CC AR06

28/6/06

13:29

Page 1

Transport for London

Central London
ongestion charging

Impacts monitoring
Fourth Annual Report, June 2006

MAYOR OF LONDON© Transport for London 2006
All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted for research, private study andinternal circulation within an organisation. Extracts may be reproduced
provided the source is acknowledged.

Disclaimer
This publication is intended to provide accurate information. However, TfL andthe authors accept no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions orfor any damage or loss arising from use of the information provided.
CCS0000102653

Table of contents
Overview ..........................................................................................................1
Three years on .............................................................................................2
Traffic patterns .............................................................................................3
Congestion ...................................................................................................3
Public transport ............................................................................................4
Business and the economy ..........................................................................5
Accidents and the environment ....................................................................6
Boundary case study....................................................................................6
July 2005 Variations .....................................................................................7
Scheme costs, benefits and revenues..........................................................8
Scheme operation ........................................................................................8
Scheme enforcement and compliance .........................................................9
Monitoring programme .................................................................................9
1 Introduction .............................................................................................11
1.1
Purpose ...........................................................................................11
1.2
The central London congestion charging scheme ...........................11
1.3
Key developments with the scheme ................................................13
1.4
Overview of the monitoring programme...........................................14
1.5
Findings from the monitoring work so far.........................................15
1.6
Report contents ...............................................................................16
1.7
Other influences ..............................................................................17
2 Traffic patterns........................................................................................18
2.1
Introduction......................................................................................18
2.2
Traffic entering the charging zone during 2005 ...............................20
2.3
Traffic circulating within the charging zone ......................................27
2.4
Traffic on the Inner Ring Road.........................................................33
2.5
Radial traffic approaching the charging zone...................................35
2.6
Traffic on selected local roads .........................................................36
2.7
Wider orbital traffic in inner London .................................................37
2.8
Summary of key points ....................................................................38
3 Congestion..............................................................................................40
3.1
Introduction......................................................................................40
3.2
Congestion within the charging zone ...............................................42
3.3
Congestion on the Inner Ring Road ................................................44
3.4
Congestion on radial routes approaching the charging zone...........45
3.5
Congestion on main roads in inner London .....................................47
3.6
Congestion data from number plate reading cameras .....................48
3.7
Recent trends in congestion ............................................................49
3.8
Congestion data from satellite vehicle tracking systems (ITIS)........53
3.9
Summary of key points ....................................................................56
4 Public transport.......................................................................................57
4.1
Introduction......................................................................................57
4.2
Buses...............................................................................................58
4.3
Underground....................................................................................61
4.4
Summary of key points ....................................................................65
5 Business and economic impacts.............................................................66
5.1
Introduction......................................................................................66
5.2
Ernst & Young review ......................................................................68i

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

5.3
Recent trends in the London economy ............................................68
5.4
Assessments of business change ...................................................72
5.5
TfL business surveys .......................................................................93
5.6
Summary of key points ..................................................................105
6 Accidents and the environment.............................................................106
6.1
Introduction....................................................................................106
6.2
Accidents involving personal injury ................................................108
6.3
Pedestrian and non-pedestrian involvement..................................109
6.4
Severity of accidents......................................................................110
6.5
Vehicle involvement in accidents ...................................................111
6.6
Independent statistical review of impact of congestion charging on
accidents ..................................................................................................112
6.7
Air quality – emissions ...................................................................114
6.8
Measured air quality ......................................................................118
6.9
Trends in ambient PM10 .................................................................118
6.10 Trends in ambient NOx/NO2 ...........................................................120
6.11 Ambient noise................................................................................123
6.12 Summary of key findings ...............................................................124
7 Boundary case study ............................................................................126
7.1
Introduction....................................................................................126
7.2
Impacts on traffic patterns .............................................................129
7.3
Impacts on congestion...................................................................133
7.4
Impacts on public transport............................................................135
7.5
Impacts on business and the economy..........................................137
7.6
Air quality and road safety impacts................................................142
7.7
Summary of key findings ...............................................................145
8 July 2005 charge Variations..................................................................147
8.1
Introduction....................................................................................147
8.2
Available data sources...................................................................149
8.3
Charge payments data ..................................................................149
8.4
Traffic survey data .........................................................................151
8.5
Impacts on congestion...................................................................154
8.6
TfL’s Panel survey of chargepayers ..............................................156
8.7
First wave of survey – May 2005 ...................................................158
8.8
Second wave of survey – September 2005 ...................................163
8.9
Summary of key findings ...............................................................168
9 Scheme costs, benefits and revenues ..................................................171
9.1
Scheme operating costs and benefits............................................171
9.2
Financial impacts ...........................................................................173
9.3
Allocation of net revenues .............................................................173
10
Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance .............................175
10.1 Introduction....................................................................................175
Scheme operation........................................................................................177
10.2 Service developments and contractor performance ......................17710.3 Capita performance .......................................................................179
10.4 NCP performance ..........................................................................180
10.5 Congestion charging payments .....................................................181
10.6 Payment channel split....................................................................182
10.7 Quality of service ...........................................................................183
10.8 Public Information ..........................................................................183

Central London Congestion Charging Schemeii

10.9 Registrations and discounts...........................................................184
10.10 Frequency of chargepayer use of the scheme ...........................185
Enforcement and Compliance......................................................................18710.11 Background................................................................................18710.12 Penalty Charge Notices issued ..................................................188
10.13 Penalty Charge Notices paid......................................................188
10.14 Representations made against Penalty Charge Notices ............189
10.15 Appeals ......................................................................................191
10.16 Debt collection and persistent evasion.......................................192
11
Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone ...........................193
11.1 Introduction....................................................................................193
11.2 Traffic congestion and journey time reliability ................................197
11.3 Traffic patterns...............................................................................199
11.4 Public transport..............................................................................202
11.5 Travel behaviour change ...............................................................20311.6 Social impacts ...............................................................................20411.7 Economic and business impacts ...................................................205
11.8 Environment ..................................................................................207
11.9 Accidents .......................................................................................20811.10 Boundary effects ........................................................................208
11.11 Scheme revenues ......................................................................208
11.12 Scheme operation and enforcement ..........................................209
Glossary.......................................................................................................... Aiii

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

Overview

Overview
Congestion charging was introduced into central London in February 2003. It
contributes directly to the achievement of four of the Mayor’s transport
priorities:x

to reduce congestion;x

to make radical improvements to bus services;x

to improve journey time reliability for car users;x

to make the distribution of goods and services more efficient.

It also generates net revenues to support the Mayor’s Transport Strategy
more generally.
This is the fourth in a series of annual reports describing the impacts ofcongestion charging in and around central London.
In June 2003 TfL published the First Annual Monitoring Report. This described
the scope of the monitoring work that had been put in place to ensure that the
impacts of congestion charging were comprehensively measured. Conditions
applying before charging across a range of key indicators were set out, andinformation given describing how and when any changes to these indicators
would be measured.
In April 2004 TfL produced the Second Annual Monitoring Report. This
described available information on the impacts of the scheme after
approximately one year of operation.
TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report was published in April 2005. Thisupdated and extended the assessment of the impacts of congestion charging
based on two years of data following the start of the scheme.
This Fourth Annual Monitoring Report draws on the most recent data for 2005,
reflecting three years of operation of the scheme, alongside previously
published findings for 2004 and 2003. It further extends and consolidates the
body of knowledge and understanding now available, enabling commentaryon the development of post-charging trends as well as comparisons withconditions before charging started in 2002.
This report also provides initial data on the impacts of the Variations to thescheme in July 2005, consisting of an increase to the basic daily charge from
£5 to £8 alongside other related changes to the operation of the scheme.
However, given issues of uncertainty in the data, it is not yet possible to give acomplete analysis of the impacts.
This report also outlines TfL’s proposals for monitoring the impacts of theforthcoming western extension to the central London congestion charging
zone.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 20061

Overview

This Overview summarises the key contents of this Fourth Annual Monitoring
Report.

Three years onx

During 2005, congestion charging has continued to meet its principal traffic
and transport objectives; and the scheme continues to operate well.

x

Traffic patterns in and around the charging zone remained broadly stable
during 2005. The changes to the scheme introduced in July 2005 wereassociated with small net reductions in traffic volumes, and overall traffic
patterns are close to those of 2003 and 2004.

x

Reductions in congestion inside the charging zone over the whole period
since the introduction of the scheme now average 26 percent. This reflects
an apparent combined effect of some gains following the July 2005
changes, offset by the loss of decongestion benefits since late 2004.

x

However, measurements against a ‘static’ pre-charging baseline are
increasingly inappropriate. In comparison with pre-charging trends, road
users in 2005 were probably experiencing an effective 30 percent
reduction in congestion, comparable to that in 2003 and early 2004.

x

Although a full analysis is not yet available, it is clear that traffic conditions
inside and outside the charging zone are being influenced by thereallocation of network capacity to meet other policy objectives, such as
improved pedestrian safety and amenity. The effect of the charging
scheme therefore needs to be assessed in this context.

x

Public transport continues to successfully accommodate displaced carusers, and bus services continue to benefit from significantly improved
reliability and ongoing investment.

x

Further economic trend data and comparative analyses continue todemonstrate that there are no significant net impacts from the scheme on
the central London economy.

x

Gains in road traffic accidents and reductions to emissions of key traffic
pollutants in and around the charging zone continue to be apparent,alongside favourable ‘background’ trends in both of these indicators.

x

The scheme generated net revenues of £122 million in 2005/6 (provisional
figures), partly reflecting the charge increases from July 2005. These arebeing spent largely on improved bus services within London.

x

The operation and enforcement of the scheme continue to work well, withseveral improvements and innovations introduced during 2005.

x

TfL’s monitoring proposals for the forthcoming western extension to thecentral London congestion charging zone have now been defined, andbaseline data collection has commenced for all key indicators.

2

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

Overview

Traffic patternsxTraffic patterns in and around the charging zone remained broadly stable
during 2005. The changes to the scheme introduced in July 2005 wereassociated with small net reductions to traffic volumes, and overall
patterns of traffic are close to those of 2003 and 2004.

x

The total volume of traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering thecharging zone on an average day during charging hours in Spring 2005
was 1 percent less than the equivalent value for 2004. The total volume oftraffic entering the charging zone during Autumn 2005, following thechanges to the scheme in July 2005, was 4 percent lower than theequivalent value for 2004.

x

Data for early 2006 suggest reductions of 6 percent in traffic (vehicles withfour or more wheels) entering the charging zone compared to equivalentcounts in 2005.

x

Available indicators of traffic circulating within the charging zone for 2005
suggest slightly declining traffic levels. However, road network issues haveaffected the comparability of counts, and the picture relating to the impactof the July 2005 changes to the scheme is less clear for circulating traffic
than for traffic entering the charging zone.

x

Measured vehicle-kilometres driven on the Inner Ring Road again fellslightly during 2005. These are now closely comparable to pre-charging
values in 2002.

x

Volumes of radial traffic approaching the charging zone during Autumn
2005 across a cordon surrounding central London again declined slightly
compared to values recorded in the previous year.

x

There continues to be no evidence of adverse traffic impacts on roads
surrounding the charging zone, and an overall pattern of slowly declining‘background’ traffic levels is again evident from various measurements oftraffic in inner London.

x

Measurements of traffic entering the charging zone at weekends between
2002 and 2005 also show a trend of small year-on-year ‘background’
declines. There are no obvious direct effects from congestion charging on
weekend traffic levels, though peak traffic volumes entering the charging
zone on both Saturdays and Sundays exceed those on weekdays for partsof the afternoon and overnight periods.

Congestionx

Measurements of congestion within the charging zone during 2005 havebegun to reflect the long-term ‘background’ evolution of the road network,with the continuing adjustment of effective network capacities to meet awider range of traffic and transport priorities.

x

Taking the 18 available bi-monthly survey measurements, post-charging
reductions to congestion inside the charging zone compared with precharging conditions in 2002 now average 26 percent during charging

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 20063

Overview

hours. Looking only at the 2005 calendar year, the average reduction is 22
percent.
x

Typical delay values in the charging zone in 2005 were 1.8 minutes per
kilometre, compared with 1.6 minutes per kilometre previously reported
and 2.3 minutes per kilometre for representative conditions before theintroduction of charging in 2002.

x

These are lower percentage reductions than those reported for 2003 and2004, but are still within TfL’s range of expectation of between 20 and 30
percent.

x

The results need to be understood in the context of longer-term trends tocongestion in central and inner London. These suggest that competing
demands on road network capacity have meant continuing adjustments tocapacity, leading to increasing delays for traffic inside and outside thecharging zone. Inside the zone these adjustments would have had abroadly similar effect on network traffic speeds with or without congestion
charging.

x

These adjustments, in pursuit of other Mayoral transport priorities, haveresulted in, for example, improved safety and amenity and increased
priority for buses, taxis and cyclists. In simple terms, the moving-motorvehicle capacity of the network has been adjusted in favour of the peoplemoving capacity of the network.

x

Therefore, comparison against a ‘static’ baseline for 2002 is increasingly
inappropriate. Comparisons based on a projection to 2005 of the long-term
trend, in the notional absence of congestion charging, suggest that road
users in the charging zone are probably still experiencing reduced
congestion of the order of 30 percent.

x

TfL continue to record overall reductions in congestion on both the Inner
Ring Road and on the main radial routes approaching the charging zone.
Conditions in 2005 have shown similar conditions to those previously
reported for 2004, and there are still small gains compared with precharging conditions on these routes in 2002.

x

Measurements of congestion on main roads in inner London for 2005
show a small increase in congestion compared with previous surveys, both
before and after the introduction of charging, with average delays of 1.5
minutes per kilometre, compared to 1.3 minutes per kilometre in 2002.
Again, this appears to reflect a longer-term trend.

Public transportx

Numbers of passengers entering the charging zone by bus were notmeasured directly in 2005. However, the number of bus passengers
entering a wider definition of central London in the weekday morning peak
was comparable to 2004, at 116,000.

x

The availability of bus services continues to satisfactorily accommodate
patronage.

4

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

Overviewx

Reliability of bus services in and around the charging zone remained
broadly unchanged in 2005, reflecting established gains from bothcongestion charging and other improvements to bus operations.

x

Although 52 people were killed and 700 were injured and there wasconsiderable short-term disruption, the London bombings of July 2005 hadlittle long-term impact on Underground travel. The number of passengers
entering central London by Underground increased overall in comparison
with both 2003 and 2004, usage in 2005 overall being closely comparable
to pre-charging conditions in 2002.

Business and the economyx

The growth of the London economy remained positive in 2005 despite theeffects of the bombings in central London in July 2005.

x

Businesses performance in the charging zone was significantly better thanin the rest of London, particularly in terms of profitability and productivity.

x

Updated analysis of comparative trends in various indicators of overallbusiness performance, including change in jobs, business populations andturnover continue to show no evidence of differential effects between the
charging zone and comparator locations that might be indicative of acongestion charging impact, either positive or negative, on aggregate
business performance in central London.

x

Trends in business registrations for VAT, appeals in respect of businessrate valuations, and commercial property price trends, do not support thesuggestion of a significant congestion charging impact on businesses incentral London.

x

Although year-on-year retail sales in central London saw a sharp decline
throughout the July to September 2005 period, following the London
bombings, by early 2006 this trend was reversed resulting in full recovery
with annual growth rates above those being seen in the rest of the UK.

xWithin the charging zone, the retail sector has increased its share ofenterprises and employment since 2003.

x

The majority of charging zone businesses continue to recognise that
decongestion had created a more pleasant working environment andeasier journeys for employees using public transport for travel to work.

x

Amongst businesses in the charging zone as a whole, there were more
supporters of the congestion charge than opponents.

x

An independent review of the monitoring of the economic and business
impacts of congestion charging reported that it was reasonable toconclude that the £5 congestion charge had had a broadly neutral impact
on the central London economy.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

5

Overview

Accidents and the environmentx

2004/2005 saw substantial further falls in the number of road accidents
across Greater London, reflecting wider TfL and borough road safety
initiatives.

x

Trends in accidents within the charging zone during 2004/2005 have been
comparable to those observed elsewhere in London, reflecting broader
trends and continuing road safety initiatives, and maintaining theincremental gains from congestion charging.

x

Independent statistical treatment of the accumulating time series of roadtraffic accident data confirm TfL’s earlier conclusions that congestion
charging has led to additional net reductions of between 40 and 70
personal injury accidents per year within the charging zone and on the
Inner Ring Road.

x

There continues to be no evidence of disproportionate or detrimental
impacts on the more vulnerable road users in or around the charging zone.

x

A revised assessment of vehicle emission impacts broadly confirms thescale of estimated reductions in emissions of NOx, PM10 and CO2 within
the charging zone resulting from changed traffic conditions anddevelopments in vehicle technology. They also confirm the broadly neutral
impact of congestion charging on emissions in relation to the Inner Ring
Road.

x

Technical enhancements to the monitoring have led to the identification ofa relatively larger contribution to reduced emissions in central London overrecent years from changes to the technology profile of vehicles in central
London than was previously recognised.

x

The combined effect of charging and improved vehicle technology is thatNOx emissions within the charging zone fell by 13 percent and total PM10
emissions fell by 15 percent, comparing annual average values for 2002
and 2003 – comparable to the estimates previously reported.

x

Measured concentrations of PM10 within the charging zone have declined
somewhat, but this could be for a range of reasons as well as congestion
charging. Concentrations of NOx have declined slowly, but this has notbeen matched by corresponding decreases in NO2.

x

Limited sample surveys of ambient noise in and around the charging zone
continue to suggest the absence of a detectable congestion charging
impact.

Boundary case studyx

6

Further monitoring work in a case study area adjacent to the charging
zone boundary in the boroughs of Islington and Hackney reveals a similar
picture to that previously reported. The impacts of congestion charging
remain broadly neutral overall, and there is a continuing absence of‘boundary related’ problems associated with the scheme.

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

Overviewx

Traffic patterns in the boundary case study area in 2005 remained
comparable to those observed generally in relation to congestion charging,with further small reductions to traffic crossing into or out of the charging
zone, generally stable flows on the Inner Ring Road, and continuing small
reductions to radial traffic approaching the charging zone.

x

Public transport trends similarly mirrored those observed elsewhere, with
continued improvements to bus service provision, further small increases
in bus patronage, and increases in Underground travel – all reflecting
wider network trends.

x

The economy in the boundary case study is characterised by small
businesses, many of which classify themselves as ‘places that customers
visit’. VAT registrations show that the number of businesses operating in
the area both inside and outside the charging zone was unaffected by the
introduction of charging, and independent data show that there has beensteady growth in sales since the introduction of charging.

x

Businesses in the boundary case study area were broadly supportive ofcongestion charging and did not report any significant negative effects.
Factors such as organisational change, the economy, and the threat ofterrorism were seen to have had more of an influence on businessperformance. There were no significant differences between the attitudes
and experiences of business operating just inside and just outside theboundary in this area.

x

Trends in air quality in the boundary case study area have followed theinner London trend, as have trends in personal injury road traffic accidents.

x

Generally, it has not been possible to identify any specific effects in thisboundary case study area that can be associated with the introduction ofcongestion charging.

July 2005 Variationsx

The charge payment, traffic trend and congestion data now available
permit an interim assessment of the impacts of the July 2005 Variations,though seasonal effects mean that these results need to be interpretedwith caution. Latest data indicate outcomes broadly within TfL’s range of
expectation, but data for earlier months during the latter half of 2005 areless clear, potentially reflecting influences associated with the bombings incentral London in July 2005.

x

The total number of charge payments valid on a typical day during thelatter part of 2005 was about 96,000. This reflects a reduction of about 11
percent over typical payment levels in the first half of 2005. Users of the
fleet scheme increased by 8 percent, reflecting the enhancements made tothis scheme. The number of residents’ payments remained broadly
unchanged, as did the number of chargepayers purchasing monthly or
annual charges, despite the financial incentive now available.

xVolumes of traffic entering the charging zone declined by up to 6 percent(vehicles with four or more wheels, equivalent weeks in 2005 and 2006).
Taking background trends into account, this suggests that the July 2005

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

7

Overview

Variations have been responsible for reductions in entering traffic of about
4 percent – towards the lower end of the range of TfL’s prior expectation.
x

Trends in traffic circulating within the charging zone are less distinct, data
for early 2006 indicating overall reductions of between 3 and 4 percent incirculating traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels). Taking backgroundtrends into account, this again suggests an outcome towards the lower end
of TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

There is evidence from across the available data that reductions topotentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) have been partly
offset by increases in non-chargeable vehicles (buses, taxis and twowheeled vehicles).

x

Surveys of travel behaviour change by chargepayers in response to theJuly 2005 Variations indicate that typically two-thirds of vehicle trips in the
charging zone are work-related (either for commuting to and from work or
for employers’ business), and that approximately 60 percent of drivers
paying through non-retail and non-fleet payment channels report that they
bore the cost of the congestion charge themselves.

x

The surveys suggest reductions in chargeable travel to the zone in therange 8 to 17 percent across a range of indicators of travel, these broadly
corresponding to the observed changes in payments and traffic levels.

Scheme costs, benefits and revenuesx

A revised analysis of the operating costs and traffic benefits of the scheme
has confirmed that the £5 charge resulted in net annual benefits of roundly£90 million.

x

In financial year 2005/06 the scheme generated net revenues of £122M(provisional figures) including additional net income in the period from July
2005, when the basic daily charge was raised from £5 to £8.

xThese revenues have again been largely spent on improved bus services
within London.

Scheme operationx

The benefits of TfL’s Supplemental Agreement with Capita continue to beapparent, with all major elements of the scheme operating satisfactorily
during 2005. Chargepayer satisfaction with the quality of service reached a
new high of 78 percent in 2005.

x

The July 2005 Variations introduced several changes to the operation of
the scheme. In addition to an increase in the charge to £8 and an increaseto £7 in the charge for registered fleet vehicles, chargepayers purchasing
monthly or annual charges now receive a 16 percent discount, to betterreflect their actual usage. The automated fleet scheme is now open to all
vehicle types.

x

Total valid charge payments reduced after the increase in the daily charge
in July, and stabilised at new levels relatively quickly. In the second half of8Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

Overview

2005 typically 96,000 charge payments were made per charging day,about 11 percent lower than in the first half of 2005.
x

Residents’ discount processes were greatly improved, throughstreamlining the renewal process and aligning the discount and annual
charge payment periods.

x

Public Information developments in the past year include a downloadable
computer desktop reminder to pay the charge, and radio campaign
reminding motorists of the hours of operation of the scheme.

x

Enhancements have been made to the charge payment channels,
including the addition of more PayPoint outlets in petrol stations, andimplementation of an express payment option into the interactive voice
response system.

x

The internet is now the most-used channel for charge payments,
accounting for 30 percent of transactions.

Scheme enforcement and compliancex

The number of Penalty Charge Notices issued has continued to reduce
throughout 2005. This can be attributed to greater chargepayer
understanding of the operation of the scheme, as well as ongoing service
improvements and reduced levels of chargeable travel to the zone
following the July 2005 charge increase.

x

Overall, 21 percent fewer Penalty Charge Notices were issued in 2005
compared to 2004. The percentage of these that resulted in
representations fell to a new low of 17 percent.

x

Several aspects of TfL’s enforcement of the scheme were further
enhanced during 2005, including the introduction of new mobile
enforcement units.

x

TfL’s congestion charging enforcement also provided assistance to theMetropolitan Police and other enforcement agencies in respect of criminal
activity in and around the charging zone.

Monitoring programmex

The monitoring programme continues to proceed according to the broadplan set out in the First Annual Monitoring Report. Various enhancements
have been put in place to reflect evolving priorities since the introduction of
the scheme, including a supplementary programme of work to measure
the impacts of the July 2005 Variations. In general, the arrangements have
proven effective in enabling TfL to understand and interpret the changes
that congestion charging has brought about.

x

TfL expects to implement the western extension to the central London
congestion charging zone in early 2007. A comprehensive programme of
impacts monitoring work has been defined to reflect this, building on andincorporating the work for the central London zone. Full baseline datacollection is being undertaken throughout 2006, with a comprehensive

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 20069

Overview

report on conditions before the implementation of the extension expected
to be published in 2007.

10

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

1. Introduction

1

Introduction

1.1

PurposeThis is the fourth in a series of annual reports describing the impacts ofcongestion charging in central London. It summarises the growing body ofevidence and insight from across the monitoring programme, now reflecting
three years of operation of the central London congestion charging scheme. It
makes comparisons with conditions applying before charging started and,
where appropriate, with Transport for London’s (TfL’s) expectations for thescheme before it was launched. It reviews available information describing theimpacts so far of the July 2005 Variations to the scheme, and summarises
TfL’s monitoring proposals for the forthcoming western extension to thecentral London charging zone, expected to be implemented in February 2007.
The contents of this report reflect the Mayor and TfL’s commitment to acomprehensive programme of monitoring of TfL’s congestion charging
schemes. TfL’s monitoring covers not only the more immediate traffic andtransport impacts of charging, but also wider social, economic andenvironmental impacts. It consolidates information from a large number of
specially-designed surveys, whilst making full use of already establishedsurveys and data resources.
The scope of the material now available to TfL far exceeds what is possible topublish in a report of this nature. This report therefore provides a summary of
key findings and emerging appreciations of impacts that are likely to be ofmost general interest.

1.2

The central London congestion charging scheme

Congestion charging was successfully introduced in central London in
February 2003. It contributes directly to four of the Mayor's transport priorities:x

to reduce congestion;x

to make radical improvements to bus services;x

to improve journey time reliability for car users;x

to make the distribution of goods and services more efficient.

It also generates revenues to support the Mayor's Transport Strategy moregenerally.
Until July 2005, the congestion charge was a £5 daily charge for driving or
parking a vehicle on public roads within the congestion charging zone
between 07.00 and 18.30, Monday to Friday, excluding weekends and public
holidays. Since July 2005 the basic daily charge has been £8.
The central London congestion charging zone is shown in Figure 1.1. It covers
22 square kilometres in the heart of London, including centres of government,
law, business, finance and entertainment.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200611

1. Introduction
Figure 1.1

The central London congestion charging zone.

Figure 1.2

The central London congestion charging zone within the Greater
London boundary.

12

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

1. Introduction

The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the congestion charging zone,
and no charge applies to vehicles using this route.
Certain categories of vehicle, notably taxis, London licensed private hirevehicles, motorcycles, pedal cycles and buses, are exempt from the charge.
Certain categories of vehicle users can register for discounts. For example,
residents of the congestion charging zone can register for a 90 percent
discount (for a minimum weekly payment), and disabled persons’ Blue Badge
holders and certain alternative fuel vehicles are eligible for a 100 percent
discount and so pay no charge.

1.3

Key developments with the scheme

The central London congestion charging scheme – including its associatedtraffic management and complementary public transport measures – is kept
under continual review by TfL. Various adjustments have been made to thescheme since it was first formally proposed in a Scheme Order made by TfL in2001 and confirmed by the Mayor in 2002. The Scheme Order is the legal
framework for the congestion charging scheme and contains the definitions ofwhat the charge is, where it applies, details on discounts and exemptions fromthe scheme, penalty charges, refunds and so on. Scheme Orders are madeunder the powers set out in Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act
1999.
TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report, published in April 2005, listed 10
variations to the Scheme Order that had either been made or were being
consulted upon to that date. The majority were concerned with improving
operational, payment and enforcement arrangements for the scheme. Others
were proposals to change the basic daily charge amount itself from £5 to £8,alongside modification to other elements of the charging structure.
Changes to the Scheme Order are made through a procedure known as a
Variation Order. Each Variation Order is subject to public consultation before
the Mayor considers TfL’s response to the representations received anddecides whether or not he wishes to confirm the change (with or without
modifications) and make it part of the Scheme Order.
Variation Orders dealing with the changes to the charge level and payment
structure were implemented in July 2005. These significantly altered the basisof the original scheme and involved the following key changes:x

Raising the level of the charge from £5 per charging day to £8 per
charging day for vehicles not on fleet schemes.

xRaising the level of the charge from £5.50 per charging day to £7 per
charging day for vehicles on the automated fleet scheme; and from £5 per
charging day to £7 per charging day for vehicles on the notification fleet
scheme. The notification fleet scheme was subsequently replaced byextension of the automated fleet scheme.

xDiscounting monthly and annual charges by 15 percent.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200613

1. Introductionx

Reducing a number of administrative charges.

Early findings from the monitoring programme relating to the impact of thesechanges are reflected throughout this report.
In the year since the publication of the Third Annual Monitoring Report, TfL
have undertaken consultation on a further three Variation Orders:x

Variation Order 2005: introduced the western extension (which is dealt
with elsewhere in this report) and also confirmed the ‘Pay Next Day’ facility
to commence in October 2006 (subsequently further amended).

x

Variation Order (No. 2) 2005: removed an anomaly and ensured that a
resident could not purchase monthly or annual charges at the discounted
rate, which extended beyond the period which their vehicle is registered forthe discount.

x

Variation Order 2006: bought forward the implementation date for the Pay
Next Day facility from October 2006 to June 2006, and provided an
incentive for residents in the western extension residents discount zone
and Blue Badge holders to apply for their respective discount early. This isintended to avoid excessive demand on the congestion charging contact
centre close to the start date of the western extension.

TfL will continue to keep all elements of the congestion charging scheme
under review and will recommend making further changes to the Scheme
Order where appropriate.

1.4

Overview of the monitoring programme

The scope of the monitoring programme for the scheme was described indetail in the First Annual Monitoring Report.
The monitoring programme consists of five key work streams, designed toassess the range of traffic, transport, social, economic and environmental
impacts of congestion charging. In addition, information from key scheme
operational and enforcement functions is also available.
The programme features over 100 directly-sponsored survey and research
activities, designed to investigate specific issues and complement the wealthof information gathered by third-parties, such as the public transport
operators, together with other official sources and stakeholder groups.
The work is managed by a team of permanent TfL staff, with independent
contractors undertaking most of the main data collection and analysis tasks.
The TfL team is supported by a number of specialist external academic andprofessional advisers. Specialist input on economic and business impacts isprovided by GLA Economics.
In general, the monitoring for the central London congestion charging scheme
has operated satisfactorily and continues to track key developments and14

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

1. Introduction

provide a growing body of evidence and appreciations describing both theimpacts of charging and the mechanisms at work.
Going forward, the forthcoming western extension to the central London
congestion charging zone has led to a thorough review and extension of themonitoring work. This will ensure that the key impacts of the westernextension are captured, including any consequent impacts on the central
London zone. TfL’s proposals for monitoring the western extension aresummarised in this report.

1.5

Findings from the monitoring work so far

In June 2003 TfL published the First Annual Monitoring Report. This described
the scope of the monitoring work that had been put in place to ensure that the
impacts of congestion charging in central London were robustly andcomprehensively measured. Conditions applying before the introduction of thescheme across a range of key indicators were set out, and information given
describing how and when changes to these indicators would be measured.
Since the introduction of congestion charging TfL has produced a range ofreports detailing emerging results from the monitoring work. Three summary
update reports were produced during 2003 and into 2004, providing early
feedback on the key impacts of the scheme. In April 2004 TfL published theSecond Annual Monitoring Report, giving comprehensive overview of key
outcomes reflecting one year of operation of the scheme. In January 2005,
TfL produced a further Summary Review reporting on the position for theremainder of 2004. In April 2005, TfL published the Third Annual Monitoring
Report, giving a more comprehensive summary of developments during 2004.
This Fourth Annual Monitoring Report is informed by a further year ofevidence from the monitoring work, enabling a more thorough appreciation of
the impacts of the central London scheme to date. The focus is on the impactsof charging at £5, prior to the July 2005 Variations. However, early indicationsof the impact of these Variations, principally the raising of the basic dailycharge to £8, are explored. This report also looks forward to the forthcoming
western extension to the central London charging zone, expected to be
implemented in February 2007. It summarises the monitoring that is being put
in place by TfL and briefly describes some of the key indicators that will beavailable.
All of these reports now provide a good appreciation of the impacts of thescheme. In general, during 2005, congestion charging has again continued tomeet is principal traffic and transport objectives and the main elements of thescheme continue to operate satisfactorily.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200615

1. Introduction

1.6

Report contents

The remainder of this report presents a summary of findings from across themonitoring programme to date, combined with updates on key aspects ofscheme operation and enforcement. The emphasis is on consolidation of theincreasing body of evidence and understanding available from the monitoring
work for the central London scheme, briefly looking forward to the monitoring
proposed for the forthcoming western extension.
There are 11 sections, including this introduction:x

Traffic patterns. The impacts of the scheme on traffic volumes andcharacteristics in and around the charging zone are described, drawing
principally on comprehensive traffic surveys undertaken during 2005.

x

Congestion. This section updates key indicators of traffic congestion in
and around the charging zone, drawing on surveys undertaken throughout
2005, and also looking at new camera and satellite-based indicators ofroad network performance.

x

Public transport. Trends and developments since the introduction of
charging are reviewed, alongside some specific findings for 2005.

x

Business and economic impacts. This section reviews new and updated
evidence relating to the impacts of the scheme on businesses andeconomic activity in central London.

x

Accidents and the environment. This section updates the position on
key indicators of road safety and air quality.

x

Boundary case study. This section updates the findings for 2005 from theresearch undertaken in a boundary case study area, comprising parts ofthe boroughs of Islington and Hackney outside of, but immediately
adjacent to, the boundary of the charging zone.

x

July 2005 charge Variations. This section assembles available evidence
from traffic surveys, TfL’s charge payment data and behavioural surveys todescribe emerging appreciations of the impact of the July 2005 Variations.

x

Scheme costs, benefits and revenues. This section summarises andupdates the valuation of the benefits and the financial impacts of thescheme.

x

Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance. This section reviews
key indicators relating to the operation of the scheme and recent trends
and developments in relation to the enforcement of the scheme.

x

Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone. This section
outlines TfL’s monitoring proposals for the forthcoming western extension
to the central London congestion charging zone and illustrates some of the
key indicators that will be available, preliminary to a more comprehensive
presentation of these indicators in a report to be published during 2007.

16

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

1. Introduction

1.7

Other influences

Congestion charging was introduced against a backdrop of wider changes totravel patterns in London, brought about by social and economic change andthe implementation of the other elements of the Mayor’s Transport and other
Strategies.
All of these will have had an effect on the measurements described in thisreport, which in general will reflect the net out-turn of a combination of traffic,
transport and other effects, many of which are completely unrelated tocongestion charging. It is not therefore usually possible to precisely identify a‘congestion charging effect’, although in many cases the available evidence
allows a reasonable estimate to be made.
A particular example affecting the period covered by this report would be theJuly 2005 bombings of three Underground trains and a bus in central London.
These killed 52 people and injured a further 700. These and the subsequent
security measures understandably had an effect on travel to and within central
London, although the evidence presented in this report suggests these effects
were largely short term.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200617

2. Traffic patterns

2

Traffic patterns

2.1

Introduction

This section reviews the key trends in traffic activity in and around the central
London congestion charging zone during 2005. It builds upon previous
analyses and provides a perspective on three years of operation of congestion
charging in central London.
The analysis covers the period of the adjustments to the charge in July 2005.
Whilst these changes are necessarily considered in this section, a more indepth consideration of the overall impacts of the July 2005 Variations is given
in Section 8.

Key findings from previous reports
Congestion charging was expected to deliver decongestion benefits by
reducing the volume of traffic entering and circulating within the charging zone
during charging hours.
After one year of operation, TfL observed that:xTraffic had adjusted rapidly to the introduction of charging and there had
been few operational traffic problems. Post-charging traffic patterns
became established quickly and had remained relatively stable throughout
2003.

x

Traffic circulating within the charging zone had reduced by 15 percent
during charging hours (vehicle-kilometres driven by vehicles with four ormore wheels). Traffic entering the charging zone during charging hours
had reduced by 18 percent (vehicles with four or more wheels). Both ofthese outcomes were towards the top end of the range of TfL’s priorexpectation.

x

Although overall increases in traffic had been observed on the Inner Ring
Road, these were smaller than TfL had expected and were not leading totraffic operational problems on this key diversionary route.

x

There was no systematic evidence of increased traffic outside of scheme
operational hours or in the area surrounding the charging zone, and thebalance of evidence was pointing to overall ‘background’ declines in trafficin central and inner London.

x

On selected local roads in boroughs in and around the charging zone there
was no significant change observed in overall traffic levels.

After two years of operation, TfL observed that:x18

Traffic patterns in and around the charging zone had again remained
broadly stable throughout 2004. The main indicators of traffic volumes
were comparable to those recorded in 2003, and therefore the trafficchanges observed with the introduction of charging had been maintained.

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patternsx

The total volume of traffic entering the charging zone during charging
hours during 2004 was identical to 2003, still representing a reduction of
18 percent against 2002 pre-charging levels. Indicators of traffic circulating
within the charging zone for 2004 suggested broadly stable or slightlydeclining traffic levels.

x

Measured vehicle-kilometres driven on the Inner Ring Road fell veryslightly during 2004, compared to 2003.

xVolumes of radial traffic approaching the charging zone during Autumn
2004 across a cordon surrounding central London were almost identical tothose recorded in 2003 following the introduction of charging.

x

Traffic levels on selected local roads in boroughs in and around thecharging zone decreased slightly overall in 2004 compared to 2003.

x

There was increasing evidence of small but consistent year-on-year‘background’ declines to traffic in central and inner London, complicating
the assessment of charging impacts.

