Southern University of New Hampshire
Case Study: Traffic Congestion Charging in London Samphors Bun September 22, 2014
Prof: Dr. J.Stephanie Collins
Traffic Congestion Charging in London Case Study
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, London, the capital city of United Kingdom, is one of the most cosmopolitan and leading global city in every factors, and it is also the most populous city in the European Union (London, 2014). In 2013, London had an official population of 8,416.5 thousand. (Statistical Office of the European Communities, 2014) With the massive and significant growth in economy, population and other fields over time and time, excessive automobile traffic congestion has became a serious issue even though this busy and large urban city has already equipped with extensive and developed transportation network. To eagerly solve this problem, the government came up with the congestion charging solution. London’s Congestion Charging History, Development and Growth
In 21st century, almost 1.1 million people entered central London during the peak periods and around 150,000 people used their private transport. The driver usually spent half of their time waiting in the traffics, as the average speed is only 10 miles per hour in the peak hour, so Londoner and especially businessman considered the congestion as an serious issue that the government should taking care of. Congestion itself not only makes traveling getting more and more frustrating, it also worsens the environment, economy, and the quality of life. „It‟s the matter of fact that traffic-related problems cost London businesses roughly £2 million — more than $3 million — every week.” (as cited in Keri & Carol, 2013, p.322) Consequently, this global city extremely required a policy to deal with this problem. There were many proposals and researches about the congestion charging, but all were opposed by the publics. For example, during 1970, “Supplementary Licensing” proposal by
Greater London Council (GLC), every vehicle driving in the Inner London Area was required to purchase a daily license expected to reduce traffic and increase speeds about 40% at peak hours,
was rejected in 1975. Moreover, in 1980, London Planning Advisor Committee (LPAC) conducted a research of transport strategies. The finding concluded that direct measures to restraint road traffic and balance between the demand and supply road is needed besides the public transportation improve, and the congestion charging was seen as the most favorable one among various possibilities. Not until 1999, the Greater London Authority Act was passed by parliament. This act gave London a unique local government structure and provided full power for the mayor to introduce congestion charging schemes in greater London. The government study titled “Road Charging Option for London (ROCOL), was authorized by the 1999 Greater London Authority Act, and endorsed by Mayor Ken Livingstone who was elected to be the Mayor of London with the promise to introduce a congestion charging scheme in central London. Congestion charging means every automobile that entered high-traffic sections of London during peak hours will be changed. On 17 February 2003, the congestion charging scheme was introduced successfully. The goal of congestion charging goal is to reduce traffic volume, increase average speed, increase quality of public transport, additional revenues, have been achieved. Drivers who entered area from 7am to 6:30pm are required to pay the fee of £5 by midnight except some vehicles likes ambulances, buses, bicycles, and taxis, the resident in the area will get 90% discount of the charge. This solution needs a very strong enforcement of technology by using 200 digital cameras to capture the license plates of all vehicles entering the area and transfers the images into plates number and check within the database called automatic number plate recognition technology (ANPR). Drivers have various choices to pay for the charge by mail (prepay),
telephone, text message or in a person at various pay point. Drivers who fail to pay the fee will receive a notice of fine of £80 in the mail. (as cited in Keri & Carol, 2013, p.322) SWOT Analysis Strength 1. Congestion Reduction
According to Impacts monitoring-Second Annual Report April 2004 (TfL, 2004), after one year of the congestion charging scheme implementation, overall reduction in traffic entering the area was around 18%, and around 15% reduction of traffic circulating within the area. Moreover, around 50% to 60% of drivers have changed their travel pattern to public transportation. The average speed also has improved. For example, the 6% of the overall speed of the bus within the charging is improved with 30% reduction of waiting time of irregular bus service and 60% of disruption of traffic delays. 2. Revenue increment
Base on Impacts monitoring-Third Annual Report April 2005 (TfL, 2005 ), The scheme provisionally generated net revenues of over £90 million in 2004/5, which have been spent largely on improved bus services within London. It was estimated that total revenues would amount to $2.2 billion over a ten-year period. (as cited in Keri & Carol, 2013, p.322) 3. Environmental Benefits
In term of environmental effect, Noise and air pollution are expected to minimize after the congestion charging scheme implementation. According to Impacts monitoring-Second Annual Report April 2004 (TfL, 2004), after one year of the congestion charging scheme, approximately 12% of emissions of NOx and PM10 from the road traffic within the charging
zone is decreased and 19% in traffic-related emissions of CO2 and 20% of fuel consumed by road transport with the charging zone are lessen. Weakness 1. Congestion in other area
One of the weaknesses of the congestion charging would be the extra traffic on the road bounding the charging zone. As the driver try to avoid the charge by changing their routes, the traffic jams would reappear in the area outside the zone. Impacts monitoring-Second Annual Report April 2004 mentioned that “Total vehicle kilometers on the inner ring road are estimated to have increased by 4% overall. For vehicles with four or more wheels, the equivalent figure is 1%” (TfL, 2004) Opportunity 1. Transport Innovation Fund
