport![/Eddy Monsoon]