Traffic trends in 2005
TfL’s traffic monitoring has continued throughout 2005, providing acomparable set of indicators to those previously reported.
The established counts were supplemented in several respects during 2005 toallow examination of changes associated with the July 2005 Variations. A key
implication of these Variations is that the previous practice of expressing
traffic trends as ‘annualised estimates’ based on a simple average of counts
undertaken in the Spring and Autumn ‘neutral’ survey periods is lessappropriate, as the Variations themselves will have affected traffic levels
during 2005. Where available counts and statistical precision allow, findings
for Spring and Autumn 2005 are considered separately, based on the averageof the two counts in each ‘season’ in 2005.
Key findings for 2005 are that:x

The main indicators of traffic volumes for 2005 are comparable to thosepreviously observed in 2003 and 2004, with evidence of overall reductions
in traffic coinciding with the July 2005 Variations.

x

The total volume of traffic entering the charging zone during charging
hours in Spring 2005 was 1 percent less than the annualised value for2004 (vehicles with four or more wheels). The Autumn 2005 counts
showed an equivalent reduction of 4 percent in the number of vehicles withfour or more wheels entering the charging zone. This gives an average‘annualised’ reduction for 2005 of 3 percent against 2004, and now
represents an overall reduction of 21 percent compared to pre-charging
levels in 2002.

x

Available indicators of traffic circulating within the charging zone for 2005
again suggest broadly stable or slightly declining traffic levels. However,road network issues have affected the continuity of the time-series ofFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200619

2. Traffic patterns

counts, and the picture relating to the impact of the July 2005 Variations isless clear for circulating traffic than for traffic entering the charging zone.
x

Measured vehicle-kilometres driven on the Inner Ring Road fell slightly
during 2005. These are now closely comparable to pre-charging values in
2002.

x

Volumes of radial traffic approaching the charging zone during Autumn
2005 across a cordon surrounding central London declined very slightly
compared to values recorded in the previous year.

x

There continues to be no evidence of adverse traffic impacts on roads
surrounding the charging zone, and an overall pattern of slowly declining‘background’ traffic levels is again evident from various measurements oftraffic in inner London.

x

Measurements of traffic entering the charging zone at weekends between
2002 and 2005 also show a trend of small year-on-year ‘background’
declines. There are no obvious direct effects from congestion charging on
weekend traffic levels, but peak traffic volumes entering the charging zone
on both Saturdays and Sundays exceed those on weekdays for parts of
the afternoon and overnight periods.

2.2

Traffic entering the charging zone during 2005

Comprehensive counts of weekday traffic entering and leaving the charging
zone across all road-based entry and exit points are conducted each Springand Autumn. The combined counts provide an 'annualised' estimate of traffic
volumes for each year (ie the average of Spring and Autumn counts in eachyear). Additional counts have also been undertaken at other times.
For monitoring the July 2005 Variations, the counting frequency was doubled
for 2005, giving two counts each Spring and Autumn, albeit during different
months. This results in increased statistical precision for each of the Springand Autumn estimates.
Figure 2.1 shows the available time-series for traffic entering the charging
zone. Counts relating to the period before charging taken in 2002, thoserelating to the period of the £5 charge, between February 2003 and July 2005,
and those following the July 2005 Variations are separately identified.

20

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns
Figure 2.1

Traffic entering the charging zone during charging hours.

200,000

Feb/Mar 2002

180,000

Spring 2002
Autumn 2002

160,000

January 2003
Feb/Mar 2003
Spring 2003

140,000

Autumn 2003
Spring 2004

Total flow

120,000

Autumn 2004
100,000

March 2005
Spring 2005

80,000Autumn 2005
November 2005

60,00040,00020,0000
Cars andminicabs

Vans

Lorries andothersTaxis

Buses andcoaches

Powered two- Pedal cycles
wheelers

The overall picture is of broadly comparable levels of traffic to previous years
albeit with some reductions to potentially-chargeable vehicles evident during
the two Autumn 2005 counts. Therefore the significant reductions to traffic
entering the zone observed after the introduction of charging continue to be
maintained. Headline ‘annualised’ results for 2005 are: reductions of 17
percent in total traffic, 21 percent in vehicles with four or more wheels and 31
percent in potentially-chargeable vehicles, in relation to equivalent precharging figures for 2002.
These simple comparisons are potentially misleading, as it is necessary toconsider the impact of the July 2005 Variations. Table 2.1 summarises trends
in traffic entering the zone for charging hours for each of the 2005 ‘seasonal’
counts, alongside established comparisons for earlier years. It is necessary to
bear in mind that normal seasonal variation will affect these comparisons,particularly the implementation in 2005 of ‘early Spring’ and ‘late Autumn’counts, which are included in the combined estimates for each season but
which cover periods not previously surveyed.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200621

2. Traffic patterns
Table 2.1

Key changes in traffic entering the charging zone during charging
hours. Annualised weekdays for 2002 (pre-charging), 2003, 2004 andSpring 2005 (charging at £5) and Autumn 2005 (charging at £8).
Change in inbound traffic:

Vehicle type2003
vs 20022004
vs 20032005
vs 2004

All vehicles

-14%

0%

-4%

Spring2005 vsSpring2004-4%

Autumn2005 vsSpring2005-2%

Autumn2005 vs
Autumn2004-3%

Four or more wheels

-18%

0%

-3%

-1%

-4%

-4%

Potentially chargeable

-27%

-1%

-3%

-1%

-4%

-6%

- Cars and minicabs

-33%

-1%

-3%

-1%

-5%

-6%

- Vans

-11%

-1%

-3%

+1%

-4%

-7%

- Lorries and other

-11%

-5%

-4%

-4%

0%

-3%

Non chargeable

+18%

+1%

-4%

-8%

+3%

0%

- Licensed taxis

+17%

-1%

0%

0%

-2%

+1%

- Buses and coaches

+23%

+8%

-6%

-2%

-5%

-10%

- Powered twowheelers- Pedal cycles

+12%

-3%

-12%

-16%

+4%

-9%

+19%

+8%

-3%

-23%

+28%

+20%

The overall picture for Spring 2005, before the July 2005 Variations, was ofsmall reductions across all vehicle types compared with the equivalent Spring
2004 counts. These probably reflect the small ‘background’ declines to trafficreferred to elsewhere in this section, although the indicated changes are notgenerally statistically significant. Furthermore, the 2005 data are the averageof the two counts taken during each’ season’, and the comparison between
2005 and 2004 (which was based on one count in each ‘season’ only) may
also contain a seasonal component.
Comparing Autumn 2005 with Spring 2005, across the period of the July 2005
Variations, more pronounced declines in the majority of vehicle types are
seen. Vehicles with four or more wheels and potentially chargeable vehicles
each reduced by 4 percent, with an indicated 5 percent reduction in cars. This
category includes ‘minicabs’, or London licensed private hire vehicles, which
are exempt from the charge.
These reductions would appear to be associated with the July Variations
themselves, since the Autumn 2005 to Autumn 2004 comparison gives a
picture of more intense reductions. This suggests a possible compounding
effect reflecting both the impact of the July 2005 Variations and a backgrounddecline in traffic.
In interpreting these comparisons for 2004 and 2005 it should be noted that:x

The majority of the indicated changes are not statistically significant at the
95 percent level.

x

Whilst there have been declines for most vehicle types, potentiallychargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) have declined at a faster rate
than non-chargeable vehicles (buses, taxis, two-wheelers).

22

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patternsx

The larger changes indicated for pedal cycles are at least partly a functionof the weather, but the overall picture is of strong increases in pedal cyclist
numbers since the introduction of charging.

x

Counts for buses are particularly susceptible to sampling error as these
operate to an organised (regular) service pattern, but perhaps also reflect
the substitution of larger articulated buses on some routes over the review
period.

As previously reported, very similar trends in total traffic and for the individualtypes have also been observed for traffic leaving the charging zone during
charging hours (Figure 2.2). This also applies to the more detailed ‘seasonal’
comparisons in relation to the July 2005 Variations.
Figure 2.2

Traffic leaving the charging zone during charging hours.

200,000

Spring 2002
Autumn 2002

180,000

January 2003
Feb/Mar 2003

160,000

Spring 2003
Autumn 2003

140,000

Total flow

Spring 2004
120,000

Autumn 2004
March 2005

100,000

Spring 2005
Autumn 2005

80,000November 2005
60,00040,00020,0000
Cars andminicabs

Vans

Lorries andothersTaxis

Buses andcoaches

Powered two- Pedal cycles
wheelers

Figure 2.3 shows how volumes of traffic entering the charging zone are
distributed across the day. Noting that the ‘counting day’ extends either side of
the charging hours (from 06.00 to 20.00 hours) and that the four lines
represent ‘annualised’ counts for 2002, 2003 and 2004 and 2005 (comparable
Spring and Autumn counts only), the sustained effect of charging in reducing
traffic levels is clear, as is the continuing trend of small year-on-year
reductions in traffic entering the charging zone. Figure 2.4 shows thecorresponding profile for traffic leaving the charging zone.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200623

2. Traffic patterns
Figure 2.3

Traffic entering the charging zone by time of day. Annualised weekdays
for 2002 (pre-charging), and 2003, 2004 and 2005 (post-charging), allvehicles.

22,0002002 average
2003 average

20,0002004 average
18,0002005 average

16,000Total flow

14,00012,00010,0008,000
6,000
Charging hours

4,000
2,000

06
:0
06 0
:3
07 0
:0
07 0
:3
08 0
:0
08 0
:3
09 0
:0
09 0
:3
10 0
:0
10 0
:3
11 0
:0
11 0
:3
12 0
:0
12 0
:3
13 0
:0
13 0
:3
14 0
:0
14 0
:3
15 0
:0
15 0
:3
16 0
:0
16 0
:3
17 0
:0
17 0
:3
18 0
:0
18 0
:3
19 0
:0
19 0
:3
0

0

Half-hour beginning

Figure 2.4

Traffic leaving the charging zone by time of day. Annualised weekdays
for 2002 (pre-charging), and 2003, 2004 and 2005 (post-charging), allvehicles.

22,0002002 average
20,00018,0002003 average
2004 average
2005 average

16,000Total flow

14,00012,00010,0008,000
6,000
Charging hours

4,000
2,000

06
:0
06 0
:3
07 0
:0
07 0
:3
08 0
:0
08 0
:3
09 0
:0
09 0
:3
10 0
:0
10 0
:3
11 0
:0
11 0
:3
12 0
:0
12 0
:3
13 0
:0
13 0
:3
14 0
:0
14 0
:3
15 0
:0
15 0
:3
16 0
:0
16 0
:3
17 0
:0
17 0
:3
18 0
:0
18 0
:3
19 0
:0
19 0
:3
0

0

Half-hour beginning

In addition to these periodic manual classified traffic counts, traffic entering
the charging zone is monitored on a continuous basis using permanent
automatic counters at sixteen of the busier inbound roads. These collectively
account for over 40 percent of traffic entering the zone during the morning

24

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

peak period. Although therefore biased towards the busier roads, they
nevertheless provide a good indicator of both short- and long-term variations
in traffic entering the zone.
Figure 2.5 shows weekly average flows at these 16 locations since shortly
before charging began in early 2003. Complete data are shown for every
week up until the end of March 2006. Taking expected seasonal effects into
account (eg Christmas and Summer holiday periods) it is clear that the picture
up to July 2005 was of continued stability of post-charging traffic. Traffic levels
were typically 15 percent below those recorded in early 2003 before charging
at £5 was introduced.
During Autumn 2005 and into 2006, these data demonstrate a consistent
reduction over equivalent 2004/5 flows, with typically between 2 and 4 percent
less traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering the charging zone on
weekdays during the latter part of 2005, and typically between 4 and 6 percent
less traffic entering during the early part of 2006, compared to the equivalent
periods in 2005. The trends in the first part of 2006 appear to suggest either
an intensification of the response to the July 2005 Variations and/or acontinuation of the background trend of slowly-declining traffic.
Figure 2.5

Traffic entering the congestion charging zone across 16 busier inboundroads. Average weekly flows, charging hours, vehicles with four or more
wheels.

Average flow (vehicles with 4 or more wheels)

160,000
140,000
120,000

2003
2004
2005

100,000

2006

80,00060,00040,00020,0000
4
1
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52kkkee ee ee eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek eek
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

The above data relate to weekdays only. Similar volumetric data for weekends
are also available from automatic traffic counters. Figure 2.6 shows
comparable data from a sub-set of the automatic counters for Saturdays andFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200625

2. Traffic patterns

Sundays for each year from 2002, before charging, to 2005. Weekend data
are overlaid on equivalent weekday data for comparison, although the
weekday profile will differ in detail from that shown in Figure 2.3, because it
only relates to a sub-sample of continuously-monitored entry points.
The following features are notable from Figure 2.6:xTotal inbound flows for both Saturdays and Sundays are generally lower
than on post-charging weekdays, but peak inflows during the afternoon
period on both days are actually higher than on post-charging weekdays.
This also applies to the overnight period on both weekend days.

x

As reflected elsewhere in the data, a small but consistent year-on-year
reduction to traffic volumes is evident for all days, reflecting an apparent
slow ‘background’ decline in traffic.

xThere are no obvious effects in the weekend data that reflect the
introduction of congestion charging in 2003, such as a transfer of trips fromweekdays to weekends.

Figure 2.6

Traffic entering the congestion charging zone across nine busier
inbound entry points. Weekdays and weekend days compared. Vehicles
with four or more wheels.

Total flow (vehicles with 4 or more wheels)

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
0:0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

: 00
10

:00
12

: 00
14

:00
16

:00
18

:00
20

:00
22

Hour beginning

26

2002 Weekday

2003 Weekday

2004 Weekday2005 Weekday

2002 Saturday

2003 Saturday

2004 Saturday2005 Saturday

2002 Sunday

2003 Sunday

2004 Sunday

2005 SundayCentral London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

2.3

Traffic circulating within the charging zone

TfL initially reported a decrease of 15 percent in vehicle-kilometres driven
within the charging zone (vehicles with four or more wheels, during charging
hours), comparing annualised estimates for 2003 with equivalent estimates for2002. This was towards the top of the range of TfL’s prior expectation of
between 10 and 15 percent.
Counts during 2004 suggested further decreases in traffic circulating within
the charging zone, although the available indicators were somewhat
inconsistent. TfL’s best estimate for 2004 was therefore that the original
reductions of 15 percent had been maintained, and had probably intensified
slightly during the year.
The findings for 2005 for vehicle-kilometres driven within the charging zone
are shown in Table 2.2. The table also includes the percentage of total traffic
accounted for by each of the main vehicle types as well as 2003 and 2004
results for comparison. Table 2.3 summarises the year-on-year changes. Notethat these are central estimates, subject to significant sampling error.
Table 2.2

Vehicle-kilometres driven within the charging zone during charging
hours, including percentage share of traffic. Annualised weekdays for
2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
2002 vkm

2003 vkm

2004 vkm

2005 vkm

Vehicle Type(millions)(millions)(millions)(millions)

All vehicles

1.64

100%

1.45

100%

1.38

100%

1.40

100%

Four or more wheels

1.44

88%

1.23

84%

1.16

84%

1.16

83%

Potentially chargeable

1.13

69%

0.85

58%

0.80

58%

0.79

56%

- Cars and minicabs

0.77

47%

0.51

35%

0.47

34%

0.47

33%

- Vans

0.29

18%

0.27

19%

0.26

19%

0.25

18%

- Lorries and other

0.07

4%

0.07

5%

0.06

5%

0.07

5%

Non chargeable

0.51

31%

0.60

42%

0.58

43%

0.61

44%

- Licensed taxis

0.26

16%

0.31

21%

0.29

21%

0.30

22%

- Buses and coaches

0.05

3%

0.07

5%

0.07

5%

0.07

5%

- Powered two-wheelers

0.13

8%

0.14

9%

0.13

10%

0.13

10%

- Pedal cycles

0.07

4%

0.09

6%

0.09

7%

0.10

7%

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200627

2. Traffic patterns
Table 2.3

Year-on-year percentage change in vehicle-kilometres driven within the
charging zone during charging hours, annualised weekdays for 2002,
2003, 2004 and 2005.

Vehicle type2003 versus
2002

2004 versus
2003

2005 versus
2004

All vehicles

-12%

-5%

+1%

Four or more wheels

-15%

-6%

0%

Potentially chargeable

-25%

-6%

-1%

- Cars and minicabs

-34%

-7%

-1%

- Vans

-5%

-4%

-4%

- Lorries and other

-7%

-8%

+8%

Non chargeable

+18%

-3%

+4%

- Licensed taxis

+22%

-7%

+5%

- Buses and coaches

+21%

+5%

-1%

- Powered two-wheelers

+6%

-2%

0%

- Pedal cycles

+28%

+4%

+14%

For 2005, this indicator suggests continuing stability in the volume andcomposition of traffic circulating within the charging zone, all key indicators
being closely comparable to 2004. Features of note for 2005 include: small
decreases in vans, small increases in lorries and licensed taxis, and a more
pronounced increase in pedal cycles. However, with the exception of pedal
cycles, none of these changes is statistically significant at the 95 percent
level.
The indicated changes span the whole year, including periods of charging at£5 and at £8, since the available precision of these indicators does not allow
more disaggregated analysis at this level. However, there are indications in
the disaggregated data, comparing Autumn 2005 with Spring 2005, ofreductions of around 4 percent in potentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vansand lorries), being counterbalanced by increases of a similar magnitude in
non-chargeable vehicles, particularly taxis and two-wheeled vehicles.
TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report observed that this indicator was
suggesting decreases in traffic circulating within the zone for 2004 that werelarger than those suggested by the other available indicators of circulating
traffic for that year. TfL concluded that this indicator was probably understating vehicle-kilometres in 2004, and that the true decrease in that year was
rather smaller (between 1 and 2 percentage points). The July 2005 Variations
would have been expected to lead to observable further decreases in vehiclekilometres, and any under-estimation by this indicator in 2004 may be an
explanation of why they are not immediately apparent in the aggregated datafor 2005. The indicated statistically non-significant increase of 1 percent in
total circulating traffic for 2005 should therefore be interpreted in this context.

28

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns
Figure 2.7

Traffic circulating within the congestion charging zone across a sample
of 15 permanent counting sites. Average weekly flows, charging hours,
vehicles with four or more wheels.

Average flow (vehicles with 4 or more wheels)

120,000

2003

100,000

2004
2005
2006

80,00060,00040,00020,000

W
ee

k
W 1
ee
k
W 4
ee
k
7
W
ee
k
W 10
ee
k
W 13
ee
k
W 16
ee
k
W 19
ee
k
W 22
ee
k
W 25
ee
k
W 28
ee
k
W 31
ee
k
W 34
ee
k
W 37
ee
k
W 40
ee
k
W 43
ee
k
W 46
ee
k
W 49
ee
k
52

0

Figure 2.7 shows data from permanent automatic traffic counters located at a
representative selection of sites within the charging zone. These again
demonstrate the general stability of post-charging traffic levels. The impacts of
the July 2005 Variations in reducing overall traffic levels is again visible in late2005 and early 2006, albeit to a lesser extent than for entering traffic (Figure2.5). Traffic flows for non-holiday weeks in early 2006 are an average of
between 3 and 4 percent lower than for comparable weeks in 2005.
Other indicators of traffic within the charging zone are provided by counts oftraffic across the six Thames bridges inside the charging zone (the Thames
screenline), and also in relation to the portion of the ‘northern screenline’ thatlies within the charging zone to the north of the Thames. Unfortunately, latest
results from both of these counts are potentially unrepresentative. The
Thames screenline count may have been affected by the closure of Battersea
Bridge in the Autumn of 2005, and the northern screenline counts wereparticularly affected in January 2006 by road works at several locations.
Nevertheless, bearing these limitations in mind, the data do provide some
useful insights.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200629

2. Traffic patterns
Table 2.4

Flows across the Thames screenline within the charging zone. 2005
counts compared with 2004 (1,000s of vehicles).

Vehicle type

SpringAutumnAnnualSpringAutumnAnnualAnnual2005 vs
Annual2004

All vehicles

106

122

114

112

116

114

0%

+4%

Four or more
wheels

86

102

94

94

94

94

0%

0%

Potentiallychargeable

54

64

59

56

57

57

-4%

+1%

-Cars andminicabs

34

42

38

36

36

36

-6%

+1%

-Vans

16

17

16

16

17

16

-1%

+3%

-Lorries and
other

4

5

4

4

4

4

+3%

-1%

Non chargeable

53

58

56

56

59

57

+3%

+6%

-Licensed
taxis

24

28

26

29

28

29

+10%

-3%

-Buses andcoaches

9

10

10

9

9

9

-7%

+3%

-Powered
two-wheelers

10

11

11

10

11

10

-3%

+10%

-Pedal cycles

10

9

9

8

11

9

-1%

+34%

2004

2005

Autumn2005 vsSpring2005

Summary results for the Thames screenline are shown in Table 2.4. Again,
the overall picture is one of relative stability. Annualised total flows for 2005
are identical to those for 2004. As observed elsewhere, there is evidence of areduction in potentially chargeable vehicles, offset by increases of acomparable magnitude in non-chargeable vehicles. Looking at the comparison
between Autumn 2005 and Spring 2005, the overall picture is of small
increases for Autumn 2005, which is an unexpected outcome. It is clear thatmuch of the indicated increases here are accounted for by two-wheeledvehicles, which might have been attributable in part to the favourable Autumn
2005 weather and the July 2005 London bombings. Volumes of potentiallychargeable vehicles are effectively unchanged.
The comparison between Autumn 2005 and Spring 2005 at this screenline
does not therefore show evidence of reductions in potentially chargeable
vehicles that might have been expected to result from the July 2005
Variations. However, other research indicates that traffic levels in central
London in the Autumn counting window of each year are typically some 2
percent higher than in the Spring (a ‘seasonal’ effect), which may be
obscuring any change. It is also possible that the closure of Battersea Bridgein Autumn 2005 may have caused some traffic to divert into the charging
zone, in particular non-chargeable vehicles and chargeable vehicles that had
already paid the charge.
A more appropriate comparison is between Autumn 2005 and Autumn 2004.
This shows a 5 percent decline in all vehicles, an 8 percent decline in vehicles
with four or more wheels, an 11 percent decline in potentially chargeable
30

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

vehicles and a 14 percent decline in cars. These reductions would beconsistent with a response to the July 2005 Variations, albeit that they are
subject to wide statistical uncertainty.
The variability between recent counts at this screenline is illustrated in Figure
2.8, for potentially-chargeable vehicles (cars, including minicabs, vans andlorries) only.
Figure 2.8

Potentially chargeable vehicle flows by time of day across the Thames
screenline within the charging zone. Spring and Autumn counts for 2004
and 2005 compared.

4,000
3,500
3,000

Total flow

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000

Spring 2004
Autumn 2004

500

Spring 2005
Autumn 2005

06:

06:

00
30
07:
00
07:
30
08:
00
08:
30
09:
00
09:
30
10:
00
10:
30
11:
00
11:
30
12:
00
12:
30
13:
00
13:
30
14:
00
14:
30
15:
00
15:
30
16:
00
16:
30
17:
00
17:
30
18:
00
18:
30
19:
00
19:
30

0

Half-hour beginning

Counts of traffic crossing the northern screenline, which runs from the Victoria
Embankment to near St Pancras station, are taken in January of each year.
The observed trends are summarised in Figure 2.9. These exclude flows on
the Inner Ring Road itself at St Pancras. The counts for 2006 suggest small
increases in most vehicle types compared to equivalent counts in 2005 and2004. Examination of the site-by-site data reveals that almost all of theseincreases were attributable to Victoria Embankment and Strand, which
together account for about 45 percent of traffic on this screenline. At the timeof this survey road works were being undertaken in this area which may havecaused atypical flows on these links. In turn, small percentage increases onthese links may have disproportionately affected the screenline total. TfL
therefore considers that the 2006 counts here do not provide wholly a valid
comparison with earlier years.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200631

2. Traffic patterns
Figure 2.9

Flows across the TfL northern screenline within the charging zone.
January 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 compared.

50,000January 2003
January 2004

45,000January 2005
January 2006

Flow during charging hours

40,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000
0Cars andminicabs

Vans

Lorries andothersTaxis

Buses andPoweredPedal cycles
coaches two-wheelers

As in 2004, available indicators of traffic circulating within the charging zone
for 2005 provide a mixed picture. Based on the available evidence, TfL
concludes that:x

Circulating traffic within the charging zone during 2005 was broadly
comparable overall to that in 2004. Therefore, the traffic reductions seen
with the introduction of congestion charging have been maintained.

x

There is evidence of small reductions in traffic associated with the July
2005 Variations, through reductions in potentially-chargeable vehicles,
although these are largely offset by increases in non-chargeable vehicles.

x

Owing to seasonal differences in traffic levels and road closures affecting
the Autumn and Winter 2005 counts, a definitive assessment of the
impacts of the July 2005 Variations on circulating traffic within the charging
zone is not yet possible.

Private hire vehicles
There are various references in this report to ‘minicabs’. Strictly, these are
London licensed private hire vehicles that must be booked in advance. Their
operation is licensed by TfL’s Public Carriage Office and they are exempt fromthe congestion charge. Most are conventional cars though they are required todisplay an identifying disc in the front and rear windscreens.
They are referred to in this report as ‘minicabs’ as this is the largest group ofthese vehicles. Minicabs are typically used within Greater London for journeys
to destinations such as airports, stations, hospitals and entertainment events.
However, some of the private hire vehicles that operate in central London areroutinely used by companies as transport for their senior executives.

32

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

Separate identification of private hire vehicles is not easy to achieve in traffic
counts and therefore in the survey results presented in this report they are notdistinguished from ‘cars’ more generally. Other evidence suggests that there
may have been 5,000 to 10,000 individual licensed private hire vehicles
present in the charging zone during charging hours on a typical day in early
2006, out of a total of 40,000 London licensed private hire vehicles.
London taxis are also licensed by the Public Carriage Office and again are
exempt from the charge. There are around 21,000 taxis in London. Of these,
10,000 to 15,000 came into the charging zone during charging hours in a
typical day in early 2006.

2.4

Traffic on the Inner Ring Road

The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the congestion charging zone andis the most obvious alternative route for through traffic wishing to avoid thezone. TfL expected that congestion charging might lead to some increases intraffic on this route, but that any such increases could be dealt with by better
operational management.
Comparing 2003 (after charging) with 2002 (before charging), TfL had
previously reported overall increases in vehicle-kilometres of 4 percent for all
vehicles, and 1 percent for vehicles with four or more wheels. It was notedthat these measured changes were towards the lower end of TfL’s range of
expectation, and that congestion on the Inner Ring Road had actually
reduced, due primarily to the implementation of effective traffic managementon this key route.
Measurements taken during 2004 suggested that traffic on the Inner Ring
Road during weekday charging hours declined very slightly overall compared
to 2003. Comparing 2004 with pre-charging values in 2002, net increases of 2
percent for potentially-chargeable vehicles were recorded, with reductions of 1
percent for vehicles with four or more wheels and 2 percent for all vehicles.
These changes were not statistically significant overall despite some greater
indicated changes for certain individual vehicle types and at specific sites.
Measurements for 2005 suggest that overall traffic continues to be unchanged
from 2004, but with indicated small (statistically non-significant) reductions tovans, lorries, buses and coaches and two-wheeled vehicles.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200633

2. Traffic patterns
Table 2.5

Key changes in vehicle-kilometres driven on the Inner Ring Road during
charging hours. Annualised weekday for 2002 (pre-charging) compared
to 2003, 2004 and 2005 (post-charging).

Quantity

2002 vkm(millions)2003 vkm(millions)2004 vkm(millions)2005 vkm(millions)2005 versus
2004

All vehicles

0.65

0.68

0.66

0.66

-1%

Four or more wheels

0.61

0.62

0.61

0.61

0%

Potentially chargeable

0.51

0.50

0.51

0.50

-1%

-Cars and minicabs

0.37

0.35

0.35

0.36

0%

-Vans

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.11

-4%

-Lorries and other

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.03

-6%

Non chargeable

0.14

0.17

0.16

0.15

-2%

-Licensed taxis

0.08

0.09

0.08

0.08

+8%

-Buses and coaches

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

-9%

-Powered two-wheelers

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.03

-15%

-Pedal cycles

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

-8%

Data from permanent automatic counters located around the Inner Ring Road
show a very similar picture, of continuing stability in total traffic flows (Figure2.10).
Figure 2.10

Traffic volumes on the Inner Ring Road. Average weekly flows, charging
hours, vehicles with four or more wheels.

Average flow (vehicles with 4 or more wheels)

160,000
2003
2004

140,000

2005
120,000

2006

100,000
80,00060,00040,00020,000

W
ee
k
W 1
ee
k
W 4
ee
k
7
W
ee
k
W 10
ee
k
W 13
ee
k
W 16
ee
k
W 19
ee
k
W 22
ee
k
W 25
ee
k
W 28
ee
k
W 31
ee
k
W 34
ee
k
W 37
ee
k
W 40
ee
k
W 43
ee
k
W 46
ee
k
W 49
ee
k
52

0

TfL therefore again concludes that, although congestion charging and related
infrastructure changes clearly resulted in some re-distribution of traffic onindividual links during 2003, traffic volumes as a whole on the Inner Ring
Road continue to be closely comparable to conditions before charging started
in 2002, with no evidence of adverse traffic impacts.

34

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

2.5

Radial traffic approaching the charging zone

Transport for London expected that congestion charging would lead to some
reduction in radial traffic on routes in inner London approaching the charging
zone, particularly by cars. This would be due to fewer journeys between otherparts of London and the charging zone. The primary indicator of this impact is
TfL’s central London cordon. This cordon was modified for congestion
charging monitoring purposes in 2002 to lie wholly outside of the charging
zone. The following comparisons are based on this modified version of thecordon, which is counted once per year in the Autumn.
For 2003, TfL had reported overall reductions of 5 percent in inbound trafficwith four or more wheels during charging hours against pre-charging levels in
2002. It was noted that cars and minicabs had reduced by 12 percent.
Equivalent changes for the outbound direction were again 5 percent and 12
percent. For 2004, this indicator showed a 1 percent decline in total traffic
crossing this cordon during charging hours in both directions in relation to
2003. This was again indicative of the overall pattern of small declines intraffic observed elsewhere, but was not statistically significant itself.
Figure 2.11 summarises the changes observed at this cordon between 2002
and 2005. In the inbound direction during charging hours for 2005, traffic withfour or more wheels reduced by 2 percent in relation to 2004. In the outbounddirection, there was a 1 percent increase. Given the statistical limitations
associated with these data, the overall conclusion would be that traffic
crossing this cordon was effectively unchanged in 2005.
Figure 2.11

Traffic changes at the TfL central London cordon (extended version
wholly outside the charging zone). Inbound direction only, charging
hours. Autumn surveys.

550
500
Pedal cycles
450Powered two-wheelers
Buses and coaches

Vehicles (thousands)

400

Taxis

350

Heavy goods vehicles
300

Medium goods vehicles

250

Light goods vehicles
Cars and minicabs

200
150
100
50
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200635

2. Traffic patterns

2.6

Traffic on selected local roads

Traffic on selected roads surrounding the charging zone has been monitored
at the request of individual boroughs. These sites do not provide statisticalindicators of overall traffic change within a borough or more widely, and will beaffected by factors other than charging. However, they are collectively a usefulindicator of traffic change on local roads surrounding the charging zone thatwere potentially likely to experience additional traffic as a result of thescheme.
For 2003 following the introduction of charging at £5, TfL had reported amixed picture, with groups of sites in each of five individual boroughscollectively registering either increases or decreases lying in the range plus orminus 6 percent. In 2004, TfL reported that the overall picture was one ofsmall declines in traffic against 2003. There was no evidence from these dataof significant adverse traffic impacts on local roads that might have resulted
from charging.
Seasonal adjustment factors applied to these previous estimates have since
been re-calculated, resulting in a comparable overall picture, but differing insome respects from figures previously reported. New data are available for
2005, and the revised time-series is summarised in Table 2.6. The overall
assessment remains one of continuing stability in traffic on local roads
surrounding the charging zone but, as seen elsewhere, with evidence of small
and continuing declines in traffic from pre-charging levels.
Table 2.6

Traffic changes on selected local roads surrounding the charging zone.
Vehicles with four or more wheels, weekday charging hours.

Borough and number ofsitesSouthwark (3)Kensington and Chelsea (10)Tower Hamlets (6)Camden (3)Westminster (7)All sites (29)2003 versus
pre-charging

2004 versus
pre-charging

2005 versus
pre-charging

+1%
0%
-8%
-9%
-2%
-3%

+1%
+1%
-10%
-10%
-2%
-3%

0%
-2%
-6%
-12%
-3%
-4%

2004
versus
2003
0%
1%
-2%
-2%
0%
0%

2005
versus
2004
-1%
-3%
+4%
-2%
-1%
-1%

There have also been a number of sites monitored periodically in theboroughs of Wandsworth, Lambeth and Hackney. Data for these sites showed
that, after charging, there was no net change in traffic levels on monitored
roads in Lambeth, with net decreases of 6 percent on monitored roads inWandsworth and 8 percent in Hackney.
Equivalent figures for 2004 at those sites showed very little change over 2003,
with no net change from 2003 on monitored roads in Hackney, and further net
decreases of 2 percent over 2003 on monitored roads in both Lambeth andWandsworth.
Of these three boroughs, only Wandsworth was monitored in 2005. Results
show a decrease of 1 percent overall compared with 2004, and an 8 percent

36

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

overall decline compared with pre-charging conditions measured in Autumn
2002. This is again indicative of overall ‘background’ declines in traffic in thearea surrounding the charging zone since the introduction of charging. Datafor each of the individual monitored sites in Wandsworth is shown in Figure
2.12.
Figure 2.12

Traffic changes on local roads in Wandsworth. Vehicles with four ormore wheels. Weekday charging hours.

18,000Autumn 2002
Spring 2003

16,000Spring 2004
Spring 2005

14,000Total flow

12,00010,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Falcon Road

Battersea Park
Road

Battersea
Bridge Road

Vicarage
Crescent

St John's Hill

Prince of Wales
Drive

Overall, these results continue to show no indication of adverse traffic impacts
on local roads surrounding the charging zone resulting from congestion
charging.

2.7

Wider orbital traffic in inner London

Some traffic previously making through journeys across the charging zone
may have elected to divert to the wider network of orbital routes in inner
London following the introduction of charging, potentially giving rise to small
increases in traffic on these roads. To detect any changes, TfL establishedfour radial screenlines extending outwards from the Inner Ring Road.
These were comprehensively monitored in the Autumn of both 2002 and2003, and revealed stable or declining traffic flows, again with no indicationsof adverse traffic impacts from charging.
In view of this finding, and emerging proposals for a possible westernextension to the charging zone, only the western screenline, running between
West Carriage Drive in the City of Westminster and Paddenswick Road in the
London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham was surveyed in the Autumn ofFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200637

2. Traffic patterns

2004 and 2005. An updated time-series for this screenline is shown in Figure
2.13.
Figure 2.13

Traffic change across the western radial screenline. Autumn 2002, 2003
2004 and 2005 compared.

100,000

Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

90,000Autumn 2004

Flow during charging hours

80,000Autumn 2005

70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000
Cars andminicabs

Vans

Lorries

Taxis

Buses andcoaches

Powered two- Pedal cycles
wheelers

The overall picture is of fairly uniform and relatively modest declines across all
vehicle categories between 2002 (pre-charging) and 2003 (post-charging),
and comparative stability between 2003 and 2004. The apparently large
decline in buses and coaches recorded across this screenline between 2002
and 2003 has been attributed to technical issues relating to the 2002 (precharging) bus count at a specific site. TfL therefore concludes that the 2002
count for buses at this screenline is atypical, and that results from thisscreenline for 2003 and 2004 indicated generally-stable orbital traffic in thispart of west London.
Results for 2005 show further small overall declines in total traffic across thisscreenline, a finding that is again consistent with wider observed trends intraffic surrounding the charging zone.

2.8

Summary of key points

There is now a substantial body of evidence characterising the traffic impacts
of congestion charging in central London and the key short and medium-term
impacts are now quite clear.
Traffic patterns adapted quickly to the introduction of the scheme. The postcharging period has been characterised by remarkable stability in overall
traffic patterns, with evidence of further small ‘background’ declines to trafficlevels in and around central London. Initial assessments of traffic responses
to the July 2005 charge increase suggest further declines in traffic within the

38

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2. Traffic patterns

charging zone of a comparable magnitude to those forecast by TfL. Thereremains no evidence of significant traffic-related problems arising from thescheme.
The traffic reduction impacts of charging have therefore been maintained andhave intensified during 2005.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

39

3. Congestion

3

Congestion

3.1

Introduction

The principal objective of congestion charging is to reduce traffic congestion in
and around the charging zone, mainly by reducing the amount of traffic
moving to, from or through the charging zone. This section describes andupdates trends in key congestion indicators to early 2006.

Key findings from previous reports
The Third Annual Monitoring Report described TfL’s findings to the beginningof 2005, drawing principally on moving car observer surveys of congestion in
and around the charging zone. It was reported that:xWithin the charging zone, the average of available post-charging surveys
showed reductions of 30 percent in congestion over representative precharging conditions. This was towards the top of TfL’s expected range of
between 20 and 30 percent.

x

Later surveys of congestion within the charging zone were, however,showing evidence of greater variability, and a re-weighting of the timeseries (a necessary statistical process to take account of changed traffic
patterns) effectively disguised a small ‘real’ increase in congestion during
2004 relative to 2003.

x

During 2003, congestion reductions had also been recorded on the Inner
Ring Road – the most obvious diversionary route around the charging
zone. This was somewhat contrary to TfL’s expectation, but seemed toreflect both comparatively small net increases in traffic and the successful
implementation of traffic management measures to cater for diversionary
traffic. Later results for 2004/5 were, however, indicating similar values tothose observed before charging in 2002, reflecting the broadly neutralchanges in overall traffic levels on this route.

x

Radial routes approaching the charging zone in inner London had also
demonstrated reduced congestion during 2003, although again 2004
conditions were more comparable to pre-charging conditions in 2002.

x

More general surveys of traffic speeds and congestion on main roads ininner London showed a relatively stable situation between 2002 (precharging), 2003 and 2004 (post-charging).

It was also noted that:x

The majority of the congestion gains were in terms of reduced queueing
time at junctions, rather than increases in driving speeds.

xCharging appeared to be delivering decongestion benefits outside
charging hours, during the morning and evening ‘shoulder’ periods. This
reflected reduced traffic flow at these times, an important consequential
impact of charging on overall traffic patterns.

40

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestionx

Attitudinal and other travel surveys of Londoners suggested thatcongestion gains were being recognised, and demonstrated in analyses ofjourney times and reliability.