The congestion charging theme has generated the net income that will be used to reinvest in public transportation in the city. According to TfL, about 50 percent of the annual net operating revenues were reinvested in bus network improvement. The rest will spend on other transport measures such as road safety, roads and bridges, walking and cycling program. 2. Demonstration project
Many urban cities in various countries have adopted congestion charging scheme after referring to London‟s experience. For instance, Base on the report of Good Practices in City Energy Efficiency, “in august 2007, Stockholm implemented a congestion charging after months
trail. New York State Assembly also considered the scheme proposed by mayor but rejected in 2008. In April 2011, Beijing announced that they will initiate the technical preparation for implementing a congestion charging within the city.” (EFCI, 2011)
Threat 1. On-going Debate
Still, the congestion charging scheme has confronted with some public criticism. Some of the opponents have risen that the charge is like “a tax on the poor ” since the poor are charged the same as richer car owners. Moreover, according to London Chamber of Commerce‟s 334 firm in November 2003, per cent of shops reported a fall in takings and 42 per cent said the congestion charge was to blame. By January 2005 the same survey found 84 per cent of shops reported a fall in takings, with 62 per cent attributing this to the charge. There was also controversy about the poor performance of Capita RAS, congestion charging operator, in term of both customer service and equipment. (Congestion Charge, 2014) Strategy
As the traffic in London is getting worst, Mayor has come up with Transport Strategy, which goal is to reduce traffic congestion, increase the capacity and service of public transportation, improve the travel time reliability, improve efficiency of goods distribution and minimizing the environment impact. Thus, he endorsed the Congestion Charging Scheme, which helps gain the revenue to reinvest the public transportation, and it can be described as a barrier that avoid large amount of vehicles coming to central London. However, this implementation of Congestion charging can be rejected as public backlash, and this can lead to political fallout of mayor, which damage his career. Thus, thorough research and public consultation has been done to effectively develop the appropriate scheme. According to attitude survey by ROCOL, 30% of car driver wouldn‟t buy a £5 daily license in central London between 7am and 7pm, and about
half of respondents (53%) supported £5 daily license for central London and £2.5 for inner London reported by Government Office for London in London Survey in 1999. Furthermore,
large majority of public will support the scheme if the revenue is used to improve public transportation based on MORI survey. (GOL, 2000) In addition, after implementation, monitoring and annual impact report publications are the evidence of the whole project process and outcome to response with public feedback and comment. Structure and Management
Because of a number of project risk like tight schedule, new technology, limited experience and lack of pre-existing model, Transport for London adopted a series of management strategies and outsourcing the basic management firm that specialize in these areas. They contracted the PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitee & Touche for bidding process. The bidding process allow all companies in the Europe, and Capita Group was chosen to be the outsourcing firm with the penalties agreement if company didn‟t meet the requirement and
deadline. (as cited in Keri & Carol, 2013, p.323) As a result, the project has a clear object and goal, strong leadership from Mayors, project management, public consultation process, research, procurement management, cost management, risk management and also monitoring the project with the publication of the annual reports. Conclusion
To sum up, congestion charging scheme in London can be considered as a success in reducing urban traffic congestion, improving environment factor by reducing noise and air pollution, and changing the travel behavior. Furthermore, congestion charging system can also generate revenue to improving public transportation network in term efficiency and capacity. Simply said, congestion charging alone can‟t deal with transport problems. It has to be part of the
package that would come up with public transport enhancement and alternative modes, more
long-term approach, and a clear goal with the appropriate system characterizes like charging price, area and time.
Reference Congestion Charge. (2014). Retireve from http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/congestion-charge Energy Efficient Cities Initiative. (August, 2011). Good Practice in City Energy Efficiency: London, United Kingdom-Congestion Charges for Urban Transport. Retrieved from https://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/London%20Final%20edited.pdf Keri, E. P. & Carol, S.S. (2013). Management & Using Information Systems: A Strategic Approach. (5th Ed.) MA, USA: Jonh Wiley & Sons, Inc. London. (2014). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346821/London Statistical Office of the European Communities. (June, 2014). EUROSTAT: Regional statistics: UK Annual Mid-year population Estimates, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_367167.pdf TfL. (2004). Impacts monitoring-Second Annual Report April 2004. Retrieved from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/Impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf TfL. (2005). Impacts monitoring-Third Annual Report April 2005. Retrieved from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ThirdAnnualReportFinal.pdf