Key findings for 2005
The overall picture for congestion in 2005 has been more mixed:xMeasurements of congestion within the charging zone during 2005 havebegun to reflect the long-term ‘background’ evolution of the road network,with the continuing adjustment of effective network capacities to meet awider range of traffic and transport priorities.

x

Taking the 18 available bi-monthly post-charging survey measurements,
average post-charging reductions in congestion inside the charging zone
compared with representative pre-charging conditions in 2002 are now 26
percent during charging hours. Taking only the surveys from 2005 andcomparing to pre-charging conditions in 2002, the equivalent reduction is
22 percent.

x

These are lower reductions than those applying in 2003 and 2004 (30percent), but are still within TfL’s range of expectation of between 20 and
30 percent. Typical delay values are now 1.7 minutes per kilometre,compared with 1.6 minutes per kilometre previously reported and 2.3
minutes per kilometre for representative conditions before the introductionof charging.

x

The results need to be understood in the context of longer-term trends tocongestion in central and inner London. These suggest that competing
demands on road network capacity have meant continuing adjustments tocapacity, leading to increasing delays for traffic inside and outside thecharging zone. Inside the zone these adjustments would have had abroadly similar effect on network traffic speeds with or without congestion
charging.

x

These adjustments, in pursuit of other Mayoral transport priorities, haveresulted in, for example, improved safety and amenity and increased
priority for buses, taxis and cyclists. In simple terms, the moving-motorvehicle capacity of the network has been adjusted in favour of the peoplemoving capacity of the network.

x

Therefore, comparison against a ‘static’ baseline for 2002 is increasingly
inappropriate. Comparisons based on a projection to 2005 of the long-term
trend, in the notional absence of congestion charging, suggest that road
users in the charging zone are probably still experiencing reduced
congestion of the order of 30 percent.

x

TfL continue to record overall reductions in congestion on both the Inner
Ring Road and on the main radial routes approaching the charging zone.
Conditions in 2005 have shown similar conditions to those previously
reported for 2004, and there are still gains compared with pre-charging
conditions on these routes in 2002.

x

Measurements of congestion on main roads in inner London for 2005
show increases in congestion compared with previous surveys, both
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

41

3. Congestion

before and after the introduction of charging, with average delays of 1.5
minutes per kilometre, compared to 1.3 minutes per kilometre in 2002.

3.2

Congestion within the charging zone

TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report described average reductions incongestion within the charging zone of 30 percent against a pre-charging
reference value of 2.3 minutes per kilometre. This figure was measured byregular bi-monthly moving car observer speed surveys, which have continued
throughout 2005 and into 2006.
Congestion in this context is defined as the ‘excess delay’ (expressed inminutes per kilometre) over and above that which would be experienced
under ‘uncongested’ conditions (ie in the early hours of the morning). This
‘uncongested travel rate’ in the charging zone has been measured as 1.9
minutes per kilometre, both before and after charging started. TfL’s First
Annual Monitoring Report gives a fuller explanation of these indicators. The
uncongested travel rate should not be seen as a target – it is simply aconvenient reference level from which to measure congestion.
The Third Annual Monitoring Report also described the effect of a reweighting of the congestion time series to take into account changed traffic
patterns within the charging zone following the introduction of charging. The
congestion surveys are 'flow-weighted' with reference to observed traffic
volumes on each road.
Figure 3.1 shows the updated and re-weighted time-series, extending to theend of 2005, and including data from the first two months of 2006. Observed
excess delays during charging hours for 2005 have typically been around 1.8
minutes per kilometre, compared to a typical value of 1.6 minutes per
kilometre for 2003 and 2004. Both of these values need to be set against the
pre-charging reference value of 2.3 minutes per kilometre.

42

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion
Figure 3.1

Congestion in the charging zone during charging hours.

5
Charging starts

Excess delay (min/km)
Night-time travel rate (min/km)

Travel rate (min/km)

4

3

2

1

0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan
Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Notes: The January-February 2003 survey was undertaken wholly before the introduction of
charging on 17 February 2003.

Taking all of the eighteen available post-charging surveys, average delays are
1.7 minutes per kilometre, giving a reduction of 26 percent over pre-charging
conditions in 2002. Taking only the six surveys conducted in 2005, theequivalent average delay is 1.8 minutes per kilometre, giving a reduction of 22
percent against pre-charging values. Equivalent delay values for 2003 (postcharging) and 2004 were 1.6 minutes per kilometre, equating to reductions of
30 percent over pre-charging conditions in 2002.
In terms of network average speeds, and referring to observed values rather
than the ‘representative’ travel rate used to characterise pre-charging
conditions, the equivalent values are 13.6 kilometres per hour in 2002, 17.3
kilometres per hour in 2003 post-charging, 17.0 kilometres per hour in 2004,
and 16.2 kilometres per hour in 2005. Note that these values reflect speedsthat would be experienced by a typical vehicle driving around central London,
ie they are weighted to take account of differing link lengths and traffic flows,
rather than a simple average of speed measurements on a basket ofindividual road links.
There are now three representative surveys of congestion relating to theperiod following the July 2005 Variations. These are not yet sufficient toindicate a clear trend that might reflect a response to these changes.
The relatively even distribution of congestion across the various time periodsof the day, and the secondary decongestion impacts of charging in the time
periods immediately before and after charging hours, are shown in Figure 3.2.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

43

3. Congestion
Figure 3.2

Excess delays by time period within the charging zone.

3.5

Charging starts

3.0

am shoulder
pm off-peakcharging hours

am peakpm peak

am off-peak
pm shoulder

Excess delay (min/km)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan
Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Notes: The January-February 2003 survey was undertaken wholly before the introduction of
charging on 17 February 2003. Excess delay is measured relative to the night-time travel rate.
The night-time travel rate is 1.9 min/km

3.3

Congestion on the Inner Ring Road

The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the congestion charging zone. No
charge applies to vehicles using this route. Concerns were raised before theintroduction of charging that traffic diverting on to the Inner Ring Road to avoid
paying the charge could lead to increased congestion. TfL expected that with
the implementation of improved traffic management arrangements, there
would be no overall increase in congestion on this route, and data previously
reported by TfL appeared to confirm this expectation.
Congestion on the Inner Ring Road has been measured by dedicated speed
surveys, which have been carried out at intervals since 2002. Eight surveys
have now been completed since the start of charging, and comparisons canbe made with the six surveys that were carried out before charging wasintroduced (Figure 3.3).

44

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion
Figure 3.3

Congestion on the Inner Ring Road during charging hours.

5
Charging starts

Excess delay (min/km)
Night-time travel rate (min/km)

Travel rate (min/km)

4

3

2

1

0
Jan
Feb

Mar
Apr

Jun
Jul
2002

Sep
Oct

Nov
Dec

Jan
Feb

Mar
Apr

Jun
Jul
2003

Sep
Oct

Nov
Dec

Mar
Apr

Sep
Oct

2004

Mar
Apr

Sept
Oct
2005

Notes: The January-February 2003 survey was undertaken wholly before the introduction of
charging on 17 February 2003. These data have been re-weighted, in accordance withconventional practice, to reflect updated data on traffic flows (the data are ‘flow weighted’ withreference to observed traffic volumes on each road). This means that values for individual
surveys may differ slightly from those previously published.

The measured uncongested travel rate on the Inner Ring Road is 1.8 minutes
per kilometre. Observed levels of congestion have fluctuated considerably
over the review period. An excess delay of 1.9 minutes per kilometre wastaken as representative of pre-charging conditions in 2002.
Excess delay values for the surveys following the introduction of charging in2003 were typically between 1.5 and 1.7 minutes per kilometre, representing
reductions of between 10 and 20 percent in congestion against pre-charging
conditions. Values for 2004 varied between 1.6 and 1.9 minutes per kilometre,the latter value being identical to the pre-charging reference value. The twosurveys undertaken during 2005 return values of 1.8 and 1.7 minutes per
kilometre. TfL’s assessment is therefore that conditions on the Inner Ring
Road continue to show small reductions in congestion of up to 10 percent
relative to 2002.

3.4

Congestion on radial routes approaching the charging zone

Congestion on main radial routes approaching or leaving the charging zone
has been surveyed in both directions as part of the intensified moving car
observer survey arrangements for the Inner Ring Road. These surveys covera representative selection of main radial routes up to a distance of three tofive kilometres from the charging zone. TfL’s First Annual Monitoring Report
includes a map of the networks covered by these surveys. For the purpose ofthis report, the measured night-time travel rate for major roads in inner
London of 1.5 minutes per kilometre is used to represent uncongested

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

45

3. Congestion

conditions, giving a representative value for congestion (ie excess delay)
before charging, during charging hours, of 1.5 minutes per kilometre.
The 2003 surveys following the introduction of charging saw decreases incongestion on the main approach roads to the zone averaging 0.3 minutes
per kilometre (reductions of up to 20 percent), with typical excess delay during
charging hours then averaging 1.2 minutes per kilometre.
Surveys undertaken during 2004 and 2005 have produced mixed results, but
all measurements remain below the representative pre-charging value fordelays of 1.5 minutes per kilometre, indicating continuing gains on theseroads (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4

Congestion on main radial routes approaching the charging zone during
charging hours.

3.5

Charging starts

Excess delay (min/km)
Night-time travel rate (min/km)

3.0

Travel rate (min/km)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Jan
Feb

Mar
Apr

Jun
Jul

2002

Sep
Oct

Nov
Dec

Jan
Feb

Mar
Apr

Jun
Jul

Sep
Oct

Nov
Dec

2003

Mar
Apr

Sep
Oct

2004

Mar
Apr

Sep
Oct

2005

Notes: The January-February 2003 survey was undertaken wholly before the introduction of
charging on 17 February 2003. These data have been re-weighted, in accordance withconventional practice, to reflect updated data on traffic flows (the data are ‘flow weighted’ withreference to observed traffic volumes on each road). This means that values for individual
surveys may differ slightly from those previously published.

46

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion

3.5

Congestion on main roads in inner London

Inner London in this context covers the network of main roads outside of the
Inner Ring Road and its immediate environs, but within the North and South
Circular Roads. TfL expected some reductions in congestion in inner London
outside the congestion charging zone. These would arise from reduced overall
traffic volumes, reflecting lower volumes of travel to and from the zone.
The Department for Transport has measured night-time travel rates in inner
London at 1.5 minutes per kilometre. TfL estimated representative precharging levels of congestion (ie excess delays) during charging hours to be
1.3 minutes per kilometre. Since the introduction of the scheme, three further
inner London speed surveys have been carried out, during Spring in 2003,
2004 and 2005.
Figure 3.5

Congestion on main roads in inner London 1988 to 2005. Charging
hours equivalent.

3.5
Excess delay (min/km)
Night-time travel rate (min/km)

Charging starts

3.0

Travel rate (min/km)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Feb 88Jun 88

Nov 91Mar 92

Nov 94Mar 95

Nov 97Mar 98

Nov 00Mar 01

Mar 02Jun 02

Mar 03Jun 03

Dec 03Mar 04

Mar 05Jun 05

The 2003 and 2004 surveys returned identical values for congestion in inner
London, at 1.4 minutes per kilometre, both slightly higher than the precharging reference value. The 2005 survey returned a value of 1.5 minutes
per kilometre, indicating some further deterioration in congestion in inner
London (Figure 3.5).
Observed traffic volume changes in inner London following the introduction of
charging have been broadly consistent with TfL’s expectations and haveshown overall reductions. It is therefore unlikely that traffic changes
associated with charging have been a primary factor in determining these outturn congestion trends on major roads in inner London. TfL is investigating thecauses of these trends.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

47

3. Congestion

3.6

Congestion data from number plate reading cameras

Automatic number plate reading (ANPR) cameras are located in and aroundthe charging zone and provide secondary indicators of trends in average
traffic speeds and congestion. These cameras provide data for a skeletal
network of the more major roads, and work by matching observations of thesame vehicle between pairs of cameras, where elapsed time and distance canbe measured. This processing takes full account of the data protection
principles concerning personal information.
Figure 3.6 shows a comparison of equivalent data from both moving car
observer and ANPR camera surveys for the area inside the central London
charging zone.
The comparison is in terms of excess delays for time periods wherecomparable data from both sources are available, as this provides the mostconsistent view of trends in network performance. It should also be noted thatthe comparison does not show the impact of introducing the congestion
charge as insufficient ANPR camera data are available for the year 2002. It
also does not show values for the period following the July 2005 Variations.
These are considered in Section 8.
Figure 3.6

Trends in excess delays within charging zone during charging hours.
Moving car observer surveys (MCO) and data from ANPR cameras
compared.

2.0
ANPR

MCO

Excess delay (min/km)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Mar AprMay JunJul Aug
2003

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Mar Apr2004

MayJunMar Apr May Jun
2005

The figure shows a very close correspondence between the indicated trends.
Although the indicated absolute excess delays are also quite similar, this is
not necessarily to be expected as the two sources relate to different survey
networks and methodologies.

48

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion

3.7

Recent trends in congestion

Long-run trends in congestion observed in both central and inner London
suggest gradual deterioration over the last 10-20 years. The introduction ofcongestion charging in 2003 interrupted this trend in central London, reducing
congestion by 30 percent almost overnight, but the observations for 2004 and2005 described above imply that the long term trend is reasserting itself, evenif current levels of congestion are substantially lower than would otherwise
have been the case.
Within the charging zone, although the reduction in congestion during 2005
compared to pre-charging conditions in 2002 is still within TfL’s range of
expectation, average delays during 2005 of 1.8 minutes per kilometrecompare with 1.6 minutes per kilometre during the first 18 months of charging.
This re-emergence of a trend of increasing congestion inside the charging
zone appears to have started in the second half of 2004.
On the Inner Ring Road the data for 2005 suggest small improvements over
2004, but congestion remains higher than that observed in 2003 following the
introduction of the scheme. On main radial routes approaching the charging
zone congestion is effectively unchanged, if somewhat variable between
individual surveys.
Recent data for main roads in inner London show a similar trend to thatobserved in the charging zone of gradually increasing congestion since theearly 1990s, although the available time-series of measurements is lesscomprehensive.
It is clear from Figure 3.7 for the charging zone and Figure 3.8 for main roads
in inner London that in both cases the congestion measurements for 2005
suggest the continuation of established long-term trends going back several
decades.
For the charging zone, a clear and persistent downward trend in average
speeds has been apparent since 1975, reflecting increased congestion.
Average charging-hours-equivalent speeds fell from about 18 kilometres perhour in 1975 to about 14 kilometres per hour in 2002 just before the start ofcharging.
For main roads in inner London the pattern is very similar. Average speeds
declined from about 23 kilometres per hour in the early 1990s to about 20
kilometres per hour in 2005.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

49

3. Congestion
Figure 3.7

Long term trend in traffic speeds inside the central London
congestion charging zone.

20
Charging starts

18
16
Includes £8 impacts

Speed (km/h)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

Charging zone speeds - historic series
Linear (Charging zone speeds - historic series)

1995

2000

2005

2010

Charging zone speeds - congestion charging monitoring

Notes: Values up to 2001 are from individual surveys conducted in May/June of each year.
Values from and including 2002 are annual averages based on six bi-monthly surveys. The
pre-charging comparator value of 2.3 min/km for excess delay inside the charging zone is a
‘representative’ pre-charging value (see TfL’s First Annual Monitoring Report) and does nottherefore correspond exactly to observed average network speeds.

Figure 3.8

Long term trend in traffic speeds on main roads in inner London.

26
Charging starts

24
22
20

Speed (km/h)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990

1992

1994

1996

Observed inner London speeds

50

1998

2000

2002

2004

Linear (Observed inner London speeds)

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

2006

3. Congestion

In interpreting these trends it is necessary to bear in mind that:x

Each individual moving car survey has a typical statistical error ofplus/minus 1 km/hr at the 95 percent level. In broad terms, this translates
to about 0.1 min/km of the excess travel rate, although this range narrows
as more surveys are compared.

x

There is evidence from the available data of a seasonal pattern tocongestion, which can affect short-term comparisons.

x

A more intensive survey regime was put in place for congestion charging
monitoring from 2002. One consequence of this is that congestion willappear to be more variable than previously appreciated, simply because it
is being measured more often.

Nevertheless, the available time-series for the charging zone in particularsuggest that the observed changes in 2005 can be regarded as being
statistically significant.
Declining traffic speeds and increases in congestion have therefore been apersistent and long-term feature of the road networks in central and inner
London. In this context, the trend shown by recent surveys in central London
following the introduction of charging is not out of line with the longer term
trend. The implication of the long-term trend is that conditions would havecontinued to deteriorate in the charging zone in the absence of congestion
charging. A more appropriate assessment of the impacts of charging would
therefore be against equivalent conditions in 2005 without charging, projecting
the long term trend forwards.
It can therefore be seen from Figure 3.7 that average network speeds in 2005
remain some 20 percent higher than would have been the case had charging
not been introduced, which is a similar scale of impact to that reported
immediately after the introduction of charging in 2003. Furthermore, theequivalent reduction in congestion remains about 30 percent, comparing
measured values in 2005 with a projection of the long-run pre-charging trend
to this year.
Increased congestion over recent years has also taken place in the context ofdecreases in traffic volumes. Figure 3.9 shows long-run trends for the volumeof traffic crossing three strategic cordons in London. The first (central) cordon
encloses an area of central London somewhat larger than the charging zone.
The second (inner) cordon broadly follows the alignment of the North/South
Circular roads bounding inner London. The third (outer) cordon broadly
follows the administrative boundary of Greater London.
Whilst none of these cordons are ideal proxies for total traffic flows in theareas of interest, the overall picture of slowly-declining traffic coupled withincreased congestion in central and inner London is clear. This is not whatmight have been expected, given steady-state network conditions, andappears to point to reductions to the effective capacity of the road network.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

51

3. Congestion
Figure 3.9

Long term traffic trends across three strategic cordons in London.

3,000
Central London cordon

M25 fully operational

Number of vehicles per day (thousands)

Inner London cordon
2,500

London boundary cordon

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Many aspects of road network planning and operation on behalf of all of theauthorities variously involved over recent decades may have contributed tothis. The main aim of these interventions has been to bring about a betterbalance between all users of the road network. They fall into four broadgroups:xwidespread use of traffic control and road safety related measures on
major and minor roads, having impacts on traffic levels and speeds;xmeasures to assist pedestrians and cyclists at junctions;xbus priority measures and increased bus activity and patronage;x

increased frequency of street works, particularly associated with increased
activity by utilities and high technology communications.

Most of these interventions have been valuable and beneficial, either directly
to selected users of the road network or more generally.
Beneficial effects include the dramatic reductions to road accident casualties
referred to in Section 6 of this report, alongside improved travel choice andgreater sustainability. The 20 percent reduction in the rate of personal injury
accidents on London’s roads since 2001 can be readily quantified and valued.
The 32 percent increase between 2002 and 2005 in the number of peopleusing the bus to travel to central London during the weekday morning peak(see Section 4) is another major achievement. Other benefits are not soreadily quantifiable but are nonetheless real, such as the amenity benefits andreduced carbon dioxide as a consequence of reduced congestion. Most,
however, would also have the effect of reducing the effective capacity of theroad network for general traffic.

52

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion

In simple terms, the moving-motor-vehicle capacity of the network has beenadjusted in favour of the people-moving capacity of the network.
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy places importance on these policies,
alongside the priorities to reduce congestion and improve journey time
reliability. It is therefore likely that recent trends will continue, and thechallenge will be to continue to achieve optimal balance between needs of allroad users. TfL is continuing to develop road network management plans andprocedures to address these challenges.

3.8

Congestion data from satellite vehicle tracking systems(ITIS)A new source of traffic data has been made available to TfL from a GPS
satellite vehicle tracking system operated by a company called ITIS Holdings.
ITIS place vehicle tracking devices in their customers’ vehicles which enable
vehicle movements to be tracked.
The data are supplied to TfL as part of a wider agreement with the
Department for Transport whereby local authorities are supplied withprocessed data for agreed geographical areas, primarily for assessing traffic
speeds and congestion levels in relation to Local Transport Plans. Thisagreement covers data over the period 2001 to end of 2006, although at thetime of writing validated data are only available for analysis for the period
between January 2003 and April 2004.
Data are supplied to TfL in the form of vehicle speeds for 50 metre segmentsof an agreed road network. Vehicle type is provided but individual vehicles are
not identified. Although the vehicles tracked by ITIS are not necessarily
representative of general traffic composition, speed data based on them areconsidered to be broadly representative of general traffic conditions.
TfL has undertaken analysis of these data to establish their characteristics
and possible uses. Key findings from this exercise were:x

The distribution of observations of participating vehicles is evenly spread
across networks used in analysis of traffic in London.

x

On a monthly basis there are enough observations to separately analysetrends for cars alone, in addition to all vehicles.

x

On a daily level there are adequate observations on key networks to allow
analysis by standard time periods.

xComparison of this data source with traditional moving car observer speed
surveys indicated a reasonable correlation, with ITIS reporting speeds
around 5 to 12 percent faster, which may reasonably be accounted for on
the basis of the differing methodologies.

An example plot illustrating the data available from ITIS is shown in Figure
3.10. This graphic illustrates congestion levels during the morning peak period
on each section of road for a network of interest in and around central

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

53

3. Congestion

London. TfL has used data for the period between 22.00 and 06.00 torepresent ‘uncongested’ conditions. This means that indicated excess delay
values would tend to be consistently lower than those shown by the moving
car observer surveys described above, and the two indicators are therefore
not directly comparable (see also below).
On this map, darker colours indicate the greatest congestion; the yellow
stretches are the least congested. Particularly of note is the facility to examinecongestion trends by direction on the same physical road link.
Figure 3.10

Example plot using ITIS satellite-based congestion data, within andaround the central London congestion charging zone, 07.00 to 10.00
Monday to Friday, October 2003.

Delay Measurement(mins per km)
Greater than 2
1.5 to 2
1 to 1.5
Less than 1
No Data

Source: Produced by TfL based on information derived from data provided by ITIS Holdings
obtained from vehicles fitted with satellite tracking devices.
Note: Delay measurement is morning peak travel rate compared to travel rate between 22.00
and 06.00 in min/km (a different definition of excess delay to that used for moving car
observer surveys elsewhere in this report). Links with two or more observations are shown.

Analysis of this data set to consider its potential future application in providing
standard indicators is underway within TfL. As a separate exercise initial
analysis has been completed to look more specifically at areas of interest in
relation to the central London charging zone and the forthcoming westernextension. This involved comparing travel rates from ITIS data to those frommoving car observer surveys. Some preliminary findings from this work areoutlined below.

54

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

3. Congestion

ITIS and moving car survey data will differ in several respects and this needs
to be recognised when comparing indicators. These include some differencesin the time periods of the day used for analysis. More fundamental aredifferences in the definition of notionally ‘uncongested’ conditions, against
which travel rates recorded during other time periods are compared. ITIS datafor daytime periods are compared against conditions applying between 22.00
and 06.00 overnight, whereas moving car observer surveys use data from amuch narrower time band, typically 02.00 to 05.00. This has particularimplications in central and inner London where high activity levels in the lateevening period would cause ITIS to over-state uncongested travel rates
relative to moving car surveys, and consequently understate daytime
congestion. However, both ITIS and moving car observer data are weighted totraffic flows (‘flow weighted’) on a comparable basis.
These characteristics are reflected in the comparisons that have so far beenmade. When travel rates throughout the day from the two sources werecompared, ITIS data indicated faster travel rates than moving car observer
surveys, by between 5 to 15 percent. Comparing travel rates during the twodifferent night-time periods, ITIS data indicated slower rates than thosemeasured by the moving car surveys, by up to 15 percent. As congestion is
calculated as the difference between the daytime and night-time travel rate,
and as the variation between ITIS and moving car observer indicators is indifferent directions for the daytime and night-time, the measure of congestion
from ITIS data is less than that from moving car observer surveys, in somecases by up to 50 percent.
The daytime travel rate indicators are reasonably consistent in their variationfrom moving car observer survey indicators, suggesting that factors can beapplied to render the two indicators more directly comparable. As would be
expected this resulted in indicated congestion in levels much closer to themoving car observer surveys, with differences of between 1 percent and 10
percent (Table 3.1).
Initial conclusions are that ITIS data, or similar GPS-based indicators, will
prove a useful addition to existing methods of measuring congestion.
Particular advantages are the volumes of data potentially available; the ability
to cover arbitrary networks of interest; and comparable coverage acrossdifferent networks and time periods.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

55

3. Congestion
Table 3.1

Example comparisons between ITIS data and moving car observer(MCO) surveys data. Charging hours equivalent.

Central zone
Travel rate
Congestion
Factored congestion
Inner Ring Road
Travel rate
Congestion
Factored congestion
Inner London
Travel rate
Congestion
Factored congestion

ITIS(min/km)

MCO(min/km)

Difference(min/km)% Difference

3.1
0.9
1.4

3.4
1.5
1.5

-0.4
-0.6
-0.2

-11
-42
-10

3.3
1.4
1.6

3.4
1.6
1.6

-0.1
-0.2
0.0

-4
-14
-1

2.8
1.1
1.3

2.9
1.4
1.4

-0.2
-0.3
-0.1

-5
-22
-6

Note: Factored congestion values for ITIS data are multiplied by the global difference
between available observations of uncongested travel rates from both ITIS and moving car
surveys. This renders both sources compatible for the purposes of this comparison. It reflects
the different definitions of uncongested travel rates currently used by TfL, and does not reflect
upon the appropriateness of either data source for measuring trends in congestion.

3.9

Summary of key points

Congestion charging continues to deliver significant reductions in congestionin central London. Average delays in the charging zone since charging began
are now 1.7 minutes per kilometre, compared to a representative value of 2.3
minutes per kilometre before charging began. This is an average reduction of
26 percent – within the range of TfL’s expectation prior to the implementationof the scheme.
Although congestion surveys during 2005 have tended to indicate higher
levels of congestion than similar surveys during 2003 and 2004, both inside
the charging zone and more widely in inner London, the early indications arethat this reflects a much longer-term ‘background’ trend associated with the
management of available road space to better reflect the needs of all road
users. Against this background trend, congestion charging continues to deliver
reductions in congestion in central London towards the top end of TfL’s priorrange of expectation.

56

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

4. Public transport

4

Public transport

4.1

Introduction

The congestion charging monitoring programme covers aspects of bus,
Underground and rail passenger levels and service provision in and aroundthe central London congestion charging zone. It is also being adapted tocover the future western extension to the central London congestion charging
zone, as described in Section 11.
Previous Impacts Monitoring reports have described the substantial changes
in the performance of the central London bus network over recent years,
some of which were enabled by the congestion charging scheme. Further
enhancements to bus operations are planned to complement the forthcoming
western extension to the central London charging zone.

Key findings from previous reportsx

In the first year after charging there was an increase of 37 percent in thenumber of passengers entering the charging zone by bus during charging
hours. Around half of this was assessed to have been as a result of thescheme, and the other half due to a background trend of growth.

xThis background growth continued into 2004 resulting in a further increaseof passengers entering central London by bus of 12 percent in the morning
peak period, across a cordon similar but not identical to the charging zone
boundary.

x

Bus reliability improved on routes in and around the charging zone after
the introduction of the scheme. Excess waiting time fell by 30 percent in
the first year and by a further 18 percent in the second year after the
introduction of congestion charging.

x

There was a similar improvement in the indicator of bus kilometres notoperated because of traffic congestion on routes affected by the charging
zone. This fell by 20 percent in the first year after charging, and wasmaintained at this level during the second year after charging.

x

After an initial drop in the number of Underground passengers exiting
stations in and around the charging zone in 2003, reflecting external
factors unconnected with charging, there was a recovery, so that travel by
Underground to the charging zone in the second year after charging was
similar to that in the year before the scheme.

x

The overall number of passengers using National Rail to travel to or fromthe charging zone remained stable over the period spanning the
introduction of the scheme.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

57

4. Public transport

Key findings for 2005
x

Numbers of passengers entering the charging zone by bus were notmeasured directly in 2005. However, the number of bus passengers
entering a wider definition of central London in the weekday morning peak
was comparable to 2004, at 116,000.

x

The availability of bus services continues to satisfactorily accommodate
patronage.

x

Reliability of bus services in and around the charging zone remained
broadly unchanged in 2005, reflecting established gains from bothcongestion charging and other improvements to bus operations.

x

However, there was an increase in the amount of bus kilometres lost due
to traffic congestion, of 13 percent. These trends are generally reflectedacross the wider bus network, and may reflect the wider congestion trends
discussed in Section 3.

x

Although 52 people were killed and 700 were injured and there wasconsiderable short term disruption, the London bombings of July 2005 hadlittle long-term impact on Underground travel. The number of passengers
entering central London by Underground increased overall in comparison
with both 2003 and 2004, usage in 2005 overall being comparable to precharging conditions in 2002.

4.2

Buses

The regular Autumn survey of bus passengers entering the wider central
London area during the morning peak period, part of the Central Area PeakCount, was completed in Autumn 2005. This survey was undertaken during
the period after the congestion charge increase to £8 and at a point when the
more immediate impacts of the July 2005 bombings in central London hadlargely diminished.
Figure 4.1 illustrates these counts over the last 20 years and shows the strong
trend in growth over recent years. In the first year after charging there was anincrease of 18 percent in passengers entering central London during the
weekday morning peak period, followed by a further increase of 12 percent in
the following year. In 2005 the estimated number of bus passengers remained
very similar to those recorded in 2004, at around 116,000.

58

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

4. Public transport
Figure 4.1

Bus passengers entering central London, 07.00 to 10.00, Autumn
counts, 1986 to 2005. TfL Central Area Peak Count.

120
Number of passengers (thousands)

Charging starts

100

80

60

40

20

19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05

0

The substantial increases in bus passenger numbers (about one third) over
2000-2004 was driven by a number of factors including congestion charging,
additional bus kilometres operated (up by one quarter) and fares (down by 16
percent in real terms).
Since 2004, bus kilometres operated have stabilised and bus fares have beensignificantly restructured. Whilst there have been significant increases in theprice of cash fares, these have been substantially offset by the move awayfrom single fares to off-bus tickets, including Oyster pay as you go fares sothat, after allowing for inflation, the average bus fare per journey is now close
to what it was in 2000. Free bus travel has also been introduced for the under16s.

July 2005 Variations
In July 2005 the daily congestion charge was increased from £5 to £8. TfL
projected that there would be an increase of around 1 to 3 percent in thenumber of bus passengers entering the charging zone during the morning
peak period as a result of this change. In the same week, the bombings incentral London occurred, complicating assessment of the impact of the charge
increase.
Early analysis of the impact on the bus network suggested that in the three
weeks after the bombings bus journeys to the charging zone were estimatedto be about 6 percent up year-on-year. This was around 2 to 3 percent above
the previous trend and although it may have been partly contributed to by the
charge increase, it appeared to be largely a result of passengers switchingaway from the Underground in the immediate aftermath of the bombings.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

59

4. Public transport

However, the increase was short term and declined over time as passengers
returned to the Underground.

Bus reliability
As well as changes to the service provision and patronage of the central
London bus network in the period since 2002 there have also been significant
improvements to the reliability of bus services. These have reflected a variety
of factors, which have included increased investment in robust schedules,
enhanced route supervision and the introduction of Quality Incentive
Contracts, as well as the introduction of congestion charging that has reduced
congestion in and around the charging zone.
One measure of bus service reliability is ‘excess waiting time’, reflecting theadditional waiting time at bus stops experienced by passengers caused byservice irregularity or missing buses. In the first year after charging there were
improvements in bus service reliability for passengers in and around thecharging zone of around a 30 percent reduction in excess waiting time. Thiswas greater than the network wide average of around 20 percent for the same
period. In the following year TfL recorded a further improvement of 18 percent
in the charging zone. This was similar to the network wide average for theyear of around 20 percent, as would be expected given that the ‘step’ change
represented by charging did not apply in 2004.
In the most recent year bus service reliability has been maintained, and with afurther fall in excess waiting time of 4 percent within the charging zone
compared to the same period the previous year. This comparative stability isalso reflected in the network wide change in 2005.
London Buses sets the bus operators performance standards for excess
waiting time based on the characteristics of the route. Figure 4.2 shows thechange in measured excess waiting time relative to the minimum standards.
This illustrates the ongoing improvements to bus reliability in central London,
and across the wider bus network.

60

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

4. Public transport
Figure 4.2

1.5

Difference between excess waiting time standards and actual excess
waiting time (weekday charging hours).
CentralInner Ring Road

Other inner

Outer

Network-wide average

BetterCharging starts

1.0

Minutes

0.5

0.0

Worse

-0.5

-1.0

5/
01

-1
30
/0
/0
2
3
-2
22
6/
/0
04
6
-1
14
9/
07
/0
9
-1
1/
7/
10
12
01
3/
01
/0
3
-2
24
8/
/0
03
5
-2
16
0/
/0
06
8
-1
2/
8/
09
11
-5
31
/1
/0
2
1
-2
7/
1/
02
05
-2
24
8/
/0
05
7
-2
16
0/
/1
08
0
-1
2/
11
8/
01
-4
2/
04 /02
-2
25
9/
04
/0
6
-2
17
2/
/0
07
9
-1
4/
10
10
/1
2
-6
/1
2

-1.5

2002

2003

2004

2005

In addition to improvements in passenger waiting time there were also
improvements measured directly from reduced traffic congestion. This isreported in terms of bus kilometres not operated compared to that scheduled.
Routes operating in and around the charging zone saw the biggest
improvements in this indicator in the first year after the introduction of
charging of around 60 percent. The picture in 2004 was relatively stable, withgains seen in 2003 being maintained.
In the most recent period there has been a slight reduction to the gains
recorded in 2003 and 2004. The proportion of scheduled bus kilometres lost to
traffic congestion increased by 13 percent in 2005 compared to 2004. This
trend is generally reflective of routes across the entire London bus network.
Despite this recent change, routes in central London are still performing
considerably better overall than they were before the introduction ofcongestion charging.

4.3

Underground

Underground patronage
The Third Annual Monitoring Report described how Underground patronage inand around the charging zone had actually reduced in the first year after
charging, recovering somewhat in the second year. These trends were largely
as a result of prolonged closure on the Central line as well as wider economic
factors during 2003. They meant that volumes of Underground travel to andfrom the charging zone during 2004 were slightly lower than in 2002, the year
before the introduction of the scheme. This was contrary to TfL’s expectationof a small net increase (of the order of 1 percent) in Underground travel during

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

61

4. Public transport

2003, reflecting a complex pattern of mode share adjustments as a response
to congestion charging.
Figure 4.3 updates the recent trend in Underground patronage in and aroundthe charging zone (with Underground Fare Zone 1 divided into three sectors),
looking at estimates derived from passenger exits through automatic ticket
gates at stations, and revenue taken.
Passengers exiting Underground stations and revenue trends in andaround the charging zone and within the rest of Fare Zone 1, during themorning peak period (07.00 to 10.00).
Inside zone
Revenue

500

Boundary
Revenue

Remainder of Fare Zone 1
Revenue

4

Total passengers (thousands)

Charging starts

400
3
300
2
200
1
100

0

0

1
0
0
7
4
7
2
4
8
5
2
/9
/6
/1
/1
/3
12
/1
/1
/1
0/
7/
3/
0/
9/
1/
8/
5/
-7
- 4 - 29 - 21 - 18 - 6/-2
- 2 - 12-2
- 2 - 15-3-2
- 2 - 13 /1 2
2
1
/
2
1
3
1
5
8
1
6
3
6
4
7
5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
9
6
0
1
9
9
1/
2/
8/
3/
2/
9/
17
11
25
23 15/
31
26 18/
2 5 7 /1
1
2
2/

2002

2003
2004
Four-week period

Average weekly ticket sales by zone (£million)

Figure 4.3

2005

Generally the trends in the number of passengers exiting stations inside thecharging zone are similar to those on the boundary of the zone and in the restof Fare Zone 1. On average in the first 12 four-week monitoring periods
following the introduction of congestion charging there was a reduction in thenumber of passengers exiting stations during the morning peak period of
between 6 and 9 percent. In the equivalent period in 2004 there was anincrease of between 2 and 5 percent. In the most recent equivalent period in
2005, there was very little change compared to the previous year, with anincrease of up to 1 percent in the number of passengers exiting stations
during the morning peak period.
The transitory impact of the disruptions caused by the July 2005 bombings isevident from Figure 4.3, as is the general similarity of trends across each ofthe ‘baskets’ of stations being considered.
In the weekday morning peak period during 2005, there were on averagearound 498,000 passengers exiting stations in and around the charging zone
each day. This compares with around 494,000 exiting passengers in the62

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

4. Public transportprevious 12 four-week monitoring periods in 2004 and 473,000 in the first 12
monitoring periods after charging, 2003. These compare to a value of 516,000
prior to the introduction of charging during 2002.
Considering patronage throughout the charging day at stations in and aroundthe charging zone there is a very similar trend. However, in the most recent 12four-week monitoring periods (2005) there has been a slight decrease of 2
percent in the number of passengers exiting stations compared to theprevious year (2004). This may reflect reduced ‘discretionary’ travel, given the
security situation.
During charging hours there are on average 1,226,000 passengers exiting
stations in and around the charging zone. This again compares with
1,247,000 in the previous 12 four-week monitoring periods, 1,181,000 in the
12 periods after the introduction of charging, and 1,275,000 prior to theintroduction of charging. Overall in 2005 there were 4 percent fewer
passengers exiting stations during the charging day compared to before theintroduction of congestion charging in 2002.
Comparing trends for central London with those across the whole of theUnderground network, it is clear that there has been greater growth inpassenger usage outside central London. During the most recent 12 fourweek monitoring periods there was an increase in patronage on the whole
Underground network of 3 percent during the morning peak, and of 1 percent
during charging hours compared to the previous year. Overall in 2005 there
was an increase in patronage of up to 2 percent on the whole Undergroundnetwork, compared to before the introduction of charging in 2002.

Underground revenues
Trends in revenue taken at stations follow a similar pattern to those of
patronage, although there has been a general rise in the absolute value offare revenue taken.
In the first 12 four-week monitoring periods after the introduction of congestion
charging there was little change in the fare revenue taken at stations in the
charging zone compared to the same periods the year before. In thesubsequent year, 2004, there was a significant increase in the value ofrevenue taken, by 10 percent, linked to fare changes in that period andrecovery from the Central Line closures of 2003. In the most recent year,
2005, there has been a continued increase in the value of revenue taken,
although of just 2 percent. This includes the short-term 4 percent year-on-year
reduction to revenue recorded in the period after the bombings in July 2005.
TfL consider that the changes in fares have not had a significant impact on thelevel of usage as overall fare increases have been close to the rate of
inflation, albeit with various internal adjustments reflecting the move towards
Oyster Cards. The revenue figures illustrated above were partly boosted in
2004 by recovery from the Central Line problems the previous year. They also
benefited from switching of Travelcard season ticket sales from the train

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

63

4. Public transportcompanies to Underground stations to allow them to be issued in Oyster
format. This will not have been reflected to the same extent in actual journeys
as the same journeys would have been made regardless of where the ticket
was bought.

July 2005 Variations
In July 2005 the daily congestion charge was increased from £5 to £8. TfL
considered that there would be little impact from this change on the number ofpassengers using the Underground and that any changes would not be
expected to be detectable within the trend data. In the event, any adjustment
was completely obscured by the impacts of the central London bombings.
Trends for 2005 can be analysed in more detail to understand these impacts.
Figure 4.4 shows the year-on-year changes for each of the most recent 12four-week monitoring periods. This indicates that prior to the July 2005
bombings there was a general increase in the number of passengers exiting
stations during the weekday morning peak period at stations in and aroundthe charging zone as well as across the whole network. In the periods
immediately following the bombings there was a pronounced decrease in thenumber of passengers, which slowly began to recover over more recent
periods. Generally, year-on-year changes for late 2005 and early 2006 do notindicate any visible trend that can be attributed to the July 2005 Variations.
Figure 4.4

Year-on-year changes in passenger exits from Underground stations inand around the charging zone, the rest of Fare Zone 1 and across thewhole network, during the morning peak (07.00 to 10.00).

15%

Year-on-year percentage change

Inside zone

Boundary

Remainder of Fare Zone 1

Whole Network

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

2005
Four-week period

64

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

-4
/2
8/
1

-7
/1

11
/1
2

-1
0/
12

13
/1
1

-1
2/
11

-1

5/
10

16
/1
0

-1
7/
9

18
/9

21
/8

-2
0/
8

24
/7

-2
3/
7

26
/6

-2
5/
6

29
/5

-2
8/
5
1/
5

-3
0/
4
3/
4

8/
3

-2
/4

-15%

2006

4. Public transport

4.4

Summary of key points

Bus patronage and service provision in relation to the charging zone were notmeasured directly in 2005. However, equivalent measurements looking at bus
travel to a wider definition of central London suggested that both patronage
and service provision during 2005 remained at levels comparable to 2004.
These, in turn, reflected improvements to bus service provision and increased
patronage in the previous years.
Bus service reliability, as measured by excess waiting time, continued to show
sustained improvement compared with pre-charging conditions, although
there was some suggestion that increased traffic congestion was beginning to
impact on service performance, both within the charging zone and more
widely across London.
Although the July 2005 bombings in central London caused substantial
immediate disruption to the public transport networks, all the indications arethat this was short-term. Patronage on the Underground to central London
recovered, both from this and from the comparative declines described inearlier reports, to stand in late 2005 only marginally below that seen in 2002
before the start of charging.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

65

5. Business and economic impacts

5

Business and economic impacts

5.1

Introduction

This section reviews and updates the available evidence relating to theimpacts of congestion charging on business and economic activity. It presents
the results of four years of research and monitoring of scheme impacts,
undertaken by Transport for London and Greater London Authority
Economics. A wide range of available data sets and techniques have beenutilised to establish and support the evidence base relating to the impacts ofthe scheme on business and economic activity in and around central London.
In contrast to the more immediate impacts of the scheme on traffic and travel
patterns, any effects on businesses would take some time to manifest
themselves and should not be considered in isolation from wider economic
trends and influences. A recent example was the July 2005 bombings incentral London that had impacts, albeit mostly short term, on many economic
activities. However, three years after the introduction of the scheme, nosignificant consequences of the charge on business activity in aggregate haveso far been identifiable in the available data.
Quantitative assessments of scheme impacts are critically limited by thequality and quantity of the available input data and the technical assumptions
that need to be made. Furthermore, the business impacts of congestion
charging are a mixture of both positive and negative effects, and disentanglingthese creates further complexities. TfL have therefore used the widest
possible range of evidence to build as full and comprehensive assessment as
is currently possible.
This has been recognised in an independent review of the economic andbusiness impacts monitoring work that was undertaken by Ernst & Young.
Having reviewed the underlying data and methodology employed by TfL and
the GLA, Ernst & Young concluded that the assessment is reasonable thatcongestion charging, with a £5 charge, has had a broadly neutral impact on
the business economy of central London.

Key findings from previous reports
TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report concluded that:x

The introduction of congestion charging in February 2003 coincided with atemporary economic slowdown, as well as a wider set of local, national
and international conditions that were not favourable to general economic
performance.

x

Analysis of several different indicators of economic performance, including
measures of business population and turnover, profitability and property
market trends did not reveal evidence of a significant congestion charging
impact.

x

There was evidence of a recovery in the economic performance of central
London during 2004, in line with wider national trends.

66

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
xStudies of retail trends and an econometric analysis of the impact ofcongestion charging on sales at the Oxford Street branch of John Lewis
suggested that the scheme had no measurable effect on central London
retail sales.

x

Shops in the inner core of the charging zone saw an improvement in theirrental values and rental yields fell faster within the zone relative to the restof Inner London, suggesting a positive outlook for retailing within the zone.

x

TfL’s business surveys for 2004 showed a continued recognition of thetransport benefits associated with the scheme.

Key findings for 2005x

The growth of the London economy remained positive despite the effects
of bombings in central London in July 2005.

x

Businesses performance in the charging zone was significantly better thanin the rest of London, particularly in terms of profitability and productivity.

x

Updated analysis of comparative trends in various indicators of businessperformance, including change in jobs, business populations and turnovercontinue to show no evidence of differential effects between the charging
zone and comparator locations that might be indicative of a congestion
charging effect, either positive or negative, on aggregate businessperformance in central London.

x

Trends in business registrations for VAT and appeals relating to businessrates in central London do not point to a significant congestion charging
impact on businesses in central London.

x

Although year-on-year retail sales in central London saw a sharp decline
throughout the July to September 2005 period, by early 2006 this trend
was reversed resulting in full recovery with annual growth rates above
those being seen in the rest of the UK.

xWithin the charging zone, the retail sector has increased its share ofenterprises and employment since 2003.

x

The majority of charging zone businesses continue to recognise that
decongestion had created a more pleasant working environment andeasier journeys for employees using public transport for work.

x

Amongst businesses in the charging zone as a whole, there were more
supporters of the congestion charge than opponents.

x

An independent review of the monitoring of the economic and business
impacts of congestion charging reported that it was reasonable toconclude that the £5 congestion charge had had a broadly neutral impact
on the central London economy.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200667

5. Business and economic impacts

5.2

Ernst & Young review

Ernst & Young were commissioned to provide an independent review of themonitoring of the business and economic impacts of the central London
congestion charging scheme to ensure that the conclusions are objective androbust.
The report is available at www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit.
This independent review is based on the analysis of the business andeconomic impacts monitoring, as presented in TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring
Report. Their approach was to review the overall economic framework used to
guide the analysis, as well as the specific analyses used in the report, to test
and populate the framework.
This review found that the conclusion is reasonable that congestion charging
with a £5 charge has had a broadly neutral impact on the central London
economy. It was also noted that congestion charging had only been in
operation for two and a half years (at the Ernst & Young review date), and that
it was therefore difficult to make a definitive conclusions on its impact at thatstage.
The review also made recommendations as to how the work could be
improved in the future. TfL accepts these recommendations, and the planningof future business and economic impact research will follow therecommendations as closely as possible. TfL and the GLA will continue towork closely to ensure that the impact of charging schemes and wider
economic trends and influences affecting London’s economy are understoodas they affect stakeholders and business activities within the central London
area.

5.3

Recent trends in the London economy

Recent economic trends show that business performance in London in
general has been good over the past two years, albeit with a slowing ofgrowth in 2005 compared to 2004. To better understand the specific impacts
of congestion charging, it is necessary to examine the extent to whichbusiness performance in the charging zone differs from that in comparable
areas and sectors.
The business sector profile of the charging zone compared with that ofGreater London as a whole is shown in Table 5.1. This section looks atavailable indicators of overall economic change across the period consideredby the TfL monitoring, making comparisons between the economic
performance of the charging zone and that of Greater London as a whole.

Employee jobs and business units
A comparison of employee jobs (self-employed are not included) andbusiness units (sites not companies) in the charging zone and Greater London

68

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

is available using data from the Annual Business Inquiry. The latest data forGreater London are for 2004 and were published in December 2005. A
postcode based definition was used for the charging zone.
Table 5.1 shows that, for 2004, financial and business services accounted forthe highest percentage of jobs in both the charging zone (49 percent) and inGreater London (32 percent). Education and health accounted for the second
highest proportion in both areas, although the Greater London proportion was
double that of the charging zone.
Other sectors where the proportion was significantly higher in Greater London
than in the charging zone included retail, manufacturing, wholesale andconstruction. Four sectors in the charging zone account for less than 4
percent of total employees, these being manufacturing, wholesale,construction and primary/utilities sectors, whereas only the construction andthe primary and utilities sectors fall within this bracket in Greater London.
Table 5.1

Employee jobs by business sector in 2004.
Charging zone

Greater London

Employee
jobs

Percentage ofzone jobs

Employee
jobs

Percentage
of jobs

Financial and businessservices

605,00049%

1,250,000

32%

Education and health

100,000

8%

666,000

17%

Other services

97,0008%

275,000

7%

Hotels and restaurants

96,0008%

289,000

7%

Transport andcommunication

87,0007%305,000

8%

Public administration

86,0007%

230,000

6%

Retail

74,0006%

380,000

10%

Manufacturing

41,0003%

216,000

6%Wholesale

34,0003%

212,000

5%

Construction

14,000

1%

119,000

3%

Primary and utilities

3,000

0%

11,0000%

Sector

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.
Note: The definitions used above for the charging zone includes postcode sectors that wereomitted from previous definitions, such as those sectors which fall partially in the zone. As aresult, the 2005 data above are not directly comparable to the data published in TfL’s Third
Annual Monitoring Report.

Figure 5.1 shows a similar pattern in terms of business units. In 2004 thefinancial and business services sector accounted for the largest proportion ofbusiness in Greater London (40 percent) and even more so in the charging
zone (56 percent of business units). ‘Other services’ was the second mostsignificant sector in both areas, at 11 percent of business units.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

69

5. Business and economic impacts

The retail sector accounted for the third highest proportion of business units inboth areas, although the proportion is higher in Greater London (11 percent)than in the charging zone (7 percent). In both areas, each of the educationand health, transport and communications, and public administration sectors
account for a smaller proportion of total business units when compared to the
proportion of total employees. This is not surprising, given that theseindustries are characterised by a large number of employees per businesssite.
Figure 5.1

Business units by business sector in 2004.

60%
Charging zone
Greater London
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Fi
n

an
ci

Re
ta
M
il
an
uf
ac
tu
r in
g
W
ho
le
sa
le
Co
ns
tru
Pr
ct
io
im
n
ar
y
&
ut
ilit
ie
s

al
&

bu
sin
es
s
se
Ed
rv
ice
uc
at
s
io
n
&
he
al
O
th
th
er
se
Ho
rv
te
ic
l
es
s
Tr
&
an
r
es
sp
ta
or
ur
t&
an
co
ts
m
m
u
Pu
ni
ca
bl
ic
t io
ad
n
m
in
ist
ra
tio
n

0%

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.

Recent economic trends
During 2002, prior to the introduction of congestion charging, London’s
economy suffered a period of declining output, as shown in Figure 5.2. Since
2003, however, there has been positive economic growth in London and thiscontinued to be the case in 2005.

70

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.2

Change in Gross Value Added, Greater London and UK.

7

Percentage annual change in real GVA

Charging starts

London
UK

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

2005 q2

2004 q2

2003 q2

2002 q2

2001 q2

2000 q2

1999 q2

1998 q2

1997 q2

1996 q2

1995 q2

1994 q2

1993 q2

1992 q2

1991 q2

1990 q2

1989 q2

1988 q2

1987 q2

1986 q2

1985 q2

1984 q2

1983 q2-4

Source: Experian Business Strategies.

During 2005, the rate of economic growth in London slowed in comparison to
the end of 2004, largely due to a slowdown in consumer spending that
occurred both across London and the UK during the year. Lower house priceinflation and high levels of consumer debt were key factors in this reduced
spending and the Bank of England responded by reducing interest rates to 4.5
percent in August 2005 from the previous level of 4.75 percent.
Table 5.2

Recent economic indicators, percentage change year-on-year.

London Gross Value Added
London employment
Household expenditure

2003

2004

2005

1.2
0.8
-0.2

2.4
-0.6
2.9

2.1
1.4
1.5

2006
projections
2.7
0.8
1.9

Source: GLA Economics: London’s Economic Outlook: Spring 2006.

The London economy in 2005 also had to withstand the impacts of the July
2005 bombings. In economic terms, the consequences were most severe in
the tourism sector with a lower than expected number of visits to London
during the second half of 2005 from both domestic and international tourists.
Despite the bombings, however, international visitor numbers to London over
the whole of 2005 still showed a net increase over 2004 and are expected toincrease further in 2006.
In the retail sector, meanwhile, the bombings led to retail sales in central
London dropping sharply year-on-year throughout the July to September 2005
period. However, this downturn in central London retail was short-lived, andFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200671

5. Business and economic impacts

by early 2006, year-on-year retail sales in central London activity had not only
fully recovered but annualised growth rates had risen to significantly above
those being seen in the rest of the UK.
The outlook for 2006 is therefore positive, with London currently outperforming
the rest of the UK in terms of growth in output, growth in employment andgrowth in the value of retail sales. One of the reasons for this is that services
are outperforming manufacturing, and London has a more service based
economy than the rest of the UK. Growth in the financial and businessservices sector is particularly important for London and this key sector grewstrongly in the UK during the fourth quarter of 2005.

5.4

Assessments of business change

A research programme was designed to draw on as many detailed business
related datasets as possible to look for signs of impacts from congestion
charging. At the level of geographic and business category disaggregationthat is necessary to investigate the impacts of congestion charging, no
existing single dataset will be able to deliver truly robust results. However, byanalysing a number of different data sources, if they show comparable results,
we can be more confident that any inferences are correct.
The main data sources used in this research were:x

The Annual Business Inquiry – Official data from the Office for National
Statistics that enable comparison of employment and business units at a
relatively fine level of geographic and business sector disaggregation.

x

The Beta Model – A private consultancy which uses a proprietarydatabase of businesses based on Yell PLC’s Yellow Pages BusinessDirectories. It includes 90 percent of organisations in the UK with abusiness tariff telephone line.

x

The Dun & Bradstreet database of businesses – A commercial database
containing individual records for most businesses and workplaces in the
UK. The database is generated from Companies House and Thomson
Directories and is subject to continuous updating through telephone
contact.

x

The London Development Agency/Business Link for London/London
Annual Business Survey – First conducted in 2003, this annual survey withan achieved sample size of over 4,000 private sector businesses provides
an additional, independent source of data.

The common approach of all these studies has been to compare businessperformance inside the congestion charging zone with business performanceoutside the zone, both before and after the introduction of the scheme. This ismeasured by such variables as number of businesses or sites and numbers of
employees, sales and profits.
The conclusion from all the studies, updated for this report to include data for
2004, is that it remains difficult to discern any significant impact on business72

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

performance from congestion charging. Again, as previously reported, given
the limitations of the data on the £5 charge and the hypothesis tests these
allow, the most reliable conclusion is that overall, in net terms, business has
not been measurably affected, either positively or negatively, by congestion
charging in central London.
The following summarises the results of the updated studies under thisheading.

Annual Business Inquiry
The Annual Business Inquiry is an annual survey conducted by the Office for
National Statistics. It has two parts – one which concentrates on employee
and site data and another that focuses on financial information. As in previous
TfL reports, this analysis restricts itself to the employee and site data sincethese data can be obtained at a detailed enough geographic level to separate
the congestion charging zone from the rest of inner London. Detailed data for2004 became available at the end of December 2005.
The data were obtained at postcode sector level and a postcode sector based
definition of the charging zone was used for this analysis. As postcode sectors
change over time, ideally there would be a postcode sector definition for the
charging zone for every year of analysis. These data are not readily available,
so the approach taken is to use the latest postcode sector definition and fix
this for all years. In this report the definition used has therefore included somepostcode sectors which were omitted from previous definitions, such as those
postcode sectors which fall only partially within the charging zone. As a result,the data look different from last year and therefore the figures published in thisreport are not directly comparable to previous reports, particularly wherepercentage changes are considered.
Previous analysis has been developed by extending the period of analysis,
which now goes back to 2000 and extends to 2004. In this way, trends inlevels of employee jobs and business units can be used to assess whether
congestion charging has had any measurable impact on the London
economy.
Given that it is difficult to separate out a potential ‘congestion charge effect’
from any other influence on the economy, the approach here has been to
apply a strict test, ie there must exist notable shifts in relative trends aroundthe period of the introduction of the charge in early 2003 in order to say that
there is likely to have been an impact of the £5 charge on business activity. Itshould be noted however that even if such notable shifts are observed, they
are not a definitive indication of an effect – the shifts in trends could havebeen caused by some other economic factor. A summary of the analysis ispresented below.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200673

5. Business and economic impacts

Employee jobs
Figure 5.3 shows annual percentage change in employee jobs compared to
one year earlier for the charging zone and a control area, in this case the ‘restof Inner London’.
Figure 5.3 also charts relative performance – the difference between
percentage change in the charging zone in employee jobs against the control
area for all years. A positive figure means the charging zone out-performed
the control area and a negative figure implies the opposite. Annual
percentage change begins positively in both areas, growing by 2.4 percent in
the charging zone and 3.7 percent in the rest of Inner London in 2000
compared to 1999. However, the figures worsen for both areas in 2001 (-0.9
percent in the charging zone and 0 percent in the control area), and fall further
in 2002 (-2.6 percent in the charging zone, -0.7 percent in the control area).
From 2003, change in employee jobs becomes positive for the control area,
but remains negative in the charging zone.
The control zone has therefore increasingly performed better then the
charging zone in terms of employee jobs across the available time-series.
This cannot be interpreted as a negative effect of the scheme because thepattern is observed before the scheme was introduced, suggesting that theunder-performance is likely to be a result of other factors (such as the
economic cycle), and not congestion charging itself. Therefore, there is noevidence from this analysis that the scheme has had a net aggregate impact
on employee jobs in the charging zone.

74

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.3

Annual percentage change in aggregate employee jobs. Charging zone
relative to rest of inner London.

4%

2000
2001
2002

3%
Annual change in employee jobs

2003
2004
2%

1%

0%

-1%

-2%

-3%
Charging zone

Rest of inner London

Relative performance

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.
Note: ‘inner London’ was defined as the following boroughs – Camden, City of London,
Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth,
Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, and Westminster. The ‘rest of
inner London’ was defined as ‘inner London’ minus the congestion charging zone.

Business sites
The same analysis has been performed for business sites. Figure 5.4 shows
the percentage change in the number of business units for the charging zone
and the control area. Prior to the introduction of the scheme in 2000 and
2001, the charging zone performed better than the control area. Although thenumber of aggregate business sites within the charging zone grew by less in2001, compared to 2000, the growth rate remained positive. A similar decline
in the control area however represented a fall in the number of business sites
in 2001. The charging zone under-performed the control area in 2002, but thepattern reversed in 2003, with significantly larger falls in the control area thanin the charging zone. In 2004, the relationship switched again, with the control
area out-performing the charging zone, despite both changes being negative.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200675

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.4

Annual percentage change in aggregate number of business sites.
Charging zone relative to rest of inner London.

2.0%

Annual change in number of business units

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

-0.5%

-1.0%

-1.5%
Charging zone

Rest of inner London

Relative performance

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.

Looking at relative performance, the fall in 2004 may be interpreted as anegative effect of the scheme on the number of business units in the charging
zone. However, given that a similar pattern existed in 2002 (and that 2003
shows strong relative over-performance), such an interpretation is unlikely to
be correct. Therefore, there is no firm evidence here to suggest a significant
effect of congestion charging on the aggregate number of business units inthe charging zone.
Changes by business sector
Breaking down the data by business sector leads to similar conclusions.
Annual changes in employee jobs and business units by business sector havebeen used to analyse trends in relative performance for all business sectors
for the period 2000-2004, using the same approach as above.
For the majority of sectors, there are no patterns that indicate a possible
congestion charging effect. Figure 5.5 shows trends in relative performancefor the charging zone, compared to the rest of inner London, for six of these
sectors. In the retail sector, although the charging zone under-performs thecontrol area in 2004 in terms of change in employee jobs, this trend existed in
all the years previous to the introduction of the charge (2000-2002). In the
hotel and restaurants sector, the charging zone out-performed the control
zone in 2004 in terms of change in employee jobs. However, it is equallyunlikely that this improvement is due to the scheme, because 2004 is in line

76

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

with the observed trend of improvement in relative performance over thewhole period.
Figure 5.5

Relative performance for selected business sectors in the congestion
charging zone compared to the rest of inner London.

9%
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

7%
5%
3%
1%
-1%
-3%
-5%
-7%
Relative performance by
employee jobs

Relative performance bybusiness units-9%
RetailHotels andrestaurants

Wholesale

Manufacturing

Education

Construction

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.

Only four sectors exhibited trends in relative performance that may indicate apossible congestion charging effect. In the education and in the construction
sectors, there were switches in trends of relative performance (in terms ofbusiness units) after 2002, indicating that negative net impacts cannot be
ruled out in these sectors. This could also be said in the wholesale and the
manufacturing sectors (in terms of employee jobs), although the patterns are
weaker – for the wholesale sector, because of the positive relative
performance observed in 2004, and for the manufacturing sector because of
the positive performance observed in 2003.
Overall, although negative impacts in some sectors cannot be ruled out fromthis source, there is no firm evidence in the majority of sectors of any
significant congestion charge effect.
Changes by company size
Figure 5.6 charts the relative performance and annual growth in the number ofbusiness sites in the charging zone relative to the rest of inner London. The
analysis is broken down by company size.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200677

5. Business and economic impacts

Aside from those companies with 200 or more employees, there are no
patterns in the trends of relative performance which indicate a possible
negative impact of the congestion charge. The switch in the trend for thosecompanies with 200 or more employees may indicate a possible congestion
charging effect, although the strong relative over-performance in 2000 and thesubsequent downward trend in 2001 do not support this.
The most reliable inference from this analysis – and the similar analysis basedon changes in employee jobs – is that, although we cannot rule out negative
impacts for those companies with 200 or more employees, for the most part
there is no evidence that congestion charging has disproportionately affected
any particular size of business in the charging zone.
Figure 5.6

Relative performance in terms of business units, by company size,
congestion charging zone compared to the rest of inner London.

8%

2000

Annual change in number of business units

2001
2002
2003

6%

2004
4%

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

-6%

-8%
1 to 45 to 1011 to 49

50 to 199

200 +Number of employees per business unit

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics, December 2005.

The Beta Model
The company The Beta Model was again commissioned to update its previous
analysis of business turnover and dynamics in the charging zone relative toother areas. The Beta Model uses data from the Experian Business Strategies
National Business Database, which includes information on approximately 2.4
million individual UK businesses.
Data for the period April 2004 to April 2005 were compared to data covering
the whole period from April 2000 to April 2004 to assess whether recent

78

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

changes were part of a longer-term trend, or whether they were potentially
new trends which might be an effect of congestion charging. Additionally, thedata from the congestion charging zone were compared to other areas,
including specific control areas in London and the UK to assess how changes
observed in the charging zone compare with those observed in othergeographic areas.
Within this analysis the congestion charge could be said to have potentially
had an impact on business activity if it has coincided with a departure fromlonger-term trends and if such a departure had not also been replicated in therest of the London or UK economy. In other words, this analysis is seeking to
identify changes in longer term trends that have occurred specifically within
the congestion charging zone and not elsewhere.
The results show that the congestion charge zone had a declining share ofenterprise from April 2004 to April 2005 compared to London as a whole. This
did not represent any major change in absolute numbers of enterprises in thezone but rather reflected the fact that the rate of business formations in areasof London outside the charging zone was higher than that in the charging
zone. This is a continuation of a longer term trend that predates theintroduction of the scheme. It is also comparable to the trend in the other UK
inner city benchmark area studied. As such, there is no evidence to suggestthat the congestion charge has had a measurable effect in either direction
upon enterprise in the charging zone since its introduction.
In terms of individual business sectors, financial services in the charging zone
had a declining share of overall numbers of enterprises compared to London
as a whole and also compared to the UK. This was mainly due to a fallingshare of formations in small enterprises of one to five employees in this sector
within the charging zone. Furthermore, there is some evidence that this fall inshare has been higher since April 2003. Another sector that has seen adecline in enterprise not anticipated by previous trends is the bars andrestaurants sector, which witnessed a decline in its share of charging zone
enterprises in 2005.
By contrast, the retail sector in the charging zone has increased both its shareof enterprises and its share of employment over the period April 2003 to April
2005 relative to both the rest of London and the UK. As such, it has been themost successful of the six individual business sectors studied, according to
The Beta Model, over the period since the introduction of congestion charging.

Dun & Bradstreet
One of the advantages of the Dun & Bradstreet database of businesses is thatit contains data on turnover which is difficult to get from other sources at sucha detailed geographic level. However, companies report this at a company
level and it is not possible to get these data separately for individual sites.
Hence, organisations will report turnover for the group as a whole and it is notpossible to get separate data on only that portion of turnover that was
generated within the congestion charging zone.
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

79

5. Business and economic impacts

The strategy adopted to try to get around this problem was to exclude fromthe analysis companies with a turnover of over £1 million, as separate
evidence has shown that most companies below this threshold are likely to be
single site companies and so the effects captured would be most closely
associated with the charging zone. However, this does exclude quite a large
proportion of central London businesses. Also, an analysis of change in
profitability is not included this year due to statistical issues with theprofitability data in the Dun & Bradstreet sample.
The Dun & Bradstreet cross-sectional analysis focuses on location andbusiness sector to reflect the performance trends of businesses within the
charging zone compared with locations outside of the zone. As Figure 5.7
shows, the comparator locations are the forthcoming western extension to thecentral London congestion charging zone, the rest of inner London and outer
London. Camden and Docklands are used as comparator locations for theretail sector and the financial and business services sector respectively.
Figure 5.7

Dun & Bradstreet time-series analysis: area definitions.

One of the factors that affects turnover of individual businesses is corporate
restructuring events, such as takeovers or mergers. These can result in verylarge increases in turnover that do not reflect underlying performance. To
minimise these impacts the top and bottom 5 percent of the distribution are
also excluded from the analysis.
The results are presented in Table 5.3. These show that, overall, the charging
zone with a £5 charge has performed better than comparable areas outside

80

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

the zone. Retail activity in the charging zone does better than both the rest of
inner and outer London.
Table 5.3

Change in sales (percentage change 2003 to 2004): business with lessthan £1 million turnover excluding top and bottom 5 percent.
Charging zone

Number of businesses
Financial and business services
Hotels and restaurants
Manufacturing & construction
Other services
Public administration
RetailTransport & communications
Wholesale & other distribution
Total change in sales

1223
+5.5
+0.3
+3.0
+5.3
+10.2
+6.0
+8.1
-3.5
+4.7

Other inner
London
1536
+8.7
-5.8
+1.5
+6.4
+1.8
+1.9
+0.1
+2.5
+3.7

Other outer
London
1807
+2.4
-1.2
+5.7
+4.1
+6.3
+0.1
+4.0
0.0
+2.9

Note: The sample size for the 2003-4 analysis is smaller than that for the previous year
because data for the latest year were not available for all businesses.

London Annual Business Survey
The London Development Agency and Business Link for London introduced alarge scale survey of businesses in London in 2003. The third London Annual
Business Survey was conducted in 2005. The survey consisted of telephoneinterviews with an achieved sample of over 4,000 private-sector businesses.
GLA Economics has again analysed the results, splitting the respondents into
those based inside the charging zone and comparing these to businesses
based in the rest of central London. The achieved sample for the charging
zone was around 480 businesses, whilst that for central London, excluding thecharging zone, was around 400.
Figure 5.8 shows the balance of businesses reporting increased versus
decreased business performance across indicators such as turnover,profitability, productivity and employment. These data show that businesses
within the charging zone appear to have performed significantly better thanbusinesses in the rest of central London, particularly in terms of their ability toincrease turnover, profitability and productivity. This suggests that the
charging zone was a successful location for business in 2004-2005. No
negative effects of the congestion charge can be detected from this particular
data source.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200681

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.8

Business performance in the charging zone and the rest of central
London.

50%
Charging zone

Central London (excluding charging zone)

Balance (percentage increase minus decrease)

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Turnover

Profitability

Productivity

Employment

Source: London Development Agency and Business Link for London, London Annual
Business Survey 2005.
Note: Survey conducted in Summer 2005. Response refers to change over the previous 12
months. Central London is here defined as the eight central boroughs – Camden, City of
London, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth andWestminster.

Business rates
Businesses and other occupiers of non-domestic property contribute towards
the costs of local authority services through non-domestic rates, commonly
known as business rates. The rates are assessed by the Valuations Office
Agency, an executive agency of the Inland Revenue, who assess the rental
values for commercial properties as a basis for establishing the ‘rateablevalues’ for individual businesses within specified geographic regions.
The rateable value is based on the rental value of commercial property at a
set valuation date, called the ‘antecedent valuation date’. It is then assessedby the Valuations Office Agency and used by Local Authorities to calculate therates payable by ratepayers. The ratings are assessed every five years andthe most recent assessment took place in April 2005.
Appeals for alterations of the ratings assessments of properties can be madewhere there has been a material change in circumstances which affect thevalue of a property. This includes changes to the physical state or use of aproperty, changes in the local area affecting a property, and changes in theuse of a neighbouring property.

82

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

The Valuations Office Agency has received over 10,000 appeals against the
rating assessments of properties potentially affected by the congestion
charging zone.
The appeals received to date have largely fallen within three categories,
namely appeals from offices, retailers and car parking businesses. As Table
5.4 indicates, the vast majority of these claims are from businesses in the Cityof Westminster and are primarily appeals from retailers, whilst appeals frombusinesses in the City of London were received mostly in relation to offices
and car parking businesses.
To date, the evidence presented to the Valuations Office Agency has notsupported a reduction in the rateable value of properties on the grounds ofcongestion charging, due to a lack of evidence to support this. As a result, thenumber of such appeals has significantly fallen, with some businesses
choosing to withdraw appeals. The average proportion of all appeals citing
congestion charging as a factor for reducing rateable values of businessproperties has been about 12 percent, with the proportion for individual
boroughs varying between 2 and 30 percent.
Table 5.4

Appeals against the rateable value of properties which cite congestion
charging as a ground for appeal since 2004.

Borough
City of London
Hackney
Hammersmith & Fulham
Kensington & Chelsea
Islington
Tower Hamlets
NewhamCamdenCity of Westminster
Total

Appeals received
3322
248
112
265
963
474
90
96
4622
10192

Outstanding appeals
27
8
0
0
12
0
0
2
118
167

Source: Valuations Office Agency, February 2006.

VAT Registrations
VAT registration data have been analysed for 2003 and 2004 to provide anindicator of the number of new businesses starting up within the congestion
charging zone. This analysis looks at business VAT registrations, businessderegistrations and the net number of businesses registered in the area since
1994. It considers the hypothesis that a negative impact of congestion
charging would be consistent with fewer new business start-ups, resulting in a
decline in the net number of registered businesses in the area.
It should be noted that not all businesses are registered for VAT, and that the
turnover threshold at which registration is required is adjusted each year.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200683

5. Business and economic impacts

Also, business deregistration may be a consequence of business take-overs
and restructuring, not necessarily signifying business closure.
Underlying trends related to the economic cycle in Greater London have beentaken into account in this analysis. Additionally, the key business sectors
within London are examined to assess differential business performance. To
obtain a spatial disaggregation of these data that is appropriate for monitoring
the effects of the congestion charging scheme, Greater London has been split
into three areas as shown in Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.9

VAT registration data analysis: area definitions within Greater London.

Figure 5.10 shows the total stock of VAT registered businesses in London by
area, from 1994 to 2004. Over the 10 year period there has been a steady
growth in the number of businesses in all areas. The growth has slowed inrecent years, with the total number of businesses remaining constant in both2003 and 2004. The trends in the number of VAT registered businesses havebeen similar across all three areas of London.

84

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.10

Total VAT registered businesses by area.

Total VAT registered businesses by area

150,000

125,000

100,000

75,00050,00025,000

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

Charging zone

1998

1999

2000

Boundary boroughs

2001

2002

2003

2004

Rest of London

Since 1997 business VAT deregistrations in the charging zone have beenslowly creeping up. Figure 5.11 also shows that 2004 saw more businesses
deregister than register across all of Greater London for the first time in 10
years. This is a culmination of the trend since 1997.
Figure 5.11

Greater London and charging zone business registrations andderegistrations compared.

40,000Total VAT registered businesses by area

35,00030,00025,000Greater London registrations
Greater London deregistrations

20,000Charging zone registrations
Charging zone deregistrations

15,00010,000

5,000

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

2004

85

5. Business and economic impacts

Figure 5.12 shows that in 2004 the deregistration rate in the charging zone
had increased to around 12 percent, which was significantly higher than therate of business registrations in the same period.
Figure 5.12

Charging zone VAT registration and deregistration rates.

14%

VAT registration and deregistration rates

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

Registration rate
Deregistration rate

0%
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

In 2004 there was a net change of -0.7 percent for overall businessregistrations in the charging zone. This represents a net loss of 211
businesses. The net change is calculated by taking the total change in thenumber of VAT registered businesses as a percentage of total business stock.
Figure 5.13 shows the change in registered businesses by sector in the
charging zone and indicates that these losses were largely from the primaryindustries sector, the wholesale and retail sector and the public service sector.
Although the primary industries sector and the wholesale and retail sector saw
the highest negative difference in the number of businesses, the relative sizeof these sectors should be considered. A drop of 9 percent in the primarysector represents a loss of 139 businesses from a total of over 30,000 totalbusinesses within the charging zone.

86

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.13

Turnover in VAT registered businesses within the charging zone, bybusiness sector in 2004.

25%

Registration rate
Deregistration rate

20%

Difference (% points)

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%
Primary / otherFigure 5.14

Wholesale & retail

Hotels &restaurants

Transport &communications

Financial & property
services

Public services

Turnover in VAT registered businesses within Greater London,
excluding the charging zone, by business sector in 2004.

20%

Registration rate
Deregistration rate
Difference (% points)

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%
Primary / other

Wholesale & retail

Hotels & restaurants

Transport &communications

Financial & property
services

Public services

Overall, the analysis of VAT registration data for 2003 and 2004 suggests that
there is no noticeable congestion charging impact on business start-ups andclosures within the zone as the performance here has largely mirrored that ofbusinesses in the rest of London.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200687

5. Business and economic impacts

Recent retail trends
The congestion charging scheme is likely to have both positive and negative
impacts on the retail sector in central London. Improvements to bus services
to, from and within the charging zone could encourage shoppers. However,some car borne shoppers could transfer to shopping locations outside thezone and the overall effects of the charge will be to reduce the disposable
income of a small proportion of those shopping inside the charging zone.
Trends in retail activity are also likely to reflect effects such as the growth ofinternet shopping and the attraction of new shopping locations away from
central London.
Figure 5.15 shows the percentage change in year-on-year retail sales value
for central London and the UK as a whole to February 2006. It can be seenthat retail sales in London are more volatile than in the UK as a whole. Before
the introduction of congestion charging, central London retail sales growthdeclined and became negative. However, this was followed by a recovery anda period of mainly positive annual growth ensued until Summer 2004, with arelatively stable trend thereafter.
The July 2005 bombings in central London caused significant falls in retailsales value in July and August 2005, but this was then followed by a period ofstrong recovery, suggesting that the bombings have had no lasting effect, in
terms of retail sales value.
The relative stability of the trend for retail sales value in London across theperiod covered by Figure 5.15 suggests that congestion charging has not hada significant effect, as the £5 charge was introduced in February 2003, postdating the fall which affected central London retail over the Winter of 2002/3.
In addition, the strong recovery in year-on year retail sales from September
2005 suggests that any effect of the increase of the charge increase in July
2005 to £8 has been short-lived.

88

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.15

Percentage change in year-on-year retail sales value (including
weekends).
Central London like-for-like sales

UK like-for-like sales

10
Charging starts

July 2005 bombings

8

4
2
0
-2

Oct 02Nov
Dec
Jan 03
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 04
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 05
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 06
Feb

Year-on-year percentage change

6

-4
-6
-8
-10
-12

Source: London Retail Consortium: London Retail Sales Monitor, February 2006.

Figure 5.16 shows trends in retail footfall for the charging zone and the UK asa whole. Retail footfall is a measurement of the number of people passing
survey points in a retail area. The index therefore reflects the level of potential
shoppers rather than actual retail sales. It is defined as the percentagechange in year-on-year retail traffic, as measured by the SPSL Retail Traffic
Index.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200689

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.16

Percentage change in year-on-year retail traffic.
Charging Zone

15%

Charging starts

UK
July 2005 bombings

5%

0%

-5%

Jan-03
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan-04
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan-05
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan-06
Feb

Year-on-year percentage change

10%

-10%

-15%

-20%

Source: SPSL Retail Traffic Index.

Figure 5.16 shows that:x

Trends in retail footfall are more volatile in the charging zone than in the
UK as a whole.

x

The charging zone under-performed the rest of the UK for the majority of
2003, but then out-performed the UK towards the end of 2003 and formuch of 2004.

x

For much of 2005, retail footfall showed a decline for the charging zone aswell as for the UK. It should be noted that the big year-on-year drop during
the period July to October 2005 almost certainly reflected the July 2005
bombings in central London, rather than the increase of the charge to £8.
The strong recovery in year-on-year shopper numbers from November
2005 suggests that the bombings and any effect of the charge increase to£8 have not had a lasting effect on retail trends in the charging zone.

x

In early 2006 the charging zone significantly outperformed the UK in termsof growth in shopper numbers.

Recent commercial property price trends
Rental growth and yield movements provide a useful way of estimating theimpact of congestion charging on the commercial property market. This islargely a measure of investor sentiment.
Positive yield movements occur when the growth in the rental value of
properties is strong and the rental yields, or rental property stock levels,
decrease. This is described as a ‘falling rental yield’ and it implies an increase
in investor optimism as there are less vacant rental properties available,

90

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

indicating increased rental demand. If, for example, the congestion charge
has had a negative impact on the market and made being based inside thecharging zone less attractive, this would be apparent in a fall in rental values
and an increase in yields inside the charging zone compared with outside thezone, coinciding with the timing of the introduction of the scheme.
Therefore, to assess whether the congestion charge has had a material
impact on either property demand, or sentiment amongst investors,
comparisons need to be made against property trends prior to and since theintroduction of the scheme and against appropriate control areas. This has
been done by the Investment Property Databank who use their database ofproperty prices to monitor relative growth trends.
Retail and office rental growth rates and yield values were examined in two
locations – the area situated within 1 kilometre inside the charging zone
boundary and the inner core of the zone (1 kilometre or more inside the zone),as shown in Figure 5.17. These are both referred to as ‘inside the zone’. The
yield values are the capital values of rental properties in core London markets.
These data were then compared with inner London outside the charging zone,
referred to as the rest of inner London.
Figure 5.17

Map of analysis areas for commercial property price trends – one
kilometre within zone, the inner core and inner London.

ne
zo
ge
r
ha
nc
t io
s
e
ng
Co

Source: Investment Property Databank Ltd (2005).

In 2003 strong investor demand had a powerful influence on retail and officeyields. Although retail rental growth in the charging zone was weak in both2003 and 2004, the analysis suggests that these trends predated the
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200691

5. Business and economic impacts

introduction of the scheme by three years, and were primarily due to weakinternational tourism. Also, the probable causes of weaker rental growth within
the zone were differences in occupier demand between the central London
business districts and businesses outside the zone in the rest of Inner
London, given that businesses outside the zone were less affected by the
global recession during 2003. The yield movement trends of 2003 werefavourable to properties within the charging zone, particularly for offices
closest to the boundary. Therefore, overall the relativities were not considered
to be consistent with congestion charging having had an impact on London
property prices.
Retail property price trends
Businesses in the inner core of the charging zone saw a small improvement intheir rental values in 2004, whilst those just inside the boundary experienced afurther small decline. Both areas under performed the rest of inner London.
Rental values on properties within the charging zone have under-performed
those just outside the zone every year since 2000. This is undoubtedly
attributable to the wider difficulties facing central London markets such as the
weak US dollar and a fall in international tourism.
The evidence for 2004 continues to be consistent with the previous
assessment that congestion charging may have had a small negative effecton retail rental values inside the zone.
Office property price trends
Office rental growth was variable in 2004. The West End experienced positive
office rental trends, indicating surprisingly fast growth, in contrast to thedecline in the City office rents in the same period. The inner London officemarket showed the strongest rate of office rental growth in 2004, although the2003 pattern of falling rental values continued just outside the charging zone.
The probable explanation for this variation is the differences in balance
between office supply and demand between core and fringe locations incentral London.
The central London office market experienced an unusual period of
discontinuity between rental values and yield movements in 2004. In recent
years central London rental values have fallen yet this has been accompanied
by falling yields. This situation has partly arisen due to the renewed
attractiveness of commercial properties in central London as an asset class.
Yield movements
Yield movements were promising for both shops and offices in 2004 withyields falling much faster. Positive, or falling, yield movements reflect a
decreased level of vacant offices and rental space which is an indicator of
productive business activity.
It is not therefore possible to isolate an impact of congestion charging on
property prices during 2004. Additional market trends, including investment,
tourism and international concerns, must be considered in determining
92

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

possible impacts of the congestion charge on property prices within the
charging zone.
The 2004 trend suggests that optimism is increasing in central London
property markets and rental yields fell faster inside the charging zone relative
to the rest of Inner London. The strength of investment demand in 2004 andthe targeting of the West End by investors will probably have been a factor as
to why capital values in central areas rose faster than the fringe locations.
This is consistent with the view that congestion charging did not have an
adverse impact on commercial property prices in central London.

5.5

TfL business surveys

The annual TfL London congestion charging business survey seeks to capture
and contextualise the reported impacts of congestion charging on a sample ofemployers within the charging zone. As an integral feature of the businessand monitoring framework since 2002, the annual business survey contributes
to the assessment of business attitudes towards congestion charging,although does not of itself provide robustly quantitative data on impacts.
In interpreting these findings, it needs to be recognised that at the date of thesurvey congestion charging had been in continuous operation for two and ahalf years. This means that reported changes since 2004 were most likely toreflect the operation of external factors. The survey also followed only threemonths after the July 2005 Variations and the bombings in central London.
This was perhaps too early for these effects to have fully worked through interms of business outcomes, but they probably remained fresh in the minds of
respondents.
The Autumn 2005 survey was conducted via telephone interviews withrepresentatives of 1,231 London businesses in the following locations:x

inside the central London congestion charging zone;xon the charging zone boundary (a 500 metre band both inside and outside
the zone);x

Docklands (a ‘control’ area for the financial and business services sector
only);

x

Camden (a ‘control’ area for retail businesses only).

In 2005 the Docklands and Camden control areas were used to help identify
general trends experienced by business sectors inside and outside thecharging zone. 100 businesses in the specific sector of interest were surveyed
in each control area.
The sample within the zone and on the boundary included a cross-section ofbusinesses, but focused on shops, restaurants, leisure businesses andwholesalers and distributors in order to provide robust comparisons forimportant sectors.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200693

5. Business and economic impacts

The sample was further stratified by six business sectors. Over-sampling insome sectors was then corrected by weighting the data at the analysis stage
to reflect the actual proportion of business in each sector based within thesurvey area. Figure 5.18 shows the weightings used for the survey data foreach business sector, such that the results quoted are representative of thegeneral business population of central London.
Figure 5.18

Business sector as a proportion of total business population for the TfL
central London business survey area.

7%
5%
2%
Retail24%

8%

Restaurants/cafes
Hotel and leisure
Wholesale and distribution
Financial

54%

Other

Key findings from this survey are considered below under the following
headings:x

benefits of decongestion;x

impact of congestion charging on business performance;x

views on costs to businesses;x

attitudes on transport issues;x

attitudes towards the congestion charging scheme.

Comparisons are made against results from previous surveys whereappropriate.

Benefits associated with decongestion
Figure 5.19 shows the extent to which surveyed businesses recognised thevarious benefits of decongestion. Comparisons are made against the 2004
survey where applicable. In general up to one third of businesses recognised
benefits such as the creation of a more pleasant working environment, easierpublic transport journeys for employees travelling to work and better
conditions for business-related travel activities, such as attending businessmeetings, customer and client visits and the transit of goods.

94

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.19

Percentage of businesses recognising various benefits associated with
reduced congestion, 2004 and 2005.
30%

More pleasant place to work
Easier journey for
employees using public
transport for work

26%

Easier to get to businessmeetings

26%

Easier for customers /clients to visit

25%

31%

19%
22%

Easier for suppliers todeliver27%
16%

Easier to send deliveries tocustomers

17%

Improved parking for clientsand customers

9%

Less stress for employers
travelling to work by car

8%

Reduced transportation anddelivery costs
0%6%2005 Wave 4

6%2004 Wave 3
5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Impact of congestion charging on business performance
Businesses commented on several aspects relating to their general
performance over the year, as well as the perceived impact of congestion
charging.
The survey sought feedback from commercial businesses in relation to theirsales turnover and profitability, costs and key influences on their businessperformance over the past year. As Figure 5.20 indicates, most of thecommercial business sectors within the charging zone stated that they saw anincrease in sales that was somewhat greater in 2005 than in 2004. The main
beneficiary of this was the financial and business services sector. A notable
exception was the leisure and hotel sector which reported deteriorating
average sales performance. This contrasts with the more general economic
trend data reported earlier, which indicated favourable trends in this sector,
and most likely reflected the perceived impacts of the July bombings bysurvey respondents, which were still relatively recent at the time of the survey.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

95

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.20

Change in sales or turnover at site compared with same period lastyear.

Charging Zone (931)

20

26

14

34

7

Boundary (300)

19

24

19

34

5

Docklands (100)12Camden (100)1028Retail (244)1417Restaurants/Cafes (125)13

21

Leisure/Hotels (76)

15

31

25

24

5

Distribution (130)

14

34

23

25

4

30

15

43

14

45

3

Charging Zone:

20

Financial (201)0%20%Decrease

41

25

25

Other (155)

43

8

40

22

4

19

5

7

29

10

29

7

40%

60%

80%

100%

Don't know

RefusedNo change

Increase

The majority of businesses that reported a decline in performance in 2005,
relative to their performance in the previous year, said that this was largely
due to general economic conditions. As Figure 5.21 indicates, there was a
decline in the proportion of businesses who said that congestion charging had
a negative impact on their sales trends. This provides a good indication of theshifting nature of economic influences on businesses and may be anindication of growing acceptance of the scheme.

96

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.21

Share of influences on businesses reporting decreased sales between
2003 and 2005, unprompted.
212005 (130)31Congestion charge
27

2004 (351)1
Closure of the Central Line 223Increased competition
7
2

2003 (140)24
21Tourism factors
1435
Economic conditions

19
51
2

Interest rate rises

8
Other

11
5
8
7

Other internal factors
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Notes: ‘Tourism factors’ includes terrorism and the war in Iraq. 2004 data have been revisedslightly from that previously published in TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report.

Commercial businesses were asked to identify the key influences on theirperformance over the last year. The question was asked unprompted andwithout restrictions on the number of answers given. The range of responses
to this question was more extensive than in 2004. Economic conditions andinternal factors continue to be common influences on business operations
within the charging zone. Congestion charging was identified as an influenceby 14 percent of respondents, although both the relative importance anddirection (either positive or negative) of these influences were notdimensioned here.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

97

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.22

Key influences on business performance of commercial businesses
within the charging zone.
Internal factors

17

Terrorism / bombings

16

UK economic conditions

14

London economic conditions

14

Congestion charge

14

Other

13

Economics conditions generally

12

Drop in consumer spending

9

European economic conditions

7

US economic conditions

6

Company re-structuring

4

Increased competition

4

Fall in tourism generally

3

Interest rate rises

3

Interest rate changes

2

The weather

2

Closure of the Central Line1

War in Iraq

1

Positive press coverage

1
0

5

10

%

15

Note: Responses were unprompted; multiple responses were possible. Influences may beeither positive or negative for business performance.

Respondents were also asked whether the increase in the charge from £5 to£8 in July 2005 had contributed to any noticeable changes to the amount ofstaff or vehicle journeys made within the charging zone. Figure 5.23 showsthat the overwhelming majority of businesses (82 percent) did not report any
change in the number of trips made. 13 percent of businesses reported thatthe charge increase had reduced their journeys in the charging zone. This
response is broadly comparable to the observed effects of the charge
increase on chargeable vehicle traffic within the charging zone.

98

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme20

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.23

Reported effect of £8 increase to congestion charge on the amount ofbusiness trips made by staff or vehicles based at the site.

Charging zone (931)5Boundary (300)7Retail (244)5Restaurants/Cafes (125)888Leisure/Hotels (76)311Distribution (130)58Financial (201)7

Other (155)

8

4

81

3

84

2

79

6

8

82

2

6

86
82

4

84
80

8

0%
Far fewer trips

6

20%
Slightly fewer trips

40%
No change

3
60%

Slightly more trips

80%
Far more trips

100%
Don't know

General business costs
Trends in business costs were more fully explored in 2005 to provide greater
insight into the relative financial and administrative cost implications ofcongestion charging for businesses.
In terms of general business costs, Figure 5.24 shows that around one third of
charging zone businesses reported significant cost increases between 2004
and 2005. Interestingly, the proportion for the Docklands and Camden control
areas reporting similar increases are quite different, reflecting the sectorspecific nature of businesses surveyed in these two locations.
The average annual percentage increase in costs reported by businesses
within the charging zone was 4.8 percent, whilst businesses in Camdenreported an average increase of 5.2 percent (retail and leisure businesses
only). This compares to a value of 2.9 percent for the Docklands control
sample (financial and business services only).
In terms of sectors within the charging zone, retail and leisure related
businesses tended to report greater cost increases than other businesses,
broadly reflecting these ‘control’ samples.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 200699

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.24

Change in overall business costs at site compared with same period
last year.

Charging Zone (931)327Boundary (300)

3

24

33

8

Docklands (100)

32

23

4

38

3

65

24

Camden (100)

34

4

56

15

4

Charging Zone:
Retail (244)715Restaurants/Cafes (125)914

Leisure/Hotels (76)11Distribution (130)

4

22

0%

20%
Decrease

27

24

40
40

40%
No change

4

23

40

24

3

21
42

31
4

28
52

26

Financial (201)
Other (155)

48

3
27

60%
Increase

4

80%
Don’t know

5100%
RefusedTransport costs and the congestion charge
It is important to note that the direct financial impact of congestion charging on
business cannot be greater than the value of charges (and, where applicable,
penalty charges) actually paid by businesses. This sets an upper bound that issmall when set against the overall value of the London economy.
The TfL business surveys explored this further, by seeking information from
respondents on the proportion of their total business costs that were related totransport and, as a further sub-division, the proportion of these transport costs
that were directly related to congestion charging. This is based on self
assessment by respondents to the survey and needs to be viewed in thiscontext, but does serve to dimension the role of congestion charging inchanging business costs.

100

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.25

Estimated proportion of business costs that are accounted for bytransport.

Charging zone (318)

48

17
55

Boundary (109)

12

4

13

6

9

6

9

8

13

Charging zone:
31

Retail (82)
Restaurants / Cafes (41)

21

24

16

12

12

13

12

0%

10%
Negligible

20%

21
30%

1% to 2%40%
3% to 5%50%

5% to 10%

4
10

10

10
60%

13
17

15

41

Other (61)

14

13

62

Financial (47)

8

20
21

36

Distribution (63)

23

25

49

Leisure / Hotels (24)

5

7

70%

8
15

80%

Over 10%

4
7

90%

100%

Don't know

Taking into account an effective non-response rate of about 25 percent to thisquestion, Figure 5.25 shows that, for just under one half of businesses,
transport costs are considered by respondents to be ‘negligible’. For theremainder, the proportion of total costs that were accounted for by transport
ranged up to over 20 percent, with retail and distribution related businesses
tending to report the higher proportions. Assuming reasonable mid-pointvalues for the ranges specified, this analysis suggests that, on average forbusinesses within the charging zone, transport costs typically account foraround 5 percent of total business costs.
Respondents were then asked to estimate the proportion of their totaltransport costs that were directly accounted for by the congestion charge(Figure 5.26). This analysis excludes respondents who did not answer thequestion on transport costs as a proportion of total business costs, and also
those reporting that transport costs accounted for a ‘negligible’ proportion of
total business costs. It therefore relates only to about one third of the totalbusiness population of the charging zone. Respondents were asked toconsider only the direct financial costs of the congestion charge, excluding theadditional ‘overheads’ associated with paying the charge (ie compliancecosts).

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

101

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.26

Estimated proportion of transport costs accounted for by thecongestion charge.
48

Charging zone (931)1755Boundary (300)

12

4

13

6

9

6

9

8

13

Charging zone:
31

Retail (244)2124Restaurants/Cafes (125)16

Leisure/Hotels (76)

12

12

13

12

0%

10%
Negligible

20%

21
30%

1% to 2%40%
3% to 5%50%

5% to 10%

4
10

10

10
60%

13
17

15

41

14

13

62

Other (155)

8

20
21

36

Financial (201)

23

25

49

Distribution (130)

5

7
70%

8
15

80%

Over 10%

4
7

90%

100%

Don't know

Again, about half of respondents considered that the cost of the congestion
charge was a negligible component of their total transport costs. Typically, justover 10 percent of respondents reported that congestion charges accounted
for more than 10 percent of their total transport costs, although the distributionof these results between sectors is interesting, with the higher values tending
to be indicated by retail and leisure sectors, as well as distribution businesses
where such proportions may be more naturally expected. Again, in interpretingthese results, it needs to be borne in mind that only those businesses
reporting non-negligible transport costs overall are included in this analysis,
with only about one half of leisure and retail businesses included.
Making similar reasonable assumptions as for general transport costs above,these results suggest that the congestion charge itself typically accounts foraround 5 percent of business transport-related costs for businesses in the
charging zone.
Taking these two values, the direct financial impact of congestion charging on
central London businesses is shown to be typically somewhat less than one
percent of total business costs. This cannot be considered to be a precise
estimate, as it potentially includes periods of charging at both £5 and £8(£5.50 and £7 for fleets), and it does not consider the distribution of impact on
individual businesses. For the business population as a whole, however, it
does place the magnitude of the direct financial impacts of congestion
charging in context.

Business fleets
Charging zone businesses that operate a fleet of vehicles were asked todescribe the nature of their fleet. Eight per cent of businesses surveyed said
that they operated a fleet. Unsurprisingly, the distribution sector represented
the largest group of fleet operators. The most common fleet type wascompany cars which were operated by 58 per cent of those charging zone
102

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts

businesses with fleets, followed by small or medium vans used for delivery,
operated by 34 percent of businesses. 22 per cent of charging zone
businesses with a fleet said that they participated in the congestion charging
automated fleet payment scheme.
Figure 5.27

The nature of vehicle fleets operated within the charging zone –percentage of those respondents operating fleets.

3%

Motorcycles or pedal cycles
Specialist vehicles (e.g. minibuses)

1%
0.40%

Lorries34%

Small/medium vans for delivery
Hire cars or vans

10%Specialist cars

7%
58%

Company cars
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Attitudes to transport issues
Businesses were asked to respond to a number of questions regarding theirexperiences of transport issues and the travel outcomes of the scheme. The
responses to such questions have featured in the TfL Business Survey since
2002 and provide insight into changing trends when compared with timeseries data since the introduction of the charge.
Figure 5.28 indicates how perceptions of congestion levels during the peak
period have changed over the past 4 years. The immediate beneficial impacts
from the introduction of the scheme in 2003 are clear. Responses for 2004
and 2005 continue to show recognised benefits over 2002, although there has
been a general trend for respondents to perceive small relative increases tothe severity of congestion in the peak period. This seems to correspond to thetrend in measured congestion levels, as discussed in Section 3.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

103

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.28

Perceived level of congestion during the weekday peak period.
7

2002, Pre-charging, Total (502)

19

22

19

2003, Post-charging, Total (628)38

2004, Post-charging, Total (1228)

9

39

2005, Post-charging, Total (1231)

9

35

12

2005

Charging zone (300)

29

23
27

10

27

17

29

38

23

28

6
8
4

19

3

Outer boundary (300)9Remainder (631)

7

38

30

22

3

Retail (347)

9

37

26

25

3

29

9

Restaurants/Cafes (149)
Leisure/Hotels (101)

27

41

4
13

Financial (252)9

Other (201)

7
0%

26
37

32

Not a problem at all

19
28

28

21

31
40%

Not too bad

2460%

Quite bad

Very bad

80%

2
4

19

34

31
20%

6

29

39

Wholesale/Distribution (181)

28

3
4
6
100%

At a critical level

Attitudes towards the congestion charge
Business support for congestion charging continues to be relatively mixed.
Businesses were, on the whole, more supportive of the scheme than opposed
to it, although this level of support has decreased somewhat since 2004,
possibly reflecting a reaction to the £8 increase. When analysed by sector, theleisure, financial and retail sectors were the most supportive of the scheme,
whilst the distribution and restaurant sectors were the least positive. The
increased level of support from the retail sector in 2005, compared to theprevious year, is the most positive trend of all the sectors. Figure 5.29 shows
the proportion of respondents indicating support for the scheme providing that
there is continued investment in public transport.

104

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Business and economic impacts
Figure 5.29

Support for the current scheme as long as there is continued
investment in public transport, Autumn 2005.

Charging zone (931)47

Boundary (300)

24

37

29

32

Docklands (100)3172Camden (100)

9

33

19

33

33

Charging zone:
Retail (244)

48

17

32

Restaurants/Cafes (125)

27

41

61

Leisure/Hotels (76)Distribution (130)

11

39

41

50

Other (155)

26

44
0%

10%

28

20

Financial (201)

20%

24

24
30%

Agree

5.6

35

40%

50%
Neither

32
60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree

Summary of key points

The growth of the London economy remained positive in 2005 despite theeffects of the bombings in central London in July. Businesses performance inthe charging zone was significantly better than in the rest of London,
particularly in terms of profitability and productivity.
Analysis of comparative trends in various indicators of business performance,
including change in jobs, business populations and turnover continued toshow no general evidence of differential effects between the charging zone
and comparator locations that might be indicative of a congestion charging
effect, either positive or negative, on aggregate business performance incentral London.
Trends in business registrations for VAT and appeals relating to businessrates in central London again do not indicate a significant congestion charging
impact on businesses in central London.
The majority of charging zone businesses continue to recognise that
decongestion had created a more pleasant working environment and easierjourneys for employees using public transport for work. Amongst businesses
in the charging zone as a whole, there were more supporters of thecongestion charge than opponents.
An audit of the TfL/GLA monitoring of the economic and business impacts ofcongestion charging as set out in the Third Annual Monitoring Reportconcluded that TfL’s assessment that congestion charging has had a broadly
neutral impact on the central London economy was reasonable.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

105

6. Accidents and the environment

6

Accidents and the environment

6.1

Introduction

This section reviews and updates trends in reported personal injury roadtraffic accidents in and around the congestion charging zone. It considers datafor 2005 alongside the accumulating time-series and evidence of wider trends
in road traffic accidents across Greater London. TfL’s earlier conclusions
relating to the impact of congestion charging related traffic changes on roadtraffic accidents can now be placed on a firmer statistical footing.
It then proceeds to update TfL’s assessments of the air quality and noise
impacts of the scheme, drawing on updated emissions assessments, air
quality monitoring data and new sample surveys of ambient noise.
TfL estimated that congestion charging would lead to between 150 and 250
fewer road traffic accidents per year across the whole of Greater London,
resulting primarily from reduced traffic volumes. Perhaps one third of thisreduction would have occurred within the charging zone itself, with theremainder reflecting smaller but associated traffic reductions across a muchlarger area.
It was also expected that reduced volumes of traffic circulating more efficiently
would lead to reductions in road traffic emissions within the charging zone,
and possibly small changes to the ambient noise climate. However, it wasalso recognised that changes to both emissions and noise were unlikely to beof a scale that would enable them to be detected against the backdrop ofvariation caused by other factors over the medium term.

Key findings from previous reportsx

Recent years had seen significant year-on-year reductions to personal
injury road traffic accidents across London as a whole, reflecting wider TfL
and borough road safety initiatives. Against this backdrop, there wasevidence that the declines in accidents seen in the charging zone since theintroduction of charging were greater than might otherwise have been
expected. It was assessed that this ‘excess reduction’ was between 40
and 70 fewer accidents per year within the charging zone, which was
roughly in line with TfL’s prior expectation. This ‘excess reduction’persisted into 2004, with further incremental reductions in the absolute
number of accidents mirroring wider London trends.

x

There was no evidence of disproportionate or detrimental changes to thenumber of reported accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles in or aroundthe charging zone, or to accident trends on the Inner Ring Road
surrounding the charging zone.

x

By reducing the volumes of traffic circulating within the charging zone andimproving the efficiency with which it circulates, it was provisionallyestimated that congestion charging had been responsible for reductions of
12 percent in emissions of key pollutants Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and106

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

fine particulate matter (PM10) from road traffic within the charging zone
(vehicle tailpipe emissions only). This also took the form of an ‘excess
reduction’ over background trends in 2003 which, given generally similar
traffic and speed levels, would have persisted throughout 2004.
x

Measurements of actual air quality across London during 2003 and 2004
primarily reflected trends that were attributable to weather patterns, withgrowing evidence of changes related to trends in the composition andtechnology profile of the wider vehicle fleet. It was not therefore possible todefinitively identify a ‘congestion charging effect’ on actual measured
concentrations of key pollutants in the air.

x

Limited sample surveys of ambient noise in and around the charging zone
showed a stable overall picture and did not suggest a noticeable impact
from congestion charging.

x

Surveys of Londoners ‘on-street’ in and around the congestion charging
zone suggested that some beneficial impacts of congestion charging andother initiatives on environmental quality were being recognised.

Key findings for 2005x

2004/2005 saw substantial further falls in the number of road accidents
across Greater London, reflecting wider TfL and borough road safety
initiatives.

x

Trends in accidents within the charging zone during 2004 have been
comparable to those elsewhere in London, reflecting broader trends andcontinuing road safety initiatives.

x

Independent statistical treatment of the accumulating time-series of roadtraffic accident data confirms that TfL’s earlier conclusions regarding theimpact of congestion charging on road traffic accidents are reasonable.

x

There continues to be no evidence of disproportionate or detrimental
impacts on the more vulnerable road users in or around the charging zone.

x

A full update of the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, for wider
use in air quality assessment across London, now allows definitive
comparisons between emissions from all road traffic sources on an annual
average basis for the whole of 2002, 2003 and provisionally for 2004.

x

This update includes several enhancements that put congestion charging
impacts into a wider context. Whilst the absolute magnitude of theemissions reductions previously reported are broadly confirmed, theinclusion in the inventory for the first time of additional sources, such as
PM10 from tyre and brake wear, together with an updated assessment of
the technology profile of the vehicle fleet, reduce the proportionate
emissions saving directly attributable to congestion charging trafficchanges to 8 percent for NOx and 7 percent for PM10 (annual average for2003).

x

Vehicle technology improvements are now assessed to be responsible fora larger proportion of the calculated change between 2002 and 2003,
meaning that total NOx emissions within the charging zone fell by 13
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

107

6. Accidents and the environment

percent and total PM10 emissions fell by 15 percent, closely comparable tothe estimates previously reported.
xThis revised assessment confirms that the impact of charging on traffic
emissions on the Inner Ring Road has been neutral, with overall savings(mostly reflecting vehicle technology changes) of approximately 7 percent
in emissions of both NOx and PM10.

x

The revised assessment also suggests that congestion charging was
responsible for a reduction of 16 percent in road traffic CO2 emissions
within the charging zone (annual averages for 2002 and 2003). Both thisand the estimated savings for emissions on the Inner Ring Road arebroadly comparable to those previously reported.

x

In addition to the direct congestion charging impact in 2003, vehicle
technology changes are estimated to have led to further reductions ofapproximately 5 percent to road traffic emissions of NOx within the
charging zone, and 7 percent on the Inner Ring Road, between 2003 and2004. Equivalent further reductions for PM10 were estimated to have been
approximately 9 percent, for both the charging zone and the Inner Ring
Road, these particularly reflecting improvements to diesel-engined
vehicles.

x

Measurements of concentrations of key air pollutants during 2005 reveals
some interesting developments. There is some evidence of accelerated
declines in concentrations of PM10 within the charging zone, compared to
the rest of London, although available data are not sufficient to verify thistrend. New data also allow a better approach to the interpretation of trends
in NO2 concentrations, and suggest a strong relationship to changes in thetechnology and composition of the wider vehicle fleet.

x

Limited sample surveys of ambient noise in and around the charging zone
continue to suggest an absence of a detectable congestion charging
impact.

6.2

Accidents involving personal injury

TfL has previously reported the favourable trend in accident rates acrossLondon over recent years, and has identified a differential or ‘excess’ trend
within the congestion charging zone, equivalent to between an additional 40
and 70 accidents involving personal injury ‘saved’ per year, taking the moregeneral London trend into account. Since congestion charging was
responsible for a rapid and sustained reduction in volumes of traffic circulating
within the charging zone, these additional reductions will persist from year toyear. This means that, although trends in the charging zone for 2005 inrelation to 2003 or 2004 would not be expected to differ significantly from therest of London, central London is still benefiting from significantly fewer
accidents in each year than would otherwise be the case.
Table 6.1 provides an update on the number of reported road traffic accidents
resulting in personal injury in the charging zone, on the Inner Ring Road andfor other parts of London, including two full 12 month reporting periods since
the introduction of the scheme.

108

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment
Table 6.1

Total reported personal injury road traffic accidents by area,
2001 to 2004.
Charging Inner Ring
Zone
Road

Rest of
LondonTotal

2001
Weekdays 0700-1900(Feb '01- Jan '02) Weekdays 0000-0700;19.00-00.00
Weekends all day
Total

1,644
464
490
2,598

528
207
196
931

18,4106,269
7,979
32,65820,582
6,940
8,665
36,1872002
Weekdays 0700-1900(Feb '02 - Jan '03) Weekdays 0000-0700;19.00-00.00
Weekends all day
Total

1,418
439
439
2,296

450
174
204
828

16,964
6,078
7,588
30,63018,832
6,691
8,231
33,7542003
Weekdays 0700-1900(Mar '03 - Feb '04) Weekdays 0000-0700;19.00-00.00
Weekends all day
Total

1,270
403
430
2,103

428
185
189
802

16,226
5,277
7,037
28,54017,924
5,865
7,656
31,4452004
Weekdays 0700-1900(Mar '04 - Feb '05) Weekdays 0000-0700;19.00-00.00
Weekends all day
Total

1,131
389
345
1,865

374
172
167
713

14,6944,924
6,200
25,81816,1995,485
6,712
28,396

The number of accidents continues to reduce across London, year-on-year. In
the charging zone during charging hours there have been 11 percent fewer
accidents in the second year after charging than during the previous 12 month
period. This is similar to the 13 percent reduction on the Inner Ring Road andslightly greater than the 9 percent across the rest of London.
Across the whole week, including non-charging hours, there has been an 11
percent reduction in the number of accidents in the charging zone and on the
Inner Ring Road, comparable to the 10 percent reduction across the rest of
London.
This similarity would suggest that wider road safety initiatives and otherfactors are now having a similar impact in the charging zone as across therest of London, and were the primary determinant of accident trends in 2004.
However, the ‘base’ level of accidents in 2003 and 2004 for the charging zone
would include the immediate benefits of charging, and the similarity of recent
trends between areas means that these have persisted into 2004 and 2005.

6.3

Pedestrian and non-pedestrian involvement

Injuries caused by accidents can be classified as affecting either pedestrians
or vehicle occupants or riders.
Table 6.2 updates the information previously available, which indicated that
there had been no significant change in the proportion of accidents affecting
pedestrians compared to vehicle occupants or riders in the charging zone
during charging hours.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

109

6. Accidents and the environment
Table 6.2

Accidents involving personal injury, 07.00 to 19.00, 2001 to 2004.

2001(Feb 2001-Jan 2002)
2002(Feb 2002-Jan 2003)
2003(Mar 2003-Feb 2004)
2004(Mar 2004-Feb 2005)

Charging Zone
Pedestrian Non-pedestrian

Inner Ring Road
Pedestrian Non-pedestrianRest of London
Pedestrian Non-pedestrian

532 (32%)

1,112 (68%)

111 (21%)417 (79%)

4,045 (22%)

14,365 (78%)

443 (31%)975 (69%)

99 (22%)351 (78%)

3,803 (22%)

13,161 (78%)

420 (33%)850 (67%)79 (18%)349 (82%)

3,521 (22%)

12,705 (78%)

383 (34%)749 (66%)

77 (20%)299 (80%)

3,177 (22%)

11,506 (78%)

The data for 2004 and 2005 suggest that there has been a very slightincrease in the proportion of accidents that are affecting pedestrians in the
charging zone compared to vehicle occupants or riders. This change is notapparent in the other parts of London and, at 2 percentage points, cannot be
considered to be statistically-significant at this stage. However, it could beindicative of increased pedestrian activity, or alternatively reduced vehicle
activity within the zone.

6.4

Severity of accidents

Road traffic casualties are categorised into three severity classes, reflecting
the degree of personal injury sustained.
Figure 6.1 shows the severity of the injuries resulting from accidents in the
charging zone and on the Inner Ring Road during charging hours. As can beseen there is a reduction in the number of injuries across all severity
categories, reflecting the general trend of accident reduction. In the second
year after charging compared to the first, the number of fatalities reduced fromnine to four, serious injuries have reduced by over 20 percent and injuries
classified as slight, which make up the majority of injuries, have reduced bynearly 10 percent.

110

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment
Figure 6.1

Reported personal injury road traffic accidents within the congestion
charging zone and on the Inner Ring Road combined, 07.00 to 19.00,
March to November, 2001 to 2004.

2,000

2001 (Feb '01 - Jan '02)
1,800

Number of accidents

1,600

2002 (Feb '02 - Jan '03)
2003 (Mar '03 - Feb '04)
2004 (Mar '04 - Feb '05)

1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
9

12

9

4

0
Fatal

Serious

SlightAccident severity

6.5

Vehicle involvement in accidents

Figure 6.2 illustrates trends in the characteristics of vehicles involved inpersonal injury accidents within the charging zone. The prevailing downward
trend is again evident for most types of vehicle, again reflecting the generaltrend of reduced accidents.
Comparing data for 2004 with the previous year, the largest percentage
reduction was for the number of taxis involved in accidents, at 30 percent.
However, it is notable that the data for the 2003, the first year following the
introduction of charging, indicated an increase which may have been
associated with increased taxi activity in the charging zone, and so this trend
for 2004 is welcome. The number of buses and coaches involved in accidents
has continued to reduce, by 14 percent in the second year after charging,alongside powered two-wheelers reducing by 13 percent, cars by 10 percent,goods vehicles by 6 percent and pedal cycles by 4 percent. There has also
been an apparent increase, although small in magnitude, in the involvement of‘other’ vehicles, which includes vehicles such as tricycles.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

111

6. Accidents and the environment
Figure 6.2

Accident involvement by vehicle type within the congestion charging
zone, 07.00 to 19.00, March to November, 2001 to 2004.

800
2001 (Feb '01 - Jan '02)
2002 (Feb '02 - Jan '03)

Vehicles involved in accidents

700

2003 (Mar '03 - Feb '04)
2004 (Mar '05 - Feb '05)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Pedestrian Pedal cycle Powered2-wheeler

Car

Taxi

Bus orcoach

GoodsvehicleOther

Similar patterns are also seen across the rest of London, although on the
Inner Ring Road cars, taxis and goods vehicles have experienced smaller
proportionate of reductions, whilst all other modes have had a greater
proportionate reduction in the number of vehicles involved in accidents.
It is notable that the reductions in the number of pedal cycles, powered twowheelers and buses and coaches involved in accidents inside the charging
zone are occurring despite an increase in the number of these vehicles
entering the charging zone in 2004 compared to 2003, again suggesting thatthe various TfL and borough accident reduction measures are having asignificant impact.

6.6

Independent statistical review of impact of congestion
charging on accidents

An independent statistician has been appointed by TfL to review the available
data, findings and conclusions previously published, and to comment on therole of congestion charging in delivering reductions in accidents in the
charging zone over and above those that might have been expected were thecharging zone to conform to trends seen more generally across London.
TfL previously concluded that there had been an ‘additional’ reduction in thenumber of accidents of between 40 and 70, within the charging zone and on
the Inner Ring Road combined, for the first year after the introduction of
charging. This was most likely to reflect the traffic reduction effect of charging,leading to less possibility of accidents as fewer vehicles were circulating within
the charging zone. This finding was considered to be compatible with TfL’s
expectation of between 150 and 250 fewer accidents per year across the112

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

whole of London, since although the contribution of the charging zone andInner Ring Road combined is only a proportion of the total, the accident
reduction effect of charging would be spread more widely throughout Greater
London and beyond, albeit at a less intense level.
The review made the point that no completely rigorous basis exists for
precisely quantifying the number of accidents 'saved' by the introduction ofcongestion charging, in such a way that will permit a methodologically soundway of estimating an error band.
The key methodological difficulty is that any rigorous estimate of the reductionin accidents following the introduction of the scheme requires an estimate ofwhat the level of accidents would have been if the charge had not been
introduced.
Two methods of estimating this have been explored:xa regression analysis of the trend during 2001 and 2002 and projecting thisforward to 2003;

x

an analysis of the ratio between accidents in the charging zone and on the
Inner Ring Road compared with accidents in the rest of London.

The regression method was considered to be inapplicable owing to therelatively low number of observations, meaning that the resulting error bands
would have been unworkably large. Therefore, this method of establishing an
estimate was not endorsed.
This leaves the ratio comparison method. This is essentially the method that
TfL has used. These data have been re-examined and extended by using
data from 1999. The precise choice of periods for the construction of ratios
can make a significant difference to the estimate obtained for the reduction.
If the ratio is based on the most recent year before the introduction of
charging, January to December 2002, and if this ratio is applied to the year
immediately after the introduction, March 2003 to February 2004, then the
additional estimated reduction in the charging zone is 118 accidents. However
if the ratio for the previous year is used the additional reduction is 169
accidents. If the two year period is used the result is 145 fewer accidents inthe charging zone.
If instead of calendar year periods the ratios are moved forward by one
month, eg to February 2002 to January 2003 etc, then the equivalent
reduction of injuries in the charging zone and Inner Ring Road compared to
the rest of London across the three different comparisons are 88,181 and 137
fewer accidents respectively.
However, an examination of the ratios for each year from 1999 shows anincreasing trend in the ratio, ie accidents in the zone have reduced faster thanon the rest of London. It could therefore be argued that further comparable
declines would have happened in the absence of charging. If the

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

113

6. Accidents and the environment

average reduction in the ratios over the period 1999 to 2002 is carried forward
to the period March 2003 to February 2004 then the estimated reduction falls
to 62 accidents. However as the ratio between the number of accidents in the
charging zone and rest of London may not have continued to fall this latter
estimate is probably on the cautious side.
Based on this method it could be suggested that a central estimate of around
100 additional accidents ‘saved’ per year within the charging zone, with error
bounds between 60 and 140 fewer accidents would be a reasonableconclusion. This is rather higher than the previously published range. It was
the view of the statistician that the previous lower bound of 40 was overcautious as this compared the reduction in the rest of London for the peak
period with the reduction in the charging zone and Inner Ring Road in all
periods including weekends.
Overall, while the review considers that the previous published estimate is on
the cautious side it was not suggested that a revised accident reduction
estimate is put forward by TfL, reflecting the caveats and uncertainties thatare considered to apply. The overall conclusion was that TfL can remain
confident that congestion charging led to a real reduction in accidents incentral London, and that the previously published estimate of the scheme
resulting in between an additional 40 and 70 fewer accidents ‘saved’ in the
charging zone and on the Inner Ring Road combined in the first year after thescheme is on the cautious side.

6.7

Air quality – emissions

Previous reports have described the impacts of congestion charging on air
quality, and have explained the complex and indirect nature of the processes
involved.
TfL had previously and provisionally estimated ‘attributable’ savings of 12
percent in emissions of both NOx and PM10 within the charging zone
(reflecting the observed traffic volume, composition and speed changes). In
addition, improvements to the vehicle technology profile between 2002 and2003 were assessed to have contributed a further 4 percentage points tothese savings in each case, such that the total reduction in road traffic
emissions between 2002 and 2003 within the charging zone was estimated at
16 percent, for both NOx and PM10.
In addition, TfL estimated that the traffic volume and speed changes thenobserved had not significantly affected emissions on the Inner Ring Road,
which had reduced overall primarily owing to the effect of vehicle technology
changes. TfL also estimated that there had been savings of 20 percent in CO2emissions from road traffic within the charging zone.

114

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

These estimates had the following characteristics:x

They were based on data reflecting early post-charging conditions in 2003.

x

They related to an annual average day, including both charging hours,
non-charging hours and weekends, but did not include an apportionment
for that part of 2003 before charging was in operation.

x

They only considered traffic on a network of the more major roads within
the charging zone.

x

They did not include non-tailpipe PM10 from road traffic, tyre and brake
wear, which has now been included in the inventory update, and which is
responsible for about one-third of total road traffic PM10.

x

They used an early assessment of the UK vehicle fleet technology profilefor 2003, which has since been amended, in particular to take account of
London-specific developments such as the emissions abatement
programme (particularly affecting PM10) for TfL buses.

Results are now available from a full re-working of the London Atmospheric
Emissions Inventory for 2003, undertaken on behalf of the GLA for wider use
for air quality assessments by local authorities in London. This new inventory
includes several features and enhancements that are beneficial for wider air
quality assessment purposes, but that will have affected the previous
estimates. The overall effect has been to reduce the estimated proportionate
reduction in emissions from the traffic volume and speed changes brought
about by congestion charging, but to increase the estimated improvements
due to changes in the vehicle fleet. Overall, the estimated emissions
reductions between 2002 and 2003 are comparable to previous estimates.
These new features are:x

Inclusion of full road traffic flow and speed data for 2003, including datafrom non-TfL sources, together with flows and speeds on minor roads.
Minor roads would tend to show marginally smaller traffic speed changes
in relation to congestion charging, compared to the major roads usedpreviously. The calculation of annual average emissions on a whole-2003
basis would also tend to slightly reduce the attributable congestion
charging impact, in respect of the part of 2003 before charging wasintroduced.

x

Inclusion of PM10 from non-tailpipe road vehicle sources, principally tyreand brake wear. This was not included in the previous TfL estimates. With
the rapid progress being made more generally with tailpipe PM10
abatement in the vehicle fleet, this source becomes relatively more
important. In the 2003 inventory, PM10 from this source is estimated tocontribute up to one third of total road traffic PM10 emissions. Calculations
based on this would therefore show a proportionately smaller impact fromthe same traffic input data. Similar changes have also been made to
NO2/NOx ratios (the proportion of NOx that is emitted directly as NO2) toreflect updated emissions factors, although the impact of this on therevised emissions estimates is less significant.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

115

6. Accidents and the environmentxComplete overhaul of the national vehicle stock model, reflecting
increased penetration of diesel vehicles into the car fleet and many otherenhancements. In addition, the 2003 inventory includes much improved
representation of the TfL bus and London taxi fleet, reflecting TfL’s
emissions reduction programme. These changes will have relatively
increased the proportion of the change for 2003 against 2002 that is
attributable to vehicle technology changes, and correspondingly decreased
the proportion of the changes that are attributable to traffic volume andspeed changes.

Table 6.3 shows a full breakdown of the estimated changes to emissions of
key pollutants in relation to congestion charging between 2002 and 2003. Key
observations from the table are as follows:x

Of those effects directly attributable to congestion charging, traffic volume
changes are now assessed to have had only a relatively small impact on
total emissions. This mainly reflects the relatively small contribution of
petrol cars to total emissions in central London and a substantially
increased proportion of the car fleet that is now assessed to be diesel
fuelled in the inventory. Furthermore, these reductions are partly offset byobserved increases in taxis and buses (diesel vehicles). These profilechanges apply both to the charging zone and the Inner Ring Road, in thelatter case a small increase in overall traffic volumes having been
observed.

x

The overall impact due exclusively to changes in traffic volumes andrelative vehicle populations is therefore assessed to be: savings of around
1 percent in both NOx and PM10 within the charging zone; and increases ofbetween 7 and 9 percent in NOx and PM10 respectively on the Inner Ring
Road, although much of this reflects methodological changes to theinventory calculations, rather than ‘real’ change (see further below), and inany case is only one component of overall change.

xThis is only part of the picture however, as the changes in traffic speeds
observed as a result of congestion charging are now assessed to havebeen more significant in reducing emissions than previously estimated.
These result in savings of typically 6 percent in NOx and PM10 within the
charging zone, and typically between 7 and 8 percent on the Inner Ring
Road.

x

In combination, the traffic and speed changes together are estimated tohave reduced emissions (all road traffic related sources, all roads, annual
average day) of NOx by about 8 percent within the charging zone, withemissions effectively unchanged on the Inner Ring Road. For PM10, theequivalent changes are a reduction of around 6 percent within the charging
zone, and a small increase of about 3 percent on the Inner Ring Road. In
the case of PM10, these estimates are particularly affected by the inclusionin this analysis of an apportionment for tyre and brake wear. This has theeffect of reducing the magnitude of the estimated percentage, as opposed
to absolute change, by about one-third.

x

Change estimates are further affected by revised estimates for vehicle
technology change. These are not directly attributable to congestion

116

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

charging, but reflect wider improvements to the emissions performance of
the UK (and some specific elements of the London) vehicle fleet. The
estimates given below are somewhat larger than previously reported. They
indicate that technology changes were responsible for reductions of 6 and
7 percent in emissions of NOx in the charging zone and on the Inner Ring
Road respectively. Equivalent figures for PM10 were reductions of 9 and 10
percent between 2002 and 2003 on an annual average basis.
x

Taking all of the above changes together, total road traffic related
emissions of NOx were estimated to have reduced by around 13 percent
inside the charging zone, and by 7 percent on the Inner Ring Road. Totalroad traffic related emissions of PM10 were estimated to have reduced by
16 percent within the charging zone, and by 7 percent on the Inner Ring
Road.

Table 6.3

Principal changes to emissions of NOX and PM10. Percentage change,
2003 compared with 2002.

ChangeFlow change - motorcycles
Flow change - taxis
Flow change - car
Flow change - bus and coach
Flow change - light goods
Flow change - rigid goods
Flow change - articulated heavy
goods
Traffic volume change
Speed change
Traffic volume and speed change
Vehicle stock change
Overall traffic emissions change
2003 versus 2002
Overall traffic emissions change
2004 versus 2003

NOx
2.3
-4.5
2.9
-0.1
-1.6
-0.4

Charging zone
PM10
CO2
0.4
0.2
3.8
2.4
-4.6
-11.2
1.0
1.2
-0.1
-0.1
-1.0
-0.7
-0.2
-0.2

NOx
0.2
2.0
-1.6
3.2
1.7
1.6
0.4

Inner Ring Road
PM10
CO2
2.4
1.0
3.6
2.1
-1.8
-3.9
1.1
1.4
3.2
2.3
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.2

-1.4
-6.5
-7.9
-5.5
-13.4

-0.8
-5.5
-6.3
-9.2
-15.5

-8.4
-7.3
-15.7
-0.7
-16.4

7.4
-7.7
-0.2
-6.7
-6.9

9.7
-6.9
2.8
-9.6
-6.8

3.8
-8.5
-4.7
-0.7
-5.4

-5.2

-6.9

-0.9

-5.6

-6.3

-0.8

x

Table 6.3 also includes estimates for CO2 emissions. These emissions are
more directly related to vehicle-kilometres driven and fuel consumed. The
traffic and speed changes observed in the charging zone are estimated tohave led to savings of 15.7 percent, split roughly equally between thosedue to reduced traffic, and those reflecting less congestion (more fuelefficient driving conditions). On the Inner Ring Road, the observed small
increase to traffic flows resulted in a proportionate increase in CO2emissions, but this was more than countered by the favourable speed
trends that were also observed, giving an overall reduction of 8.5 percent.

x

The table also includes a provisional estimate for the changes between
2003 and 2004. This primarily reflects vehicle technology changes anddoes not include a full re-working of the traffic and speeds in the inventory.
Further reductions of about 6 percent are indicated in both NOx and PM10,
both within the charging zone and on the Inner Ring Road, continuing toFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

117

6. Accidents and the environment

reflect emissions improvements to the vehicle fleet. Given the generally
neutral trends in traffic and speeds observed during 2004 and 2005 within
the charging zone and on the Inner Ring Road, these changes are likely tobe representative overall. Note that these further reductions are on top of
the established reduction in 2003, which will have persisted.
Therefore, between 2002 and 2004, total emissions of NOx from road traffic
sources in the charging zone are estimated to have reduced by approximately
18 percent. On the Inner Ring Road, the equivalent reduction wasapproximately 12 percent. Equivalent reductions for PM10 were approximately
22 percent in the charging zone, and approximately 13 percent on the Inner
Ring Road.

6.8

Measured air quality

Previous reports have described the indirect nature of the relationshipbetween changes in emissions from road traffic and measurements ofambient air quality at fixed air quality monitoring sites. It was explained thatcongestion charging would only be expected to affect tailpipe emissions fromroad traffic, through reducing the volume of traffic in the charging zone, andallowing it to circulate more efficiently. Other influences on road traffic
emissions, emissions from non-road sources, ‘imported’ pollution from
elsewhere and variations in the weather also determine measured pollution
levels. This means that the substantial emissions reductions brought about by
congestion charging within the charging zone would be very much diminishedat air quality monitoring sites, and would therefore be difficult to detect in themedium-term.
Data for the majority of air quality monitoring sites in London are available
through the London Air Quality Network. TfL’s First Annual Monitoring Report
set out those sites that would be used for congestion charging monitoring
purposes, the sites being grouped into ‘site classes’ to reflect congestion
charging geography. Most sites benefit from a lengthy time-series of data, andthe inclusion of sites well outside the charging zone would also allow theeffect of changes to background concentrations to be assessed.

6.9

Trends in ambient PM10The Second Annual Monitoring Report described how unusual meteorologicalconditions had led to elevated PM10 concentrations throughout much of 2003,
obscuring any impacts of congestion charging. Weather conditions and PM10
concentrations in 2004 had been much closer to the long-run average,
although trends in PM10 concentrations remained indistinct. Weather
conditions during the first half of 2005 were also relatively benign, allowing aclearer assessment of recent trends.
Figure 6.3 shows running annual mean PM10 concentrations at congestion
charging indicator sites. Mean concentrations at the ‘Within Charging Zone’
Roadside site have fallen below those of the Inner London Roadside class(which is an average of eight monitoring sites) for the first time.

118

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

Concentrations at all sites have stabilised at a level similar to that prior to thestart of the scheme, following the peak caused by unusual meteorology during
2003.
Figure 6.3

Running annual mean PM10 concentrations at congestion charging
indicator sites.
Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - kerbside

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background40
Charging starts

Provisional
data

Running annual mean (Pgm-3)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
Feb-99 Aug-99 Feb-00 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

Weather conditions and the quantity of particulate pollution imported from theContinent have a very strong influence on PM10 concentrations, so trends at
all of the sites are very similar. A clearer picture of changes since introductionof congestion charging can be seen by looking at peak concentrations, whichcorresponds to a national air quality objective for PM10.
Figure 6.4 shows the number of days on which mean concentrations of PM10
were greater than 50 Pgm-3, as a running annual total. The national objective
for 2005 is for this concentration to be exceeded in fewer than 35 24-hour
periods. At ‘background’ locations throughout London there are typically onlya small number of ‘exceedence days’, the majority occurring during periods ofhigh regional pollution. The number of exceedence days increases at
locations closer to central London, major roads or industrial sources.
This figure demonstrates that the number of exceedences at backgroundlocations within the charging zone dropped during 2005 to a level equal to or
lower than those of inner London, mirroring the concentration trend in Figure
6.3. However, whilst possibly encouraging, a full assessment is made difficult
by interruptions to the monitoring due to long term building works andequipment failure at key monitoring sites.
At roadside locations, the number of exceedences rose rapidly during 2003
due to exceptional meteorological conditions, and then quickly dropped again
during 2004. Exceedences at Inner London Roadside sites and on the

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

119

6. Accidents and the environment

boundary of the charging zone then started to rise again during 2005.
However, exceedences at the Within charging zone roadside site continue tofall, reaching the lowest level since monitoring began in the 12 months ending
October 2005.
The site on the boundary of the charging zone – Marylebone Road – typicallyrecords high levels of PM10, as it is located at the kerbside immediately
adjacent to a heavily-trafficked road. However, the behaviour of PM10 at thissite closely mirrors the more general trend, and does not suggest any specificcongestion charging related influences.
Figure 6.4

Number of days when mean concentration >50Pgm-3

200

Running annual mean count of PM10 exceedence days.
Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - kerbside

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background
Charging starts

Provisional
data

150

100

50
2005 AQS Objective (35 days)2010 AQS Objective for London (10 days)0
Feb-99 Aug-99 Feb-00 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

Congestion charging is not the only positive influence likely to have affected
PM10 concentrations. Long-term improvements to the vehicle fleet are alsodelivering substantial reductions in road traffic PM10 emissions, theseparticularly affecting diesel-fuelled vehicles such as buses and taxis, which
are more prevalent in central London.
TfL is developing proposals, subject to Consultation and a Mayoral decision,
for a London-wide Low Emission Zone. The earliest date that this could be
implemented is 2008. The Low Emission Zone would initially target further
reductions in PM10 by encouraging the use of cleaner heavy diesel vehicles
on roads within Greater London.

6.10

Trends in ambient NOx/NO2

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is a collective term for both Nitrogen Oxide (NO) andNitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The majority of NOx consists of NO, which is thenconverted into NO2 in the atmosphere, primarily through reaction with Ozone(O3). NO2 is the pollutant to which national air quality objectives apply.

120

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment

The Second Annual Monitoring Report described how the positive effects of ageneral, London-wide decrease in emissions of NOx from road traffic werebeing countered by other factors producing an increase in NO2
concentrations. The Third Annual Monitoring Report described a mixed
picture, with continuing general declines in NOx concentrations acrossLondon, but stability or even small increases in NO2 concentrations at thesame sites. In this respect, conditions had apparently departed from long-term
trends, where reduced NO2 concentrations could be expected to follow fromreduced NOx emissions, but the causes of this were not immediately clear. It
was thought that changes to the emissions characteristics of the vehicle fleet
may have been responsible, although this required further investigation.
The picture for NOx concentrations during 2005 has been of further small
declines (Figure 6.5) continuing the established trend. This general downward
trend has resulted in an overall decrease in NOx concentrations of more than
20 percent over the last six years at Inner London Background sites. A slightly
more rapid fall has been recorded by Inner London Roadside sites, around 25
percent over the same period. Reductions to NOx in the charging zone havebeen slower and less distinct, the data suggesting the influence of factors
particularly associated with central London.
Figure 6.5

Running annual mean NOX concentrations.
Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - kerbside

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background450
Charging starts

400

Provisional
data

Running annual mean (Pgm-3)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Feb-99 Aug-99 Feb-00 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

Trends in NO2 concentrations are shown in Figure 6.6. It is seen that, despitea steady decrease in NOx concentrations, running annual mean NO2
concentrations at all site classes have changed very little since 2002. At the
Marylebone Road site on the boundary of the charging zone, concentrations
have actually increased. There is also some suggestion from the figure of apattern of slight reductions at ‘background’ sites, away from busy roads, andsmall general increases at sites in locations close to busy roads. These trends

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

121

6. Accidents and the environment

do not reflect established relationships between concentrations of NOx andNO2.
Figure 6.6

Running annual mean NO2 concentrations.
Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - kerbside

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background120
Charging starts

Provisional
data

Running annual mean (Pgm-3)

100

80

60

-3

40

AQS Objective (40Pgm )20

0Feb-99 Aug-99 Feb-00 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

It is now thought that these trends result from increased emissions of primary
NO2 from road traffic, and that this is a general phenomenon occurring
elsewhere in the UK and more widely, reflecting changes in vehicle
technology and fleet composition. Primary NO2 is NOx that is emitted directlyas NO2. It has conventionally been considered to represent only a small
fraction (up to 10 percent) of the total NOx emitted from road transport.
Increases in this proportion would lead to higher relative NO2 concentrations,as the production of total NO2 would not be limited to the same extent byavailable Ozone (a significant limitation in urban areas).
The most obvious manifestation of this phenomenon would be an increase in
the ratio of NO2 to NOx in the air. Table 6.4 shows this ratio, calculated foreach of the site groups used for congestion charging monitoring purposes forrecent years. A clear upward trend dating back several years is apparent,
which would be consistent with significant shifts in the emissions
characteristics of the general vehicle fleet. Increases in this ratio areparticularly apparent at sites close to busy roads, again suggesting a trafficrelated cause. Ratios during 2005 appear to have stabilised, but at historicallyhigh NO2 to NOx ratios. Note that this table shows ratios in ambient air, as
opposed to ratios directly emitted from vehicles.

122

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environment
Table 6.4

Trend in NO2/NOX ratios measured in ambient air (proportion of NOx that
is NO2). 2002 to 2005.

Site Group

2002

2003

2004

2005

Suburban outer London

56%

63%

61%

63%

Inner London background

54%

63%

63%

62%

Within charging zone background

54%

60%

59%

56%

Inner London roadside

34%

38%

40%

41%

Within charging zone roadside

40%

44%

45%

45%

Inner Ring Road roadside

27%

33%

36%

37%

TfL is continuing to investigate these trends. It is clear from the data that they
are not confined to the congestion charging zone and therefore are notdirectly associated with changes brought about by congestion charging itself.
Other data suggest that changes to the fleet profile of diesel-fuelled vehicles
may be primarily responsible, specifically abatement technologies (Euro Class
progression and retrofit technologies) for reducing PM10, these vehicles being
particularly prevalent in central London. Whilst this has implications for theability to meet the national air quality objectives at some sites for NO2 in the
short term, it is primarily a re-distributive rather than an additive effect, andcontinuing reductions to NOx emissions would be expected to lead to further
falls in NO2 concentrations in the medium-term.

6.11

Ambient noiseThis section updates TfL’s sample surveys of noise measurements taken at asmall number of selected sites in and around the charging zone. Data are now
available for five relevant sites over the five years 2001/2 to 2005/6, allmeasurements being taken over the Winter period of each year.
Measured traffic changes of the extent described elsewhere in this document
would be unlikely of themselves to give rise to significant changes in ambient
noise. In addition, the sample measurements described would not be
expected to give statistically-robust measurements of either the overall noise
climate in the charging zone, or changes from year to year. Nevertheless, theresults are useful in an indicative sense.
Table 6.5 updates a table presented in previous reports to include data forsurveys in late 2005/6. Comparable Lden values for all four available years areshown and include differential weightings for evening and night-time noise toreflect greater noise sensitivity at these times.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

123

6. Accidents and the environment
Table 6.5

Site

Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 16Site 19

Sample noise measurements dB(A). Congestion charging monitoringsites, Winter 2001/2, 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6 compared.
Index

2001/2

2002/3

2003/4

2004/5

2005/6

LAeq, 16 hour Day

73.0

74.4

73.8

74.6

75.9

Difference 2005/6
vs average allprevious surveys+2.0

LAeq, 8 hour Night

71.1

72.9

71.1

72.4

75.0

+3.1

Lden, normalised

80.4

82

81.1

82.0

81.6

+0.2

Lden, free-field

77.9

79.5

78.6

79.5

79.1

+0.2

LAeq, 16 hour Day

70.2

69.6

69.1

73.5

72.0

+1.6

LAeq, 8 hour Night

66.9

65.2

66.7

68.9

69.2

+2.3

Lden, normalised

76.3

74.9

75.9

76.2

76.3

+0.5

Lden, free-field

76.3

74.9

75.9

76.2

76.3

+0.5

LAeq, 16 hour Day

57.4

61

58.7

63.3

59.2

-0.8

LAeq, 8 hour Night

50.9

52.2

51.1

55.7

54.6

+2.9

Lden, normalised

65.1

67.4

65.9

67.5

62.2

-3.6

Lden, free-field

62.6

64.9

63.4

65.0

62.2

-1.0

LAeq, 16 hour Day

71.7

72.5

72.5

74

74.2

+1.7

LAeq, 8 hour Night

72.3

71.5

71.5

72.7

73.4

+1.5

Lden, normalised

79.1

79.2

79.2

79.4

80.0

+0.9

Lden, free-field

79.1

79.2

78.8

79.4

80.0

+1.0

LAeq, 16 hour Day

62.6

63.4

62.2

-

63.6

-0.2

LAeq, 8 hour Night

57.6

59.1

57.2

-

60.0

+1.3

Lden, normalised

71.1

72.4

70.8

-

67.4

-3.5

Lden, free-field

68.6

69.9

68.3

-

67.4

-1.0

Note: The LAeq values quoted in are free-field values normalised to a distance of 10 metresfrom the kerb.
Site 5: Marylebone Road (Inner Ring Road)
Site 6: Farringdon Street (within charging zone)
Site 7: Central Street (within charging zone – ‘background’ site)
Site 16: New Kent Road (radial road approaching Inner Ring Road)
Site 19: Berkley Square (within charging zone – data not available for 2004/5)

Looking at measurements previously reported, TfL concluded that there was
no evidence of significant changes at the sample sites that might have been
associated with the introduction of congestion charging. On the basis of the
new results for 2005 and 2006, this conclusion remains valid.

6.12

Summary of key findings

Reported road traffic accidents resulting in personal injury in 2004 havecontinued to reduce across London. Trends in accidents within the charging
zone during 2004 have been comparable to those elsewhere in London,reflecting broader trends and continuing road safety initiatives. Independent
statistical treatment of accident trends confirms that TfL’s assessment, thatthe traffic changes resulting from congestion charging has been responsible
for between 40 and 70 fewer personal injury accidents within the charging

124

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

6. Accidents and the environmentzone and on the Inner Ring Road per year is reasonable. There continues tobe no evidence of disproportionate or detrimental impacts on the more
vulnerable road users in or around the charging zone.
A full update of the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, for wider use in
air quality assessment across London, now allows definitive comparisons
between emissions from all road traffic sources on an annual average basis
for the whole of 2002, 2003 and provisionally for 2004. This update includes
several enhancements that put congestion charging impacts into a wider
context. Whilst the absolute magnitude of the emissions reductions previously
reported are broadly confirmed, the inclusion in the inventory for the first timeof additional sources, such as PM10 from tyre and brake wear, together with asubstantially updated assessment of the technology profile of the vehicle fleet,
reduce the proportionate emissions saving directly attributable to congestion
charging traffic changes to 8 percent for NOx and 7 percent for PM10 (annual
average for 2003). Vehicle technology improvements are now assessed to be
responsible for a larger proportion of the change between 2002 and 2003,
meaning that total NOx emissions within the charging zone fell by 13 percent
and total PM10 emissions fell by 15 percent overall, closely comparable to theestimates previously reported.
This revised assessment confirms that the impact of charging on traffic
emissions on the Inner Ring Road has been neutral, with overall savings(mostly reflecting vehicle technology changes) of approximately 7 percent inemissions of both NOx and PM10.
Measurements of concentrations of key air pollutants during 2005 reveals
some interesting developments. There is some evidence of accelerated
declines in concentrations of PM10 within the charging zone, compared to therest of London. However, as these data are taken from only one roadside site
within the charging zone, there could be a range of reasons other than thecongestion charge to explain this decline. New data also allow a better
approach to the interpretation of trends in NO2 concentrations, and suggest astrong relationship to changes in the technology and composition of the wider
vehicle fleet.
Limited sample surveys of ambient noise in and around the charging zone
continue to suggest an absence of a detectable congestion charging impact.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006125

7. Boundary case study

7

Boundary case study

7.1

Introduction

During the development of the central London congestion charging scheme, anumber of issues were identified relating specifically to the boundary area –including the Inner Ring Road itself and the area immediately beyond. These
ranged widely across possible traffic effects associated with diversion aroundthe boundary of the charging zone, through economic and social effects
associated with the geographical discontinuity represented by the charging
zone boundary, to public transport and environmental consequences arisingfrom the changed travel and activity patterns.
Clearly, any changes instigated by the scheme would take place against the
backdrop of more general change for reasons unrelated to the scheme and,for most attributes, the area outside of the charging zone would not be
expected to be affected to the same degree as the charging zone itself.
It was determined that these possible effects should be monitored through an
intensive 'case study' of a relatively small area adjacent to the boundary.
Because of the diversity of inner London, no one area could be wholly
representative of the entire boundary. Focusing on a specific area would,
however, allow effective use of resources and allow observed effects to berelated to a specific set of geographical and socio-economic conditions.
Information gathered here would be complemented by extension of manyother aspects of the monitoring work to inner London more generally.

The boundary case study area
The area selected for this work lay to the north of the charging zone: broadly
bounded in the south by the charging zone itself; in the west by Upper Street;in the east by Kingsland Road; and in the north by St Paul's Road and Balls
Pond Road. Figure 7.1 provides a map of the case study area. The monitoring
work consisted of extensions to the core programme deployed inside thecharging zone itself, covering key traffic volume, congestion and public
transport studies, alongside surveys of businesses and households, andstudies of key environmental impacts. Findings after nearly two years ofoperation were reported in the Third Annual Monitoring Report.
This section updates the previous commentary and summarises the findings
from this work after approximately three years of operation of the central
London scheme. It concludes that the impacts of charging on the boundary
area remain largely neutral, with some transport gains and a general absenceof adverse traffic, congestion, economic and environmental effects attributable
to charging.

126

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.1

Map of the boundary case study area.

Boundary casestudy area
Congestion
charging zone
Borough boundary
Upper Street air
quality monitoring
stationSource: Reproduced by permission of Geographers’ A-Z Map Co Ltd  Crown copyright2006. All rights reserved (100017302).

The findings of this work will inevitably reflect local and London-wide 'external'
factors that will have affected travel patterns in the case study area during theperiod of study. Locally, the first of these is the ‘Shoreditch Triangle’ traffic
management scheme, which involved substantial changes to the configurationand operation of the Inner Ring Road, together with a range of otherimprovements and renewals. The work for this scheme mostly took place
during 2002, thus potentially affecting 'before' measurements in the monitoringdata. This would have particularly affected traffic conditions on the Inner Ring
Road itself, and perhaps also on approach roads to the charging zone in theeastern part of the case study area.
London-wide factors such as the suspension of the Central Line in the firsthalf of 2003 and the July 2005 bombings are also likely to have affected traffic
conditions and public transport patronage.
Also important will be the impacts of several local traffic management
schemes implemented in and around the case study area by the London
borough of Islington. These schemes were specified and funded as‘complementary measures’ for congestion charging, and were implemented

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

127

7. Boundary case study

progressively between 2002 and 2004. Initial results from these schemes
were described in TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report.

Key findings to datex

Reductions in traffic entering and leaving the charging zone, approaching
the zone on radial routes and circulating on the Inner Ring Road havebeen observed in the boundary case study area. Traffic flows show
reductions during charging hours, and have generally remained stable atother times, indicating that travellers have generally not shifted their travel
times in response to the congestion charge. These changes closely mirror
those observed elsewhere around the boundary of the charging zone.

x

Small increases in average speeds on the Inner Ring Road and in theboundary case study area have been observed. The implementation of the‘Shoreditch Triangle’ traffic management scheme makes comparison of
conditions before and after charging difficult, but congestion has remained
broadly stable or seen some improvement in the boundary case study
area.

x

The increase in bus service capacity in the area has been matched by anincrease in patronage. Underground patronage increased in both 2004
and 2005, mirroring network wide trends and indicating influences otherthan congestion charging.

x

The economy in the boundary case study area is characterised by small
businesses, many of which classify themselves as ‘places whichcustomers visit’. VAT registrations show that the number of businesses
operating in the area both inside and outside the charging zone was
unaffected by the introduction of charging, and Dun & Bradstreet data
show that there has been steady growth in sales since the introduction ofcongestion charging.

x

Businesses in the boundary case study area were broadly supportive ofcongestion charging and did not report any significant negative effects.
Factors such as organisational change, the economy, and the threat ofterrorism were seen to have had more of an influence on businessperformance. There were no significant differences between the attitudes
and experiences of business operating just inside and just outside theboundary.

x

Trends in air quality in the boundary case study area have followed theinner London average and, as with London-wide air quality trends, it has
not been possible to definitively isolate any effects associated with theintroduction of congestion charging at this stage.

x

The number of personal injury road traffic accidents in the boundary casestudy area has continued to fall, in line with London-wide trends. No
specific changes have been observed that can be associated withcongestion charging.

128

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study

7.2

Impacts on traffic patterns

Continuous trend data from automatic counters located at some of the busier
entry and exit points to the charging zone in the boundary case study area
show overall reductions in traffic entering the zone of comparable magnitudes
to those reported in the Third Annual Monitoring Report. They also confirm
that the observed reductions correspond with the introduction of charging on
17 February 2003.
Common to all of the sites is a comparative stability of traffic volumes on
Saturdays and Sundays, and a degree of variation over the period sincecharging associated with seasonal and local traffic factors (Figure 7.2). In thefirst months of 2005, ie two years after the introduction of the congestion
charging, overall levels of traffic entering and leaving the charging zone at City
Road and St John’s Street were very similar to or slightly lower than thoseobserved during the first few weeks of charging, showing sustained overall
reductions. Flows at the Old Street site were very similar to pre-charging
levels, this site showing no apparent impact from the ‘Shoreditch Triangle’
traffic management scheme.
Figure 7.2

Weekday traffic flow into and out of the charging zone during charging
hours. Permanent monitoring sites in boundary case study area (bothdirections combined unless indicated), January 2003 to December 2005.

Total flow (vehicles with four or more wheels)

12,50010,000

7,500

5,000

2,500

Old Street
St John's Street
City Road (southbound)

6/
1/
03
3/
3/
0
28 3
/4
/0
23 3
/6
/0
18 3
/8
/
13 03
/1
0/
0
8/ 3
12
/0
3
2/
2/
0
29 4
/3
/0
24 4
/5
/0
19 4
/7
/0
13 4
/9
/0
8/ 4
11
/0
4
3/
1/
0
28 5
/2
/0
25 5
/4
/0
20 5
/6
/0
15 5
/8
/
10 05
/1
0/
0
5/ 5
12
/0
5

0

Week beginning

Manual classified counts, taken during Spring and Autumn each year at all
entry and exit points to or from the charging zone within the boundary casestudy area provide further information on flows entering and leaving thecharging zone. For all traffic entering and leaving the charging zone throughthe case study area (vehicles with four or more wheels, weekday charging
hours), a reduction of 22 percent has been observed. For potentially

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

129

7. Boundary case study

chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries), a reduction of 30 percent has
been observed. These findings are generally in line with those for thecongestion charging zone boundary as a whole.
Table 7.1

Changes in traffic entering and leaving the charging zone, charging
hours, all entry or exit points within the boundary case study area.
‘Annualised’ Spring and Autumn counts.

Vehicle type

2002
flow

2003
flow

2004
flow

2005
flow

%
change2005 vs2002

Vehicles four or more wheels

62,50048,50047,20048,800-22%

Potentially chargeable vehicles

53,40037,50036,10037,500-30%- Cars37,50023,60022,70024,200-35%- Vans12,80011,00010,90010,700-16%- Lorries

3,000

2,900

2,300

2,400

-20%

Non chargeable vehicles

19,20021,70021,80021,500+12%- Licensed taxis

6,900

7,800

8,400

8,500

+23%

- Buses and coaches

2,200

2,600

2,800

3,000

+36%

- Pedal cycles

3,900

4,400

4,500

4,900

+24%

- Powered two-wheelers

6,200

6,200

6,200

5,400

-12%

All vehicles

72,50059,20057,90059,000-19%

Radial traffic approaching the charging zone
For radial traffic approaching the charging zone (as opposed to crossing intoit), the portion of the TfL central cordon within the case study area records
overall reductions of 21 percent (vehicles with four or more wheels, inbound,
weekday charging hours) between 2002 and 2005. Here, however, thereduction in potentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) is 24
percent, (Figure 7.3). These results are consistent with the reductions in traffic
entering the charging zone, as reported in Table 7.1, but show a greater
reduction in traffic than around the TfL central London cordon as a whole. Thisis likely to reflect local traffic conditions and in particular the on-going works in
the King’s Cross area, as well as reduced traffic from congestion charging, as
this cordon lies outside of the charging zone and Inner Ring Road in this area.

130

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.3

Potentially chargeable vehicles crossing the TfL central cordon inboundat 13 sites between Upper Street and Kingsland Road inclusive.
Charging hours equivalent, 1991 to 2005.

50,000Total flow (potentially chargeable vehicles)

45,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000
0
1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Traffic on the Inner Ring Road
Continuous traffic flow data from the automatic counter site on City Road
show stable flows, spanning both the introduction of charging itself and more
recently (Figure 7.4). Typical flows here have reduced and are now marginallybelow those recorded in the weeks before charging started. Interestingly,
weekend traffic flows have risen at this site and are gradually converging withweekday flows.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

131

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.4

Traffic flow during charging hours equivalent, on City Road Inner Ring
Road permanent monitoring site (both directions combined), January
2003 to December 2005.

20,00017,50015,00012,50010,0007,500
5,000
Weekday
2,500

Saturday
Sunday

0

6/
1/
03
3/
3/
0
28 3
/4
/0
23 3
/6
/0
18 3
/8
13 /03
/1
0/
0
8/ 3
12
/0
3
2/
2/
0
29 4
/3
/0
24 4
/5
/0
19 4
/7
/0
13 4
/9
/0
8/ 4
11
/0
4
3/
1/
0
28 5
/2
/0
25 5
/4
/0
20 5
/6
/0
15 5
/8
10 /05
/1
0/
0
5/ 5
12
/0
5

Total flow (vehicles with four or more wheels)

22,500Week beginning

Temporal displacement of trips
Figure 7.5 shows an indicative hourly flow profile for traffic entering thecharging zone, from available continuous monitoring sites in the boundarycase study area. The picture is very similar to that observed across the wholeof the charging zone boundary, with overall reductions in traffic during
charging hours, combined with a general absence of changes at other times.

132

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.5

Indicative hourly flow profile of traffic entering the charging zone within
the boundary case study area (typical days, vehicles with four or more
wheels only).

Total flow (vehicles with four or more wheels)

2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250

early 2003 Weekday

early 2003 Saturday

early 2003 Sunday

early 2004 Weekdays

early 2004 Saturday

early 2004 Sunday

early 2005 Weekdays

early 2005 Saturday

early 2005 Sunday

0.
00
01
.0
0
02
.0
0
03
.0
0
04
.0
0
05
.0
0
06
.0
0
07
.0
0
08
.0
0
09
.0
0
10
.0
0
11
.0
0
12
.0
0
13
.0
0
14
.0
0
15
.0
0
16
.0
0
17
.0
0
18
.0
0
19
.0
0
20
.0
0
21
.0
0
22
.0
0
23
.0
0

0

Hour beginning

7.3

Impacts on congestion

Traffic changes outside the zone caused by the introduction of congestion
charging were expected to lead to corresponding, although smaller changes incongestion – some positive (such as on radial routes approaching the zone)
and some potentially negative (such as additional delays from traffic diverting
around the boundary of the charging zone). Overall, net gains were expected,
although it was recognised that the extent of preparatory traffic management(particularly the ‘Shoreditch Triangle’ scheme) and other works in theboundary case study area would make a full comparison of before and after
measurements difficult.
As with the main programme, speed data for the case study area have beencollected using moving car observer surveys. Figure 7.6 shows the network
surveyed; note that the robustness of these data is limited by the coverage ofthe survey network.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

133

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.6

Map of speed survey network in boundary case study area.

Source: Reproduced by permission of Geographers’ A-Z Map Co Ltd  Crown copyright2006. All rights reserved (100017302).

Comparison of measured levels of congestion in Spring 2002 and Spring 2005
on this network show overall reductions during weekday charging hours ofaround 24 percent (Figure 7.7). It is likely that this finding relates primarily toother factors, particularly the ‘Shoreditch Triangle’ traffic management
scheme. If the immediate Shoreditch area is excluded, measured congestion
levels show greater stability before and after charging, at consistently around
1.5 to 1.6 minutes per kilometre.

134

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.7

Excess delay (minutes per kilometre) in the boundary case study area
during charging hours equivalent, before and after charging.
Case study area (excluding Shoreditch)

2.5

Case study area

Charging starts

Excess delay (min/km)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Mar-Jun 02

Mar-Jun 03

Dec 03-Mar 04

Mar-Jun 05

Average network speeds, including time spent in queues, in the boundarycase study area (including Shoreditch) increased from around 14 to around 17
kilometres per hour during charging hours, whilst speeds on sections of the
Inner Ring Road increased marginally from 13 to 14 kilometres per hour
during charging hours between 2002 and 2005.

7.4

Impacts on public transport

Congestion charging was implemented against the backdrop of radical andongoing improvements to buses in and around central London. The scheme
was expected to result in increased travel by bus and, to a much lesser
extent, by Underground to the charging zone.

Bus supply and patronage
Bus routes that pass directly through the boundary case study area saw
overall increases of 40 scheduled buses per hour during the morning weekday
peak period in 2003. There has also been a parallel move towards theintroduction of buses with higher passenger capacities on some of the routes
in the area. Broadly speaking, there has been an increase in the supply of
buses of between 10 and 20 percent, although the balance at individual sites
is somewhat variable. The increased supply of buses has been matched byincreased patronage. Note that the surveys of bus patronage used here
operate on a five year cycle, so there are no updated data for 2005.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

135

7. Boundary case study

Underground patronage
Underground patronage has been affected by a variety of 'external' factors
since the introduction of congestion charging, such as the prolonged closureof the Central Line from January to May 2003 and shorter-term closure of theNorthern Line in the same year, as well as the July 2005 bombings in central
London. These have made it very difficult to identify a specific 'congestion
charging effect' on Underground patronage, which in any case was expected
to be relatively small.
There are three Underground stations within the case study area. Ticket-gatebased patronage data are compared for periods either side of the introductionof congestion charging in Figure 7.8.
Figure 7.8

AM peak passenger exits at Underground stations within the boundarycase study area.

12,000Charging starts

Number of passengers

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

Old Street
2,000

Angel
Highbury & Islington

01/0
1
01 /02/0
301 /02/0
501 /02/0
701 /02/0
901 /02/1
1
01 /02/0
1
01 /03
/0
3/
01 03
/0
5
01 /03/0
701 /03/0
901 /03/1
1
01 /03
/0
1/
01 04
/0
3
01 /04/0
501 /04/0
701 /04/0
901 /04
/1
1/
01 04
/0
1
01 /05/0
301 /05/0
501 /05/0
701 /05/0
901 /05/1
1
01 /05/0
1/
06

0Week beginning

In the first year after charging there was a slight increase in the number ofpassengers exiting the station during the morning peak period at Highbury
and Islington. This was thought largely to comprise passengers displaced by
the Central Line disruption, whereas at Angel and Old Street stations
passenger exit trends reflected network wide reductions.
In 2004, the second year after charging, all stations in the boundary casestudy area showed increases in the number of passengers exiting thestations, on average by 8 percent, again similar to the network wide increaseof 6 percent during that period.
In 2005, all stations have again seen an increase in the number of exiting
passengers in the morning peak. Angel and Old Street stations saw increases

136

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case studyof 4 and 2 percent respectively, comparable to the network wide average of 3
percent, whilst Highbury and Islington saw an increase of 11 percent. This is
somewhat greater than the network-wide trends, but is not thought to be
specifically related to congestion charging.

7.5

Impacts on business and the economy

Prior to the introduction of congestion charging, concerns were raised thatbusinesses located around the boundary of the charging zone would be
subject to increased costs, due to their likely interaction with customers andsuppliers in the charging zone, and perhaps to increased congestion in thelocal area. However, it was also felt that changed travel patterns might lead toincreases in ‘passing trade’ for these businesses.
To investigate these issues, a survey was undertaken with businesses in theboundary case study area, and in an adjacent area just inside the charging
zone. The primary aim of this survey was to monitor the views andperceptions of employers based within the case study area, and then tocompare these with third party quantitative data on business performance toobtain an overall picture of how the area has been affected by congestion
charging. Figure 7.9 shows the area included in the survey.
Figure 7.9

Map of the boundary case study business survey area.

A further boundary business survey was undertaken in Autumn 2005,
following the July 2005 Variations, and consisted of a 20 minute telephoneinterview. The survey achieved a response rate of 17 percent, with 616
interviews carried out with local businesses.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

137

7. Boundary case study

Analysis of secondary data sources included the Dun & Bradstreet businesses
database, the Annual Business Inquiry and the VAT Registrations database.
For further explanation of these sources, see the Business and Economic
impacts section of this report (Section 5).
Secondary data analysis and survey findings are presented below.

Characteristics of the local economy
There are approximately 7,200 businesses and 100,000 employees based in
the boundary case study area and inner boundary area. The majority ofbusinesses were financial services or other service industries (Figure 7.10).
There is very little industrial activity within the boundary case study area.
Figure 7.10

Business composition by sector.

Other services
Public administration, education & healthBanking, finance and insurance, etc
Transport and communications
Hotels, restaurants, other leisure
Retail trade, except of motor vehicles
Wholesale trade/commission trade, etc
Sale, maintenance/ repair motor vehicles
Construction
Manufacturing
Energy and water
Agriculture and fishing
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Businesses in the boundary case study area were more likely to be small,single site enterprises (72 percent) than those just inside the charging zone
boundary (57 percent). Two thirds had 10 employees or less, compared tounder half of those just inside the boundary.
Sixteen percent of businesses in the boundary case study area were classed
as ‘places where customers visit’, compared to ten percent of those just inside
the boundary.

Business performance
Dun & Bradstreet data indicate an underlying increase in sales of 5 to 6
percent amongst businesses located in the boundary case study area

138

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study

between 2003/4 and 2004/5, compared to a decrease of 2 percent amongst
businesses just inside the charging zone. This excludes growth via takeovers
or mergers, and also excludes any reductions in sales caused by businesses
closing down or moving out of the area.
The smallest area for which VAT registrations data are available is theindividual Local Authority. VAT registrations data show that the total numberof businesses based in Islington, in which the majority of the boundary casestudy area is located, has remained static since 2002 (Figure 7.11). The‘churn’, the rate at which businesses register or de-register, has increasedslightly over this period. These findings are in line with London-wide trends.
Figure 7.11

Net change in the stock of businesses registered for VAT, 1994 to 2004.

130
Islington
Central zone

125

Greater London

Index, 1994 = 100

120

115

110

105

100
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

For the 2005 TfL boundary business survey, some 89 percent of businesses
surveyed agreed to comment on their performance in the last financial year.
Of those that responded, 20 percent said that it was better than in theprevious year; 11 percent said it was worse.
The factors that were most commonly mentioned as having an influence on
business performance were ‘internal factors’ (38 percent), ‘general economic
conditions’ (32 percent) and ‘terrorism and the July 2005 bombings’ (8percent). Congestion charging was mentioned by 8 percent of respondents as
having had an impact on business performance in 2004/5 (which could havebeen either positive or negative).

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

139

7. Boundary case study

Recruitment and retention of staff
The vast majority of businesses surveyed in the boundary case study area
said that less than 10 percent of staff left and were replaced in 2004/5,
although around one in ten stated that more than half of their workforce was
replaced in the past year. High staff turnover was most common in the leisuresector. Most organisations ascribed increases in staff turnover to the
expansion of their business and the resulting need to recruit more staff. Only
15 percent of respondents indicated any difficulty in recruiting new membersof staff. None of these respondents cited congestion charging or the lack ofpublic transport as a factor.

Attitudes towards congestion charging and transport
Transport costs were seen to represent around 7 percent of total businesscosts, rising to 12 percent for distribution and wholesaling businesses.
Just over six in ten businesses in the boundary case study area consideredthat transport difficulties affected them ‘a great deal’, or ‘quite a lot’. They mostfrequently cited public transport delays and unreliability as ‘a problem’.
Congestion charging was mentioned as ‘a problem’ by 12 percent ofrespondents.
Businesses in the boundary case study area were as likely as those justinside the charging zone to say that peak period congestion was ‘very bad’ or‘at a critical’ level. Figure 7.12 highlights locations containing highconcentrations of businesses identifying congestion as ‘very bad’ or ‘critical’.

140

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.12

Business opinion of the level of road traffic congestion, boundary
business survey 2005.

Business support for the congestion charging scheme
In the 2005 survey, some 56 percent of businesses in the boundary casestudy area supported the congestion charge, as long as there was continued
investment in public transport. Retailers were the least likely and financebusinesses were the most likely to support the congestion charge. The
perceived impacts of the congestion charge are detailed in Figure 7.13 andFigure 7.14.
In total, 68 percent of business respondents considered that the introductionof congestion charging had made the buses and the Underground more
crowded. TfL considers that congestion charging has led to only a small
increase in the number of Underground passengers. Whilst bus passenger
numbers have risen substantially, there have been corresponding rises in bus
service provision. Consequently, TfL does not consider that congestion
charging has led to overcrowding on the public transport network, either ingeneral or more specifically in the boundary case study area.
Similarly, whilst 62 percent of business respondents considered that the
introduction of congestion charging had increased congestion just outside thecharging zone, the data presented in Figure 7.7 show that congestion levels inthe boundary case study area fell after the introduction of charging.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

141

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.13

Perceived positive impacts of the congestion charge, boundary
business survey, 2005.
16

Made the area inside the zone more pleasant20
31

Encouraged some people to use public transport
15

Made buses faster and more reliable

0%
Definitely yes

Figure 7.14

Possibly

20%

38

11
22

15
12

16
22

13

40%

60%

80%

Probably not

8
15

30

Neither / not sure

11
100%

Definitely not

Perceived negative impacts of the congestion charge, boundary
business survey, 2005.

Shifted some trade from inside to outside the zone

22

Increased congestion just outside the charging zone

27

34

42

Increased parking problems just outside the charging
zone

36

0%
Definitely yes

Possibly

30
35

Made the buses and the Underground more crowded

7.6

20

32

25

Reduced congestion inside the charging zone

29

20%

26
26
31

40%

Neither / not sure

10 4

60%
Probably not

9 3

22

6 4

22

8 3

80%

100%

Definitely not

Air quality and road safety impacts

Traffic changes brought about by the scheme might be expected to affect theenvironment, primarily in terms of air quality, and perhaps contribute to trends
in personal injury road traffic accidents within the case study area.
In both cases however, the traffic changes observed in the boundary casestudy area (as opposed to the charging zone itself) have been relatively
mixed, such that it would be unlikely that any observed changes in air quality
or accidents would be directly as a result of charging.

Air quality
Trends in ambient air quality in the boundary case study area can be inferredfrom the monitoring site on Upper Street, Islington, an inner London'background' site away from major roads. This is one of approximately 80 sites
across London that are affiliated to the London Air Quality Network.
Continuous trend data for key pollutants at this site can be obtained andcompared with similar data at other sites, to examine how air quality at thissite behaves in relation to trends elsewhere.

142

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study

Overall, air quality at the Islington site has behaved broadly as would be
expected, given the absence of significant traffic effects, and the 'background'
trends observed elsewhere in London.
In the case of oxides of nitrogen (NOx – a fairly 'direct' indicator of road traffic
emissions), Figure 7.15 shows that running annual mean concentrations at
the Islington site have been stable or declining slightly for several years ataround 80 µg/m3. These concentrations are very close to the average for inner
London 'background' sites and are lower than 'background' sites within the
charging zone. There is no indication of changed NOx levels coinciding with
the introduction of charging.
Figure 7.15

Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - kerbside
Upper Street, Islington - background450

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background
Charging starts

Provisional
data

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50

g05
Au

-0
5
Fe
b

g04
Au

-0
4
Fe
b

g03
Au

-0
3
Fe
b

g02
Au

-0
2
Fe
b

g01
Au

-0
1
Fe
b

g00
Au

-0
0
Fe
b

g99
Au

-9
9

0

Fe
b

-3

Running annual mean (Pgm )Concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), Upper Street Islington
compared with other sites.

In the case of NO2 (nitrogen dioxide – a 'secondary' pollutant from roadtraffic), again running annual mean concentrations since 2000 have beenremarkably stable at this site. Concentrations are similar to the inner London'background' average and below concentrations at equivalent sites within the
charging zone. There is again no visible response to the introduction of
charging and – unlike some other monitoring sites across London – noevidence of recent rises in NO2 concentrations.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

143

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.16

Concentrations of PM10, Upper Street Islington compared with othersites.
Within charging zone - roadside
Inner London - roadside
Inner Ring Road - roadside
Upper Street, Islington - background

Within charging zone - background
Inner London - background
Suburban outer London - background

Running annual mean (ygm-3)

40

Charging starts

Provisional
data

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

-0
5
Au
g

Fe
b05

-0
4
Au
g

Fe
b04

g03
Au

-0
3
Fe
b

g02
Au

-0
2
Fe
b

-0
1
Au
g

-0
1
Fe
b

-0
0
Au
g

Fe
b00

Au
g99

Fe
b

-9
9

0

In the case of PM10 (fine particulate matter – a proportion of which originatesfrom road vehicle emissions), running annual mean concentrations have beenbroadly comparable with typical 'background' values for inner London sites.
In common with most sites across London, elevated levels of PM10 wereexperienced throughout 2003, associated primarily with unusual weather
patterns, although this did not lead to a breach of the 2005 air quality
objective at this site. 2004 saw a return to ‘normal’ levels at this site, in
common with the rest of inner London.

Accidents
Data for reported road traffic accidents involving personal injury shows thatthe total number of recorded accidents in the boundary case study area fell in
all time periods in 2004 (Figure 7.17). Overall, by 2004 the number ofaccidents had fallen by around a quarter on weekdays and by around 3
percent on weekends compared with 2001 levels. This is in line with Londonwide trends.
Moreover, there is no evidence of disproportionate changes to the severity ofroad accidents in the case study area, or of detrimental changes to thereported number of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles, whose
presence has been observed to increase since the introduction of charging.

144

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

7. Boundary case study
Figure 7.17

Recent trends in road traffic accidents in the boundary case study area.

350
2001 (Feb '01 - Jan '02)
300

2002 (Feb '02 - Jan '03)
2003 (Mar '03 - Feb '04)

Number of accidents

250

2004 (Mar '04 - Feb '05)

Before charging
is introduced
After charging
is introduced

200

150

100

50

0
Charging hours

7.7

Weekdays out of charging hours

Weekends

Summary of key findings

A case study area adjacent to the boundary of the congestion charging zone,
covering parts of the boroughs of Islington and Hackney, was studied to
explore the scope and intensity of possible ‘boundary related’ impacts arisingfrom congestion charging.
Updated data for 2005 confirm the picture for 2003/4 reported previously. The
traffic changes observed in the case study area were closely comparable tothose observed across the whole of the charging zone boundary. There is noevidence of detrimental or disproportionate impacts reflecting congestion
charging, and conditions in 2005 very closely reflect those observed in
2003/4.
Small reductions to congestion on the Inner Ring Road and more widely in theboundary case study area have been observed. The implementation of the‘Shoreditch Triangle’ traffic management scheme makes comparison of before
and after charging conditions difficult, but congestion has remained broadly
stable or seen some improvement in the boundary case study area.
The increase in bus capacity in the boundary case study area has beenmatched by an increase in patronage. Underground patronage increased inboth 2004 and 2005, generally in line with network wide trends and indicating
influences other than congestion charging.
The economy in the boundary case study is characterised by small
businesses, many of which classify themselves as ‘places which customers
visit’. VAT registrations show that the number of businesses operating in the

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

145

7. Boundary case study

area both inside and outside the charging zone was unaffected by the
introduction of charging, and Dun & Bradstreet data show that there has beensteady growth in sales since the introduction of charging.
Businesses in the boundary case study area were broadly supportive ofcongestion charging. Factors such as organisational change, the economy,
and the threat of terrorism were seen to have more of an influence on
business performance than congestion charging.
Trends in air quality in the boundary case study area have followed the inner
London average and, reflecting data limitations, it has not yet been possible toidentify any differential effects associated with the introduction of charging in
the boundary case study area.
The number of road traffic accidents involving personal injury in the boundarycase study area has continued to fall, in line with London-wide trends. No
specific changes have been observed that can be associated with congestion
charging.

146

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

8

July 2005 charge Variations

8.1

Introduction

This section looks at the impact of the changes to the central London
congestion charging scheme that were introduced on 4 July 2005 – the ‘July
2005 Variations’. It considers available data from a range of sources, anddraws some initial conclusions about the impacts of these changes on traffic
conditions and chargepayer behaviour.

BackgroundOn 4 July 2005 the standard daily congestion charge was increased from £5
to £8, with an equivalent increase for residents’ weekly charges, from £2.50 to£4. The existing range of discounts and exemptions remained. At the sametime a new pricing discount was introduced for annual and monthly charge
payments and the charge for vehicles using the fleet scheme was increased
to £7.

TfL’s expectations
In TfL’s public consultation material it was expected that the July 2005
Variations would result in the following changes to traffic, congestion andscheme revenues, in relation to those quantities observed in 2004 andreported in TfL’s Third Annual Monitoring Report.
x

A 3 to 7 percent reduction in traffic entering the zone (vehicles with 4 ormore wheels).

x

A 2 to 6 percent reduction in traffic circulating within the zone (vehicles
with 4 or more wheels).

x

A reduction of between 5 and 9 percent in the number of individual
potentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) circulating within
the charging zone.

x

A reduction of between 4 and 8 percentage points in delays within the
charging zone (ie congestion), additional to the nominal 30 percent alreadyachieved, representing further reductions of between 0.1 and 0.2 minutes
per kilometre in the observed excess delay measure.

x

Additional net revenues, for reinvestment in transport, of between £35
million and £45 million per year.

In TfL’s Report to the Mayor following public consultation, TfL referred to theresults of more detailed traffic projections, which indicated that the impacts ofthe changes could be more towards the lower end of these ranges, reflecting
updated information on driver sensitivities and ‘background’ traffic changes.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

147

8. July 2005 charge Variations

Key findingsx

The traffic trend and congestion data now available to TfL permit aninterim assessment of the impacts of the July 2005 Variations, althoughseasonal effects mean that these results need to be interpreted withcaution.

x

Latest data indicate outcomes broadly within TfL’s range of priorexpectation, but trends for earlier months during the latter half of 2005 areless clear, potentially reflecting effects associated with the bombings incentral London in July 2005, and a longer-term ‘background’ trend ofslowly-declining traffic in central and inner London.

x

In Spring 2006, volumes of traffic entering the charging zone havedeclined by up to 6 percent (vehicles with four or more wheels), comparing
equivalent weeks in 2005 and 2006. Taking background trends into
account, this suggests that the changes have been responsible for
reductions in entering traffic of about 4 percent – towards the lower end of
the range of TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

Trends in traffic circulating within the charging zone are less distinct, data
for early 2006 indicating overall reductions of between 3 and 4 percent incirculating traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels). Taking backgroundtrends into account, this again suggests an outcome towards the lower end
of TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

There is evidence from across the available data that reductions topotentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) have been partly
offset by increases to non-chargeable vehicles (buses, taxis and twowheeled vehicles).

x

Trends in congestion charging payments received by TfL indicate a muchclearer response to the July 2005 Variations. Autumn 2005 saw consistent
reductions of 11 percent in the total number of congestion charges paid foron each charging day, intensifying to typically 12 percent in early 2006.
Taking background trends into account, this corresponds to an overall
reduction of about 7 percent in the use of the zone by chargeable vehicles,
which is in the middle of TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

Available measurements of congestion within the zone since Summer
2005 do not yet allow a robust assessment of the impact of the changes
on levels of congestion within the charging zone.

x

Surveys of travel behaviour change by chargepayers in response to theJuly 2005 Variations indicate that typically two-thirds of chargeable vehicle
trips in the charging zone are work-related (either for commuting to andfrom work or employers’ business). Approximately 60 percent ofchargepayers paying the charge through non-retail and non fleet sales
channels reported that they bore the cost of the congestion charge
themselves.

x

The behavioural surveys suggest reductions in chargeable travel to thezone in the range 8 to 17 percent, with a best estimate lying towards thelower end of this range – broadly corresponding to the observed changes
in payments and levels of chargeable vehicles.

148

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

8.2

Available data sources

The following data sources are available to allow TfL to assess these impacts:x

Charge payments data, reflecting changes to the number and type of
payments made, on a daily basis.

x

Traffic counts of volumes of traffic in and around the charging zone. These
include continuous volumetric data from automatic traffic counters locatedat a sample of the higher-flow entry points to the zone, as well as periodic
full manual counts, which provide information on changes by individualvehicle type.

x

Data from established moving car surveys of congestion and automatic
number plate recognition cameras in and around the charging zone.
Camera data can be used to measure the number of times unique vehicles
enter the zone in a day, as well as providing an indicator of congestion
trends by measuring average journey times between pairs of cameras.

x

Data from a specially-commissioned telephone survey with a panel of
1,500 registered chargepayers, undertaken before and after the July 2005
Variations, to assess changes to their travel behaviour.

This section sets out key findings from these data sources to explore therange of impacts that the July 2005 Variations have had on travel to thecharging zone. Each of the data sources has limitations and they therefore
need to be interpreted in combination. Furthermore, whilst the impacts of the
Variations on charges paid and, to a lesser extent, traffic volumes are now
relatively clear, data describing impacts on congestion and revenues permit
only an interim assessment at this stage.
It should be noted that the bombings of 7 July 2005 occurred on the fourth
day after the implementation of the charge Variations. This complicated theassessment of the impact of the changes as they affected travel to central
London during July and August 2005, and may have had longer term
influences on travel behaviour.

8.3

Charge payments data

Charge payments data are the purest indicator of the use made of the zone bycharge paying vehicles. They do not, however, allow consideration of theactual trips made by individual vehicles, for example to distinguish between
those making only one trip on a given day, and those making several.
Furthermore, they do not provide information on the use of the zone by nonpaying vehicles or non-chargeable vehicles (eg taxis, buses and two-wheeledvehicles). Therefore, they do not provide a direct indicator of traffic levels
within the zone.

Total valid daily payments
The observed trend in total valid payments per day (all types of charges) isshown in Figure 8.1. This compares daily values for 2005 and into 2006

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

149

8. July 2005 charge Variations

against equivalent days during 2004 and into 2005, and reflects the total
number of charges (of all types, including an apportionment for period
payments) that are valid on any given day.
Figure 8.1

Year-on-year change in total daily valid charges, 2005 into early 2006.

20%

Pre-charge increase- 3.3% (-4.2% since 1 June 2005)

Post-charge increase- 11.6%

Interim period

10%27-Mar13-Mar

27-Feb30-Jan13-Feb

16-Jan02-Jan19-Dec21-Nov

05-Dec24-Oct07-Nov

10-Oct

26-Sep29-Aug12-Sep15-Aug18-Jul

01-Aug04-Jul20-Jun06-Jun23-May25-Apr

09-May11-Apr28-Mar

14-Mar

28-Feb

31-Jan14-Feb17-Jan03-Jan

0%

-10%

-20%

It is seen that:x

Numbers of charges paid are relatively stable both before and after
Summer 2005, with a ‘transitional’ period during July and August 2005.

x

Charges paid during the early part of 2005 are consistently below
equivalent numbers in 2004, by typically between 3 and 4 percent. This
indicates a ‘background’ decline in the use of the zone by chargepayers,
as has been noted elsewhere in the traffic data (see Section 2).

x

Total daily valid charges for the latter half of 2005 are typically 11 percent
lower than the equivalent period in 2004, and between 7 and 8 percent
lower than the early part of 2005.

x

This decline has intensified in the early part of 2006, total valid charges
being typically some 12 percent lower than equivalent days in early 2005.

x

Taking the ‘background’ trend into account, this 7 to 8 percent reduction
would reflect the ‘potentially attributable’ medium-term impact of the
Variations on charge payments, setting aside for the moment the possible
impact of any continuing background reductions in traffic for other reasons
during the latter half of 2005.

Changes by individual payment types
The trend in total valid payments per day conceals a range of responses,
comparing conditions before and after Summer 2005, by each of the different
groups of chargepayers.
x

Residents of the charging zone, who have charges discounted by 90
percent, typically reduced payments by only about 1 percent, compared to150

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

the early part of 2005. There has therefore been a minimal reaction among
this group to the rise in the discounted weekly charge, from £2.50 to £4(equivalent to 50 pence to 80 pence per charging day).
x

Payments for vehicles registered on the fleet scheme have shown an
increase of about 9 percent in charges paid through these arrangements,
compared to the early part of 2005. This is likely to reflect new provisions
for the operation of fleet scheme, making it more accessible and relatively
more attractive, compared to before July 2005.

x

Those paying their charge via monthly or annual payments have shown
only comparatively small increases in numbers in spite of the new
discounted pricing arrangements.

x

The number of payments made by remaining ‘standard’ chargepayers(those who pay the charge on a daily basis through, for example, retail orinternet sales channels) saw the biggest change, decreasing in number by
about 16 percent overall compared to the first half of 2005. This includes a‘background’ decline of about 4 percent.

8.4

Traffic survey data

Traffic survey data allows the impact of the changes on traffic levels to beassessed. Traffic measurements differ from charge payment data in three key
respects:
x

Indirect relationship to chargepayers. Traffic counts include bothpotentially-chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) and nonchargeable vehicles (buses, taxis and two-wheeled vehicles). Although it ispossible to distinguish the main vehicle types in classified traffic countdata, this is not possible with continuous data from automatic traffic
counters. Furthermore, vehicles classified as ‘potentially chargeable’ (cars,
vans and lorries) include various types of exempted and discounted
vehicles, such as London licensed private hire vehicles, whose responseto the Variations would differ from those liable for the full charge.

x

Inability to determine frequency of entry by individual unique vehicles.
Vehicles passing count points will be counted on the same aggregatedbasis, whether they have made one or several movements during the day.
This means that there is an important distinction to be made between total
vehicle movements (the traffic count statistic) and unique vehicles
contributing to those movements, the difference between the two reflecting
a trip-frequency profile for individual unique vehicles.

x

Traffic counts are subject to various types of survey and sample error. This
needs to be recognised when considering small indicated changes.

Continuous automatic counts of traffic entering the charging zone
Figure 8.2 shows the long-term trend for all traffic with four or more wheels
entering the charging zone during charging hours. These data are fromautomatic counters continuously measuring inbound traffic flow located at
sixteen high-volume entry points to the zone.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

151

8. July 2005 charge Variations
Figure 8.2

Traffic entering the congestion charging zone across 16 busier inboundroads. Average weekly flows, charging hours, vehicles with four or more
wheels.

Average flow (vehicles with 4 or more wheels)

160,000
140,000
2003
2004
2005
2006

120,000
100,000
80,00060,00040,00020,000
0

W

ee

k

1

4
7 1 0 13 1 6 19 2 2 25 28 31 3 4 37 4 0 4 3 46 49 52kke e ee e ek eek e ek ee k eek ee k e ek eek e ek eek e ek ee k ee k eek e ek
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

The following can be seen:x

Traffic entering the zone during 2005 (yellow line) is consistently lower
than equivalent days in 2004 (pale blue line), typically by between 1 and 2
percent. In the first half of 2005, this reflects the small ‘background’ decline
to traffic in the charging zone as noted in the charge payments data, andalso in the wider body of traffic survey data discussed in Section 2.

x

In the second half of 2005, this relative decline intensified, amounting totypically between 2 and 5 percent, reflecting a potentially-attributable
response to the July 2005 Variations, but also probably including acomponent of ongoing background decline.

x

In the early part of 2006 (green line), the decline intensified further,
typically amounting to between 5 and 6 percent fewer vehicles with four ormore wheels entering the charging zone compared with equivalent weeks
in early 2005.

x

Although the general pattern shown by traffic entering the zone is similar tothat for congestion charge payments, it is notable that the magnitude of theindicated changes is considerably less. This primarily reflects thecomposition of traffic in central London, with fewer than half of the vehicles
in the charging zone during charging hours being subject to the full dailycharge.

x

From these data therefore, the ‘potentially attributable’ impact of the
Variations on total traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering thecharging zone lies between 1 and 3 percent for the latter half of 2005,

152

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

increasing to between 2 and 4 percent in early 2006. This corresponds tothe lower end of TfL’s range of expected impacts.

Periodic classified counts of traffic entering the charging zone
Classified traffic counts provide information on trends for the main vehicle
types. They are only undertaken periodically, typically on two or four days per
year, which means that they have a large statistical error, typically plus/minus
5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for total traffic for a single count.
Figure 8.3 shows a sub-set of TfL’s time-series of counts (see also Section 2),
comparing traffic entering and leaving the charging zone during charging
hours in the Autumn counts for both 2004 and 2005. Note that these are
directly-comparable Autumn counts taken in each year and therefore differ
from those considered in Table 2.1, which consider the average of bothcounts during each ‘season’ in 2005. The graphic shows percentage changes,
the impact of each on total traffic levels varying according to their absolutecontribution to total traffic.
Figure 8.3

Change in vehicles entering the congestion charging zone during
charging hours. Autumn counts, 2004 and 2005.

40%
Inbound
Outbound

Percentage change

30%

20%

10%

Al
lv
eh
icl
es

he
ele
rs
4+
w

Ta
Bu
xis
se
sa
nd
co
Po
ac
we
he
s
re
dt
wo
-w
he
ele
rs
Pe
da
lc
yc
Ch
les
ar
ge
ab
le
No
ve
hic
nc
les
ha
rg
ea
ble
ve
hic
les

Va
ns
Lo
rri
es
an
do
the
rs

Ca
rs
a

nd
m

-10%

ini
ca
bs

0%

Notes: Based on equivalent counts in September of each year only.

Various comparisons of these data have already been described in Section 2.
Here, considering Autumn 2005 in relation to Autumn 2004, it is notable that:x

Potentially chargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) show reductions of
4 percent inbound, and 5 percent outbound.

x

Non chargeable vehicles show increases, of 4 percent inbound, and 3
percent outbound, over the same period.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

153

8. July 2005 charge Variations
x

Increases in non-chargeable vehicles therefore partly counteract the effectof reductions to chargeable vehicles, so that total traffic in Autumn 2005 is
1 percent lower than in Autumn 2004 in the inbound direction, and 2
percent lower in the outbound direction.

x

The large percentage increases in pedal cycling have been noted
elsewhere and may in part reflect a response to the July 2005 bombingsand lower rainfall in the Autumn of 2005.

These data therefore show a mixed picture. There is some evidence of
reductions to potentially-chargeable vehicles, as might be expected as a
response to the July 2005 Variations, although the indicated changes are at
the lower end of TfL’s range of prior expectation. Furthermore, indicatedincreases in non-chargeable vehicles partly counteract the effect of reduced
chargeable vehicles in terms of overall traffic flow.

Other traffic data
Automatic and manual counts of entering traffic give the most reliable pictureof traffic trends in the charging zone. A range of supporting indicators are alsoavailable, as more fully described in Section 2. Key findings from thesesecondary indicators in relation to the July 2005 Variations are:x

Continuous automatic counts of traffic circulating within the charging zone
show a less distinct trend than that for entering traffic. Traffic volumes forvehicles with four or more wheels have typically been 3 to 4 percent lower
for comparable weeks (year-on-year) from the latter part of 2005.

x

Manual counts of traffic circulating within the charging zone present amixed picture. The prevailing indication is of small overall reductions intraffic, and again there is evidence of a degree of compensation between
potentially-chargeable and non-chargeable vehicles.

x

Both automatic and manual traffic counts taken on the Inner Ring Road do
not show a distinct trend that might be attributable to the July 2005
Variations.

x

The impacts of the July 2005 bombings on aggregate traffic flows werelargely confined to the days immediately affected. Traffic levels apparently
recovered rapidly, but it is important to realise that this is a net out-turn andpossibly conceals a range of adaptations to travel behaviour of individuals,
which could be important in explaining the longer-term trend.

8.5

Impacts on congestion

The July 2005 Variations were expected to lead to further incremental
reductions to congestion within the charging zone, equating to savings of
between 0.1 and 0.2 minutes per kilometre.

Available data and key findings
Measuring changes to congestion is more challenging than changes to traffic
or payment levels. Standard moving car surveys of congestion are carried out

154

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

on a bi-monthly basis. Each survey is subject both to ‘real’ variability, partly
reflecting changing road network conditions and traffic levels (eg seasonalvariability), as well as statistical error, reflecting the properties of the survey
method. The anticipated changes in congestion lie well within the band of
uncertainty defined by these two quantities, such that a run of several surveys
would be required to definitively establish any changes as significant. The
impact of the July 2005 bombings would have been expected to further
complicate the picture over the Summer and Autumn of 2005.
To date confirmed results from three moving car surveys of congestion areavailable, reflecting settled conditions over the Autumn and Winter of 2005/6.
These can be compared against equivalent surveys undertaken before July
2005 to permit an interim assessment of congestion trends specifically in
relation to the July 2005 Variations. Data from moving car surveys aresupplemented by an analysis of camera data covering periods bracketing July
2005.

Data from moving car observer surveys
Figure 8.4 shows the trend in excess delay within the charging zone forcomparable moving car surveys. Surveys relating to July/August in each year
are excluded, as these were potentially affected in 2005 by the aftermath of
the bombings in central London.
Figure 8.4

Excess delay within charging zone. Comparable moving car observer
surveys before and after Summer 2005.

2.5
Post-July 2005 Variations

Excess delay (min/km)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Sep/Oct 2004 Nov/Dec 2004 Jan/Feb 2005

Sep/Oct 2005 Nov/Dec 2005 Jan/Feb 2006

At this stage, the available data do not show a trend that could be considered
to be statistically robust.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

155

8. July 2005 charge Variations

Data from automatic number plate recognition cameras
Congestion trends are also measured using data from cameras located in andaround the charging zone. Figure 8.5 compares data from this source across
two monitoring periods either side of July 2005. Note that these data were notcollected on a continuous basis during 2005/6.
The comparison suggests that excess delays during September/October 2005
were consistently lower (during charging hours) than during May/June 2005.
Again, however, TfL considers that more data are required to establish andquantify the impact of the Variations on congestion within the charging zone.
Figure 8.5

Excess delay within charging zone. Automatic number plate recognition
camera pairs, May/June 2005 compared with September/October 2005.

1.8

May/Jun 2005
1.6

Sept/Oct 2005

Excess Delay (mins/km)

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
06.00 07.00

07.00 10.00

10.00 13.00

13.00 16.00

16.00 18.30

18.30 20.00

20.00 00.00

Charging
hours

Time Period

8.6

TfL’s Panel survey of chargepayers

The indicators described above illustrate the magnitude of aggregate change,
but do not provide an understanding of how chargepayers as individuals havechanged their travel behaviour in response to the July 2005 Variations.
To explore this further, TfL conducted a behavioural survey with a ‘panel’ of
chargepayers, examining their travel choices and rationale both before (May2005) and after (September 2005) the changes to the scheme.
The survey panel:x

Consisted of those who paid the charge at least once in the six months
prior to May 2005 (ie ‘active’ users of the charging zone).

156

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations
x

Consisted of those who had registered their vehicle details with TfL, andtherefore appeared on TfL databases, ie it excluded those who had notdone so. Note that registration with TfL is not compulsory.

x

Excluded those paying through the fleet scheme, those in receipt ofresident and other discounts and exemptions and, owing to data
limitations, those who paid through the retail sales channel.

xThis latter group are also more likely to correspond to those chargepayers
who are not registered with TfL and therefore ineligible to take part in thesurvey. However, it is also possible for an individual to pay throughdifferent sales channels on different days, and therefore there will possibly
be a significant but unquantifiable overlap between ‘retail’ and ‘non-retail’chargepayers in the survey sample.

Bearing these characteristics in mind, drivers taking part in the survey wereselected to be representative in terms of frequency of travel to the charging
zone on charging days across a year, reflecting the profile of this sub-group of
chargepayers prior to the increase. The results from the survey have therefore
been weighted by drivers’ frequency of travel in order to gain a representative
picture of these drivers (in terms of their aggregate behaviour) on a typicalcharging day prior to July 2005, so that subsequent changes can beassessed.
2,506 drivers were interviewed in an initial wave in May 2005. 1,506 drivers
completed a follow-up interview in September 2005 and comprised the ‘survey
panel’.
Key topics for the survey were:xgeneral travel behaviour;x

travel in the previous week;x

sample trip made most recently to the charging zone;x

anticipated and stated changes to travel behaviour;xjourney costs;xdemographics.

This allowed direct comparison of reported changes to travel patterns, acrossa number of indicators and chargepayer groups. Note in particular that there
are three bases on which to compare travel behaviour – general travel, travelin the past week, and most recent chargeable trip.
Analysis of the characteristics of the achieved survey panel suggests that it isdirectly representative of about two-thirds of the fully-chargeable vehicles
circulating within the charging zone on a typical charging day, and that theexclusion from the survey of those paying via the retail channel is not asignificant distortion to the applicability of the survey findings.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

157

8. July 2005 charge Variations

8.7

First wave of survey – May 2005

Key outcomes from this wave were the establishment of a detailed profile ofthe travel behaviour of £5 chargepayers, and also the exploration theiranticipated responses to the Variations. A selection of findings is illustrated
below.

Journey purpose for travel to the charging zone
Of those drivers that had driven into the zone during the week prior to theirinterview, 60 percent had done so on employers’ business, a third had done
so for commuting and only 8 percent for personal business (ie discretionary or
leisure purposes). A very similar profile is obtained for the journey made ‘most
recently’ to the charging zone, as illustrated in Figure 8.6. Here, 54 percent of
trips were for employers’ business, 27 percent were commuting to work, 16
percent said they were for personal business and the remaining 5 percent did
not fit these categories.
Figure 8.6

Reason for most recent chargeable journey, May 2005.

Employers' businessTo or from work / commuting
Delivering goods
Meet friends / relatives
Entertainment
Shopping
Drop off / pick up
Dining / eating out
Tourism / sight-seeing
Other
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Where surveyed drivers had used other modes of transport to or in the
charging zone in the previous week the pattern is distinctly different. 14
percent of drivers had also made journeys to the zone on public transport. Of
these, only 12 percent said that those journeys were for personal business,whereas travel to work and employers’ business trips accounted for around 45
percent of these trips each. Where travel had been made on foot or by othermodes, an even greater proportion were for personal business, 22 percent. 43
percent of these trips had been related to employers’ business and 36 percent
had been for travel to or from work.
Figure 8.7 shows a frequency profile for a range of main journey purposes,
relating to chargeable journeys made in the week prior to the interview. Thisshows that, typically, chargeable journeys to and from work were made on a

158

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

more frequent basis by individual chargepayers, with ‘discretionary’ leisurerelated trips made less frequently.
Figure 8.7

Frequency and purpose of chargeable journeys during the week prior to
the survey, May 2005.

Total (2,506)

19

9

11

13

16

32

Journey purpose:
Personal business (127)48

Employers' business (700)2326Commuting (313)
0%

20%
0

1

18

19

14

40%
2

10

5
18

50

14

12

14

11

19

60%
3

80%
4

100%
5

Frequency of travel to the charging zone
Frequency of driving to the zone varies by journey purpose. Figure 8.8
illustrates the mix of travel that was made by drivers on their most recent
sample trip, weighted to correspond to a typical charging day.
The most likely trip to have been made by respondents was a frequent (oncea week or more) business trip, at 43 percent of trips. There was quite asignificant difference between that and the next most likely trip to have been
made, which was frequent travel to and from work, this accounting for 24
percent of trips by respondents in the week before the survey. Infrequent (lessthan once a week) business travel is the next most frequent trip, accountingfor 17 percent of trips, followed by infrequent and frequent personal businessor leisure trips, accounting for 13 percent in total, and finally infrequent work
trips, which account only 3 percent of trips by survey respondents on a typicalweek.
Figure 8.8

Proportion of chargeable journeys made most recently in terms of
purpose and frequency, May 2005.

Leisure-infrequent
Leisure-weekly
Business-infrequentBusiness-weekly
Work-infrequent
Work-weekly
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

50%

159

8. July 2005 charge Variations

When asked what vehicle they had driven for their most recent chargeable trip
80 percent had used a car, 10 percent a small van and 9 percent a larger van.
Generally, less frequent travellers were more likely to be driving a car andthose on business travel were more likely to be driving a van.

Trip length
Respondents were asked to estimate the length of their most recent
chargeable trip to the charging zone. The ‘true’ distance was subsequently
calculated by TfL, on the basis of stated origins and destinations. Figure 8.9
compares the trip length distributions obtained through both methods.
Figure 8.9

Estimated and calculated journey lengths for most recently madechargeable journeys, May 2005.

35%

Estimated distanceCalculated distance
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
10km and under

11 to 20 km

21 to 30 km

31 to 50 km

51 to 100 km

Over 100 km

This figure shows a tendency by respondents to over-estimate the lengths ofshorter trips, and under-estimate the length of longer trips. The indicatedaverage trip length (all chargeable trips, typical charging day) is approximately
40 kilometres. This is somewhat higher than previous estimates available to
TfL, and probably influenced by the exclusion from the survey of residents,
those paying through the fleet scheme (e.g. delivery trips) and those paying
the charge through the retail sales channel.
Journeys to work and for personal business average around 25 kilometres inlength in this dataset, whilst trips for employers’ business average around 46
kilometres.

160

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

Cost of chargeable journeys to the zone
Respondents were asked how much they estimated they spent on different
elements of their most recent chargeable journey, and to estimate an overall
cost for this journey. This was then compared to a calculated cost. Calculated
costs were based on parking costs provided by the respondent, the £5 cost of
the congestion charge (at the time of the first wave of the survey), a notional
vehicle operating cost based on a measured distance between their origin anddestination, and the ‘average cost’ of running a car as calculated by the
Automobile Association at 24 pence per kilometre, which includes anallowance for vehicle depreciation.
Across this dataset of all chargeable journeys the average total driverestimated cost was around £27, and the average total calculated cost wasaround £34, including vehicle operational costs and vehicle depreciation.
Excluding vehicle operational and depreciation costs the more immediate
costs of the congestion charge and parking were on average only £11,
although it was noted from the survey that many respondents making
employers’ business trips had parking provided at no cost.
As can be seen in Figure 8.10, calculated overall costs and driver-estimatedcosts were different. Generally journeys that cost under £20 are estimated by
the driver to cost more, and journeys over £30 are estimated by the driver tocost less. The best match between driver-estimated and calculated cost arefor journeys costing between £20 and £30.
Figure 8.10

Estimated compared to calculated total cost (including vehicle
depreciation) of most recent journey to the charging zone, May 2005.

40%
Estimated cost
Calculated cost

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
£10 or less

£11 to £20£21 to £30£31 to £40£41 to £50£51 or more

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

161

8. July 2005 charge Variations

For an ‘average’ driver, therefore, the cost of the congestion charge, then at£5 per day, comprised around one-seventh of the total cost of the journey,
including vehicle depreciation. For individual drivers making multiple trips
during the same charging day, this proportion would be correspondingly
smaller.
However, these calculations are somewhat artificial, as the ‘up front’ costassociated with paying the charge would tend to figure more highly in mostchargepayers’ thinking when making decisions about their travel behaviour
than the ‘background’ costs associated with vehicle ownership.

Who bears the cost of chargeable journeys?
To more fully understand motivations for travel behaviour change it isimportant to know who actually bears the costs for chargeable journeys. It
would be expected that those who personally bear costs are more likely torespond to cost changes.
Overall, 38 percent of respondents stated that they had the charge paid forthem by their business (Figure 8.11). A further 2 percent stated that they pass
it on to their customers. Similar proportions of drivers have the costs of theirpetrol paid for them, although significantly more, at 59 percent, reported thatthey did not personally bear any costs for parking. These proportions arereflective of the journey purpose profile from the survey described above.
Respondents making chargeable journeys for personal business were least
likely to have congestion charge and petrol paid for them, at around 6 percent,compared to 26 percent of those driving to work.
Figure 8.11

Bearer of congestion charge for most recent chargeable journey, May
2005.

Total (2,506)

59

38

2

Journey purpose by car:Leisure (127)95

Company business (700)443Commuting (313)

53

2

75
0%

20%
Self

40%

22
60%

Employer / Business80%
Customers

100%
Other

It might also be expected that drivers’ views on the proportion of their trip costaccounted for by the congestion charge would be reflected in whether or notthey pay the costs themselves. Around 60 percent of those who bear all orsome of costs themselves consider the charge to form a ‘major part’ or ‘themajority’ of their total journey cost, compared to only 40 percent of those whohave all the costs paid for them.

162

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

In interpreting these findings, it is important to bear in mind the characteristicsof the survey sample which excluded, for example, those paying the charge
through the fleet scheme.

Pattern of chargeable journeys
Of all reported trips into the zone in a typical week, around half were ‘simple’
trips, involving driving in, parking and later driving out. One third involved
multiple trips either within the zone or in and out of the zone and 9 percent
involved driving through the zone without stopping. In addition to this, 6
percent of journeys involved a brief stop off or pick up inside the zone.
Generally those that drove in more frequently were more likely to do multiple
trips on a single day, and less frequent drivers are more likely to make a‘simple’ trip: in, park and out.
Those on business trips were much more likely to be making multiple trips inthe zone on any one day, at 48 percent, compared to 16 percent of thosemaking leisure trips and journeys to work.

Chargepayer turnover
Over half of respondents to the survey reported that they had been making
chargeable trips similar to the one they had made most recently (ie their mostrecent chargeable trip) for over two and a half years (ie since before charging
began). The other half of respondents had only been making trips similar totheir most recent chargeable trip since charging began. Of the most recent
chargeable journey made by respondents, 22 percent had been making
similar journeys for less than one year, and 24 percent for between one year
and two and a half years.
Bearing in mind that the introduction of charging itself will have significantly
altered the characteristics of the population of drivers making trips to thecharging zone, this analysis suggests a potential ‘turnover’ in individual
chargepayers of up to 20 percent per year – an important consideration wheninterpreting the aggregate traffic trends described elsewhere in this report.

8.8

Second wave of survey – September 2005

Key outcomes from this wave of the survey were the establishment ofcomparison profiles of travel behaviour by respondents who had participatedin the first wave of the survey, potentially reflecting responses and adaptations
to the July 2005 Variations.

Did drivers report having made changes to travel?
Figure 8.12 shows that a majority of respondents to the follow-up survey, 73
percent, did not report having made any change to their general travel to thezone (by all modes at all times) between the first and second waves of thesurvey.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

163

8. July 2005 charge Variations
Figure 8.12

Reported change in general travel behaviour to the charging zone (allmodes, all times, all purposes).

Total (1,506)

73

13

Leisure (63)71

11Company business (422)74Commuting (185)

75

7

8

Journey purpose by car:0%20%
Not at all

40%
A little

6

11

15
10
60%
Quite a lot

5
9

80%

5
6
100%

A very considerable amount

When asked about chargeable travel to the charging zone in the week directly
before the September 2005 wave of the survey, the proportion of drivers who
said they had not driven into the zone at all in that week rose by 15
percentage points, from 32 percent in the first wave to 47 percent in thesecond wave.

Did drivers change their frequency of travel to the charging zone?
Figure 8.13 shows how often respondents said that they drove into thecharging zone, comparing both waves of the survey.
It is seen that, generally and as might be expected, respondents as a whole
reported reduced frequencies of chargeable trips in the second wave of thesurvey compared to the first. It is important to note that this graphic considers
frequency of paying the charge (ie making at least one chargeable journey) ona typical day, rather than the actual number of trips made on that day.
Seven percent of respondents reported not having made a chargeable trip at
all since the charge increase in July (a period of about three months), but thisneeds to be seen in the context of eligibility for the survey (at least one trip ina six month period), the summer holiday period in July and August 2005, andthe degree of natural ‘turnover’ in the population of chargepayers, as
discussed above.

164

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations
Figure 8.13

General frequency of chargeable journeys made by respondents before
and after the charge increase.
After (1,506)

None

Before (2,506)
Less often
1 day a month
2 to 4 days a month
1 day a week
2 or 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

There was also a considerable difference between survey waves in thenumber of chargeable journeys reported as having been made in the weekprior to the September 2005 survey (Figure 8.14).
This analysis suggests that respondents reported making approximately 20
percent fewer chargeable trip-days (days with at least one chargeable trip
being made per week) compared to before the charge increase. This will not
directly reflect any change to the overall volume of travel to the charging zone
however, as the (panel) survey did not include ‘new’ drivers, who hadcommenced driving to the zone between survey waves.
Figure 8.14

Number of days respondents reported making chargeable journeys in
the week before the survey.

Chargeable trips - after

47

Chargeable trips - before

33
0%

15

20%

13

11

14

11

40%
0

1

7

60%
2

6

16

9

19

80%
3

4

100%
5

This, coupled with the exclusion from this survey of chargepayers paying
through the retail channel, means that it is not possible to compare this finding
directly with the changes in charge payments received by TfL describedabove.

Reasons given by respondents for changing travel patterns
Considering all respondents who completed both waves of the survey, 27
percent reported having changed some aspect of their general travel to thecharging zone. The majority of these respondents said it was because of the

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

165

8. July 2005 charge Variations

charge increase (55 percent of respondents reporting change, equivalent to15 percent of the survey population).
A further 18 percent of respondents reporting change, 3 percent of the survey
population, said that it was because of a change in their personal
circumstances, such as changing jobs or moving house. One quarter of
respondents reporting change, equivalent to 4 percent of the survey
population, had other reasons for changing their general travel behaviour andonly 2 percent, less than one percent of the survey population, said it becauseof the July 2005 bombings in central London.
Those drivers who said they had made some change to their general travel tothe zone because of the charge increase tended to be infrequent drivers, andwere more likely to have changed travel mode than frequency of travel.
Looking more specifically at frequency of making trips similar to that describedby respondents in the first wave of the survey (the ‘most recent trip’), 20
percent of respondents reported not having made a comparable trip in thesecond wave, despite the survey taking place 3 months after the charge
increase.
The proportion of these respondents saying that this was because of thecharge increase is however considerably less than claimed this reason in
relation to changes to general travel to the zone. In this case the charge
increase was given as a reason for not making a similar trip by 17 percent ofrespondents, equivalent to 3 percent of the total survey population.
The majority of respondents, 56 percent, reported that the absence of acomparable trip was related to their wider activity patterns or that the mostrecent sample trip described in the first wave of the survey had been an
irregular or one-off trip (Figure 8.15).
Figure 8.15

Reasons why drivers had not made a similar ‘most recent’ chargeable
journey to that described in May 2005.

No need to makethis trip any more
20%

Because of charge
increase
17%
Changed jobs
10%
Only make this trip
every few months
4%
Changed personal
circumstances
4%

Haven't needed to
yet
32%

166

Moved house
2%
Other
11%

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variations

How have costs of journeys changed?
All things remaining equal the only change to the findings reported above forthe first wave of the survey should be the additional £3 of the congestion
charge. Therefore the average calculated cost of a comparable set of trips tothe charging zone will have risen from £34 to £37, if vehicle operating anddepreciation costs are included. The proportion of this average cost that isrepresented by the congestion charge itself will have risen from 15 percent to22 percent.
Interestingly, the September 2005 survey found that there has been very littlechange in driver’s estimates of their total journey cost of their travel comparedto May 2005. In fact instead of increasing by the £3 that might have been
expected, panellists still making similar chargeable journeys on average
estimated their journey costs to have increased from £27 to just £28 (Figure8.16).
Figure 8.16

Estimated costs of drivers’ journeys to the zone before and after the
July 2005 charge increase.

40%
Wave 1

Wave 2

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
£10 or less

£11 to £20£21 to £30£31 to £40£41 to £50£51 or more

What types of trips have been most affected?
Figure 8.17 shows the proportion of different types of chargeable trip reported
by respondents as no longer being made primarily as a result of the charge
increase.
Personal business (discretionary and leisure) trips were the most likely to beclaimed to having been curtailed as a result of the charge increase, with 8
percent of both frequent and infrequent drivers citing it as a reason. Nearly 4
percent each of frequent and infrequent work trips and infrequent employers’
business trips were reported to have been curtailed, but only 1 percent ofFourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

167

8. July 2005 charge Variations

frequent business trips were reported to have been curtailed because of theincrease in the charge.
Figure 8.17

Proportion of all journeys that are no longer made because of thecharge increase by purpose and frequency (September 2005).

Total (1506)
Leisure-infrequent (281)
Leisure-weekly (52)Business-infrequent (487)Business-weekly (396)Work-infrequent (97)Work-weekly (179)
0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

In terms of changes to trip making according to the cost of individual
chargeable journeys, journeys costing the least (less than £20 in total) werereported to have been discontinued in the greatest numbers.
Table 8.1 summarises the types of chargeable journeys that have been foundmost or least likely to be reported by respondents as no longer being madebetween the two waves of the survey. In general, these findings are intuitive.
Table 8.1

Journeys that are least, or most, likely to have changed as a result of
the charge increase.

Most likely to have ceased
Personal business
Made for less than a year
Driver bears whole cost
Irregular travel to the zone

Least likely to have ceased
Frequent employers’ business trips
Made since before the introduction of charging at £5
Driver bears none of cost
Regular travel to the zone

Most likely to have changed mode
Work trips

Least likely to have changed mode
Employers’ business

8.9

Summary of key findings

Total daily valid charges and automatic counts of traffic entering the charging
zone provide similar, disaggregate indicators of use of the charging zone.
Units of measurement are different, however, and the traffic data in particular
are subject to statistical error.
Looking across the available data, TfL’s interim assessment of the potentiallyattributable impacts of the July 2005 Variations on traffic within the charging
zone can be summarised as follows:
168

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

8. July 2005 charge Variationsx

Charge payments, in terms of the total number of charges valid on a
typical charging day, have reduced by between 6 and 7 percent, broadly
corresponding to TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

Total traffic entering the charging zone (vehicles with four or more wheels)
has reduced by between 2 and 4 percent, towards the lower end of TfL’s
range of prior expectation.

x

Whilst overall reductions in circulating traffic have been observed, it is not
yet possible to precisely quantify these. TfL’s current assessment would bethat volumes of circulating traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) have
reduced by between 1 and 3 percent in response to the Variations. This isagain towards the lower end of TfL’s range of prior expectation.

x

Available data do not yet permit an assessment of any changes tocongestion in the charging zone that could be attributed to the July 2005
Variations.

The data also suggest that:x

Whilst the July 2005 bombings complicate the analysis over the Summer
2005 period, any effects on aggregate travel patterns were short term.

xBoth payment and traffic data indicate that the scale of the observed
impacts intensified in the early part of 2006. This may reflect a degree of‘delayed’ adaptation by chargepayers, or perhaps some longer-term
effects of the July 2005 bombings on the travel choices of individuals, orthe continuance of the longer-term ‘background’ decline in traffic levels inand around central London, described elsewhere in this report.

xTraffic data are indicative of a degree of compensation between
chargeable and non-chargeable vehicles, with the impact of reductions tochargeable vehicles (cars, vans and lorries) partly counterbalanced byincreases to non-chargeable vehicles (buses, taxis and two-wheeledvehicles).

x

There is some evidence from camera data of a degree of ‘optimisation’
behaviour by both chargeable and non-chargeable vehicles, in terms ofsmall increases to the average frequency of entry per day for uniquevehicles.

x

The difference in the degree of change indicated by charge payments andtraffic trend data are largely attributable to the relatively small proportion ofvehicles in the charging zone that are ‘fully chargeable’. In part this reflects
the unique composition of traffic in central London, and in part theestablished impacts of the original charge of £5.

x

Although the TfL survey of travel behaviour change survey does notaccurately quantify the change in total chargeable travel to the charging
zone, various calculations can be made that provide indicative values to
set against those described elsewhere in this section.

x

These suggest that, between the first and second waves of the survey, an
indicative range of between 8 and 17 percent fewer chargeable journeys(equivalent to days on which charges are paid) were made to the charging
zone on a typical charging day. Taking ‘turnover’ of chargepayers into
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

169

8. July 2005 charge Variations

account would narrow this range towards the lower values, whichcorresponds well with the other indicators of change based on traffic flow
and charge payments data described in this section.

170

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

9. Scheme costs, benefits and revenues

9

Scheme costs, benefits and revenues

The Second Annual Monitoring Report provided provisional estimates of thecosts and benefits of operating the congestion charging scheme. The
monitoring programme and the experience of the scheme have allowed
Transport for London to reconsider those estimates for the scheme with its
original £5 charge. However, it is not yet possible to give comparable
estimates for the scheme following the July 2005 Variations, when the charge
was increased to £8.
The scheme’s principal costs, benefits and revenues are presented in 2005
prices and values for a typical year’s operation. A provisional estimate is also
provided for the scheme’s net revenues in 2005/2006 and their allocation totransport programmes to support the Mayor’s Transport Strategy as requiredby law.

9.1

Scheme operating costs and benefits

The costs of operating the scheme cover the payments to TfL’s contractors,
principally the key service providers involved in operating and enforcing thescheme. Further details of the service providers are given in Section 10.
Operating costs also include the relevant staff and other costs of TfL
supervising, administering and monitoring the scheme. The overall costs ofsustaining the scheme need to take account of the provision of extra bus
capacity to cater for car occupants who switch to public transport. These extra
buses, in turn, create benefits in terms of improved service frequencies.
Scheme benefits principally cover the time savings and improved journey time
reliability for those using the road network in and around the charging zone asa result of reduced congestion. Those using cars, vans taxis, buses andlorries experience these benefits mainly as less time spent in traffic queues.
Bus passengers also experience lower waiting times as a consequence ofimproved service reliability. The scale and distribution of these benefits, andthe extent to which they can be attributed to the congestion charging scheme,
are assessed using the results from traffic surveys and traffic models of thechanged traffic conditions resulting from the scheme.
Time savings and other benefits can be valued using established conventions;for example, time savings are assessed to be more highly valued by thosemaking business-related journeys, than by those making journeys at their own
expense to and from work. The proportion of these benefits that can bebroadly allocated to business activities is taken to be that accrued by theoccupants of commercial vehicles and to those in cars, taxis, goods vehicles
and buses on employers’ business trips (including the self employed).
There are other impacts. Fuel savings accrue from reduced car travel andfrom improved overall traffic conditions, which in turn means reduced
emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. There are also fewer accidents, as
explained in Section 6.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

171

9. Scheme costs, benefits and revenues

Charge payments are considered to be a transfer from chargepayers to TfL
and are not part of the conventional assessment of costs and benefits; though
they are a significant element of a separate financial analysis.
Those who are ‘deterred’ by the charge and change their behaviour as adirect result of the scheme, for example car drivers who switch to public
transport, are assessed as incurring a negative benefit. However, theadditional fare revenue they pay is an indication of a benefit they gain fromtheir public transport trip and helps to offset the resource costs of the extra
buses.
Those who pay the charge, while experiencing the benefits of the scheme,
also incur what are known as ‘compliance costs’. These are separate from thefinancial costs of the charge and represent the time and effort involved incomplying with the scheme. This can range from simple text messages to pay
the charge to a business employing additional staff to handle the charge
payments for a fleet of vehicles. These costs are currently being researchedby TfL and as yet no firm estimate is available. At this stage the assumed
compliance costs are £1 per charge payment for business travel, where
employee time is likely to be involved, and 50 pence for other trips.
These various costs and benefits are brought together in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1

Summary of principal annual operating costs and road user benefits.
(£ millions, 2005 prices and values, charge at £5)
Schemeoperating costs

Scheme operating and other costs
TfL administration
TfL contractors
TfL extra buses
Sub-total – scheme costs

Travelbenefits

Compliance
costs

Net
benefits

65
45
35
30
10
2
40
-5
-20
15
3
10
230

-10
-10
-10
0
0
0
0

55
35
25
30
10
2
40
-5
-20
15
3
10
200

-5
-85
-20
-110

Scheme benefits
Car users– business– journey to work, other
Vans, lorries– business
Taxis– business– journey to work, otherBuses– business– journey to work, other
Deterred– business– journey to work, other
Reduced accidents
Reduced CO2 emissions
Other resource savings
Sub-total – road user and other benefits
Total net annual benefits

172

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

-30

90

9. Scheme costs, benefits and revenues

9.2

Financial impacts

Total charge and penalty charge payments, based on the £5 charge, typicallyamounted to £190 million per year. TfL’s costs of operating the scheme weretypically £90 million per year.
There are also additional public transport fares generated by thosetransferring to bus, Underground and rail services. TfL estimate that these areof the order of £15 million per year largely offsetting the additional costs of£20 million per year of providing the additional buses.
Table 9.2 summarises the principal financial impacts of the scheme.
Table 9.2

Summary of principal financial impacts.
(£ millions, 2005 prices and values, charge at £5)

Scheme operating costs
TfL administration
TfL contractors-5-85Charge and penalty payments
Charge payments
Penalty charge payments

120
70

Total net charge revenues

100

Other costs and fare income
TfL extra buses
Extra public transport fares-20
15

Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 show that the £5 scheme produced an overall benefit
for London of roundly £90 million per year and resulted in net additionalcharge revenues to be spent on transport in London of roundly £100 million
per year.

9.3

Allocation of net revenues

By law the net revenues from the scheme must be spent on measures tofurther the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in accordance with an appendix to the
Scheme Order approved by the Secretary of State for Transport. TfL isrequired to report every four years to the Secretary of State on the
expenditure of scheme revenues.
Originally, the revenues from the scheme were only available to TfL for the
first ten years of the scheme’s operation. However, TfL have now beenadvised by Government that a longer period of hypothecation would apply if
the scheme were enlarged in accordance with the revision to the Mayors’
Transport Strategy, published in August 2004. The western extension is due
to commence in February 2007 and, if so, the hypothecation period extends to2017.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

173

9. Scheme costs, benefits and revenues

Table 9.3 provides provisional out-turn figures for financial year 2005/2006,
comparing scheme revenues with scheme operation costs. This covers theperiod of the July 2005 Variations, when the charge was increased to £8.
Table 9.3

Scheme revenues and costs, financial year 2005/2006.
(£ million provisional)

Revenues
Standard daily vehicle charges (£5 pre-July 2005, £8 post-July 2005)

121

Fleet vehicle daily charges (£5.50 pre-July 2005, £7 post-July 2005)

19

Resident vehicles (£2.50 per week pre-July 2005, £4 per week post July 2005)

2

Other income (eg registration charges)

2

Enforcement income

65

Total revenues

210

Total operation costs

88

Net revenues

122

Table 9.4 provides a provisional summary of the areas of expenditure of the
net revenues in financial year 2005/2006.
Table 9.4

Application of congestion charging scheme revenues, financial year
2005/2006. (£ million provisional)

Bus network operations:Contributions towards bus network and service enhancements; to all buses now
being low-floor accessible; to the introduction of 1,000 illuminated bus stops; tothe development and introduction of an improved bus radio and location system;and to the increased capacity and modernisation of bus garages and bus
stations.

100

Roads and bridges:
Support to programmes for improving the quality of roads and bridges, including
safety works on the Blackwall, Rotherhithe and Fore Street Tunnels and thestrengthening of Westminster Bridge.

14Road safety:
Contributions to programmes to reduce child accidents across London, including
contributions to Borough schemes.

4

Walking and cycling:
Contributions to new pedestrian and cyclist measures, including the replacementof subways with surface facilities and contributions to Borough schemes.
Total

174

4

122

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

10

Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

10.1

Introduction

The operation of the central London congestion charging scheme continued to
improve throughout 2005, with the introduction of further service
improvements that have resulted in an enhanced chargepayer experience andincreased chargepayer satisfaction with the operation of the scheme.

Key findings for 2005
x

Chargepayer satisfaction with the quality of service reached a new high of
78 percent in 2005.

x

Total valid charge payments including resident and fleet users reduced
after the increase to the daily charge in July 2005, and stabilised in the lastquarter of 2005 at 96,000 per day, 11 percent down on the same period in
2004.

x

Motorists paying for monthly or annual charges have received a 16 percent
discount since July 2005.

x

The internet (web) is now the most used channel for charge payments andaccounts for some 30 percent of transactions.

x

Capita performance has further improved with the vast majority of
performance indicators being met each month.

xEnhancements have been made to the charge payment channels,
including the addition of more outlets in petrol stations and implementationof an express payment option into the interactive voice response payment
channel for payments by phone.

x

The automated fleet scheme is now open to all vehicle types at a reduced
threshold of 10 vehicles.

x

Residents’ discount processes were greatly improved, throughstreamlining the renewal process and aligning the discount and annual
charge payment periods.

x

Public Information developments in the past year include a downloadable
computer desktop reminder to pay the charge, and an award winning radio
campaign reminding motorists of the hours of operation of the scheme.

xCompliance with the scheme continues to improve with the level of penalty
charges issued in 2005 21 percent down on 2004.

x

Representations and appeals continue to reduce, with 17 percent of thePenalty Charge Notices now being subject to a representation and 1.2
percent subject to an appeal.

x

Penalty charge payment rates are consistent, with 76 percent paid, thevast majority at the discounted penalty amount.

x

An electronic interface between Capita and the Parking and Traffic
Appeals Service, delivered in late 2005, ensures timely and efficient
response to appeals.
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006175

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliancex

Improvements have been achieved to the enforcement of persistentevaders through the adoption of devolved clamping and removal powers
against vehicles with expired tax discs, joint working with the police andmore efficient identification of vehicles.

176

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Scheme operation
10.2

Service developments and contractor performance

Developments to the operation of the scheme during 2005 have built upon the
improvements to the quality of operation and the revisions to the contract withthe main service provider, Capita, made in the period between September
2003 and April 2004. These were described in the Third Annual Monitoring
Report.
These more recent developments have resulted in further increases inchargepayer satisfaction, with overall satisfaction with the operation of thescheme now at 78 percent, up from 72 percent at the start of 2005.
Key developments to the scheme can be summarised as follows:

ResidentsxNew, additional residents’ 90 percent discount zones were introduced inseveral small localised ‘buffer areas’ around the charging zone.

x

An improved process for residents’ discount applications was introduced.
This included an affirmation process so that residents need not re-apply
with the level of evidence required at initial registration. Instead, anaffirmation only that details have not changed is requested. This change
has resulted in a greatly simplified process for those wishing to renew theirdiscount.

x

The timing of the renewal of the eligibility of residents’ discounts wasaligned with the timing of the renewal of the annual charge payments.

Paymentsx

Discounts of 16 percent were introduced for those paying for monthly or
annual charges, better reflecting actual travel patterns of regularchargepayers.

x

A new dedicated ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ tool was incorporated into
the www.cclondon.com website.

x

An ‘express payment’ option was incorporated into the interactive voice
response (IVR) payment channel allowing the 90 percent of IVR users whowant to pay only for the one day, to pay more quickly.

xError messages were clarified for the Short Message Service (SMS)
mobile telephone text payment channel to highlight when there has been
any kind of error with a payment attempt.

x

A revised user guide was provided for the use of the SMS text andinteractive voice response payment channels.

x

Additional ‘PayPoint’ outlets were introduced at selected petrol filling
stations nationwide.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006177

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliancex

Receipts from the PayPoint system were modified to state if an attempt
has been made to pay the charge on a non-charging day.

x

The requirement was introduced to enter a card security code when
making payments through the call centre and internet.

Fleet Usersx

All vehicle types are now eligible for the automated fleet scheme, with aminimum threshold of 10 vehicles.

x

The ability was introduced for fleet operators to make unlimited ad-hoc
additions to their accounts.

x

Changes were made to fleet statements to clarify the date for which an adhoc charge is made, rather than the date on which the ad-hoc charge is
paid.

x

A ‘forgotten password’ link was introduced on the fleet extranet homepage
to save fleet administrators from having to contact the fleet helpdesk.

x

A syntax checker was incorporated into the fleet extranet to ensure thatchargepayers enter valid vehicle registration numbers onto their accounts.

Persistent Evadersx

TfL obtained devolved powers from the Driver Vehicle and Licensing
Agency (DVLA) to clamp and remove vehicles found ‘on street’ with out ofdate or expired tax discs. Enforcement of decriminalised traffic and parking
infringements relies in part on the accuracy of the DVLA data to issue
Penalty Charge Notices to the correct keeper. Vehicles that are displayingout of date or no vehicle excise duty (‘tax discs’) are also more likely to beregistered incorrectly. Following a successful three-month trial, TfL was
granted these devolved powers on a permanent basis in September 2005.
By 31 December 2005, the congestion charging enforcement team
identified and enforced against 819 vehicles without a valid tax disc.

Appealsx

Working in partnership with the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, TfL
successfully introduced an electronic data interface with the appeals
service in November 2005. This interface allows the electronic transfer ofall evidence relating to appeals between Capita and the appeals service.
The system removes the need for paper exchange of documents thus
reducing the likelihood of evidence going missing and saves aconsiderable volume of paper.

Foreign Vehiclesx

June 2005 saw the appointment of a new service provider – Euro Parking
Collection – responsible for the identification of the registered keepers andthe recovery of penalty charges issued to foreign registered vehicles.

178

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Performance has been effective with around 30 percent of cases passed
to Euro Parking Collection leading to recovery of outstanding debts.

10.3

Capita performance

Capita is the main service provider that provides day to day operation of thecongestion charging scheme on behalf of TfL. Capita have premises in
London and Coventry where they manage key functions of the scheme
operation including camera maintenance, image capture, the call centre,
discount registration services and most enforcement services such as theprocessing of all Penalty Charge Notices, Penalty Charge Notice progression,
representations and appeals.
TfL have 52 performance indicators within the Capita contract and its
Supplemental Agreement. There are 7 ‘super’ key performance indicators(SKPIs), 32 key performance indicators (KPIs) and 13 quality performanceindicators (QPIs). Capita are required to make service credit payments
against any indicators that do not meet the required level. As can be seen in
Figure 10.1, performance against these indicators has further improved in2005 with the vast majority of indicators being met.
This strict performance regime, monitored by a team of Policy and Monitoring
Advisors based on site in Capita’s main contact centre has contributed to an
overall improvement in the quality of service of key performance areas such
as Penalty Charge Notices incorrectly issued as a result of an error by Capita
or the incorrect processing of representations and appeals, both of which are
now at minimal levels.
Figure 10.1

Capita performance – service credit payments from Capita to TfL.

£800,000£700,000£600,000£500,000£400,000£300,000£200,000£100,000

£0
Jan03

Apr03

Jul03

Oct03

Jan04

Apr04

Jul04

Oct04

Jan05

Apr05

Jul05

Oct05

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

Jan06

179

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

10.4

NCP performance

National Car Parks (NCP) is TfL's service provider for on-street enforcement
operations. The company has provided an improved performance in 2005.
Some of these improvements have been achieved through the introduction ofthe ‘Locust Van’. This vehicle has the capability to read number plates ofparked vehicles whilst travelling at the speed of general traffic (Figure 10.2).
This has led to a more effective method of identifying and enforcing persistentevaders of the scheme.
Figure 10.2

Locust Van.

Improvements planned for 2006
There are a number of additional developments that are planned to come into
effect during the course of 2006. These changes are designed to improvefurther the quality of service and maintain high levels of chargepayer
satisfaction. These include:x

From June 2006, payment of the charge for the previous charging day at a
rate of £10 will be permitted up to midnight on the following charging day.
This is in direct response to feedback from chargepayers and it isanticipated that this measure will help to reduce the number of Penalty
Charge Notices issued due to those simply forgetting to pay.

x

Further improvements to the www.cclondon.com website are planned to
be implemented throughout 2006.

x

All calls made to and from the call centre will be recorded. This will assist
with the resolution of queries and disputes. This is planned to commencein the summer of 2006.

180

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliancex

The Blue Badge discount scheme for people with disabilities will be
reviewed to improve the quality and service offered. This will involve
London Boroughs and those organisations representing badge holders.

x

Improved guidance in relation to the enforcement process will be available
on the website www.cclondon.com.

x

Further improvements to the residents’ scheme, for example making it
possible for residents to change vehicles without the need to pay the fullcharge and then claim a refund.

10.5

Congestion charging payments

Average daily charge payments remained relatively stable until 4 July 2005,
when the daily charge increased to £8 and £7 for fleet chargepayers, though
there is some evidence of year-on-year ‘background’ declines in the use of thecharging zone, as described elsewhere in this report. Following the
introduction of the charge increase, total valid daily charge payments reduced
in number but stabilised at new levels relatively quickly. This adjustment was
expected by TfL as a response to the July 2005 Variations, and is consideredin more detail in Section 8.
Allowing more vehicles onto the automated fleet scheme from April 2005
along with the closure of the notification fleet scheme accounts over theperiod to October 2005 led to a corresponding increase in the number ofcharge payments made through the automated fleet scheme.
Figure 10.3

Number of valid charges on each charging day, January 2004 to January
2006.

Automated Fleet Scheme
Notification Fleet Scheme
Valid Charges (non-fleet)

120,000

100,000

80,00060,00040,00020,000

Jan04

Mar04

May04

Jul04

Sep04

Nov04

Jan05

Mar05

May05

Jul05

Sep05

Nov05

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

Jan06

181

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Of the payments made for the 12 months ending January 2006, 16 percent
were made in respect of vehicles registered for the 90 percent residents’discount, 12 percent were made for fleet vehicles and 72 percent were madein respect of vehicles paying the standard (£8) daily charge.
The introduction of discounts for 20-day and 252-day charge payments aspart of the July 2005 Variations has led to slight increases in the number ofthese payments. Table 10.1 illustrates the percentages for each type of
payment since the start of the scheme in 2003.
Table 10.1

Charges by payment type.

Daily
First year of scheme(17/02/2003 to 31/12/2003)
Second year of scheme(01/01/2004 to 31/04/2004)
Pre July 2005 Variations(01/01/2005 to 03/07/2005)
Post July 2005 Variations(04/07/2005 to 31/12/2005)

Standard charges
Weekly Monthly Annual

Resident charges
Weekly Monthly Annual

82%

9%

6%

2%

20%

24%

56%

82%

9%

6%

2%

18%

22%

60%

82%

9%

7%

3%

17%

20%

63%

80%

8%

8%*

4%*

17%

17%

66%

* After introduction of discounts for 20-day and 252-day purchases for standard charges,
which were implemented ahead of July 2005.

10.6

Payment channel split

Chargepayers have access to a number of channels for paying the charge.
Previous Annual Monitoring Reports have described established patterns, andalso identified a trend towards growing use of automated payment channels.
This continued during 2005, with a continued migration away from the retailpayment channel towards the web based channel. The retail channel, whichat the beginning of 2005 was used by 30 percent of chargepayers, was usedby only 27 percent of chargepayers by the end of the year. The introduction of
additional PayPoints at selected petrol filling stations nationwide has beensuccessful and these outlets, together with those PayPoint outlets located in
the congestion charging zone, remain very popular locations to pay the
charge. The web channel overtook the retail channel as the most popular
payment channel in July 2005.
The introduction of the ‘express payment’ option on the interactive voice
response channel in July 2005 has resulted in a significant reduction in thetime taken to pay a charge using this method and a consequent slightincrease in the number of charge sales being made through this channel(Figure 10.4).

182

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance
Figure 10.4

Charge transactions by payment channel.

40%
RetailWeb

SMS

Call Centre

IVR

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Jan-04 Mar-04 May-04 Jul-04 Sep-04 Nov-04 Jan-05 Mar-05 May-05 Jul-05 Sep-05 Nov-05 Jan-06

10.7

Quality of service

The quality of service has continued to improve during 2005, with overall‘chargepayer satisfaction’ in 2005 the highest since the start of the scheme, at
78 percent, and up from 71 percent at the start of the year. There were no
significant failures of contractual ‘chargepayer’ service targets throughout
2005.
Call centre performance has improved further in 2005, with average queuingtimes below 11 seconds for the entire year. The volume of calls has dropped
slightly from 2004 figures, averaging at about 250,000 calls per month. This
reduction in overall call volumes is in part due to the impact of the July 2005
Variations but also due to the reduction in levels of enquiries, indicating
greater familiarity with the scheme, in part a result of improved public
information. The levels of callers abandoning or unable to get through to thecall centre have improved on the 2004 figure of 1 percent, remaining below
0.5 percent for the whole of 2005.

10.8

Public Information

A series of public information campaigns have been run during 2005, aimed atboth frequent and infrequent drivers through a variety of media, including
posters, press and radio. A radio campaign, which ran on eight London radio
stations from November 2005 to March 2006 to remind chargepayers of thehours of operation of the scheme, won an ‘Aerial Award’ in January 2006 forits' 'barbershop' advert. Chargepayers who had registered to pay by SMS text
message but had never used the service and those who had not used theservice for some time were also targeted via a direct mail campaign toencourage use of this payment channel. This campaign was awarded the

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

183

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Silver prize at the ‘Marketing Direct Intelligence Awards’ in October 2005 andreceived a commendation for intelligent use of data.
A campaign to help chargepayers remember to pay the charge included a freedownloadable computer ‘desktop reminder’. This can be downloaded fromwww.cclondon.com and, as of 20 April 2006, over 7,000 people had
downloaded the reminder. A car tax disc holder, with details of payment
options and hours of operation, was also produced and has been requested
by over 4,300 chargepayers.
Posters, bus and press adverts also reminded Londoners that there was no
charge between Christmas Day and New Year's Day.
New leaflets have been developed specifically targeting newly registeredresidents and Blue Badge holders who had registered with Congestion
Charging to help them understand how their discount works and providing
handy tips to help them avoid receiving any unnecessary Penalty Charge
Notices.

10.9

Registrations and discounts

Registration for the residents’ 90 percent discount and the Blue Badge 100
percent discount have remained stable throughout 2005 while registration for
9+ seat vehicle and other, mainly alternative fuel, discounts have seen a slightincrease.
The improved affirmation process for residents and 9+ seat vehicle discounts
has resulted in a much simplified renewal procedure for these chargepayers.
Additional resident discount zones for the central London charging zone wereintroduced in December 2005. TfL notified the relatively small number ofresidents in these new areas of their ability to apply for the resident discountby first completing a door drop of leaflets and letters to all residential
addresses in the areas. This was followed up by a named door drop to
residents in the new discount zones.

184

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance
Figure 10.5

Active discount accounts by type, January 2004 to January 2006.

120,000

100,000

80,000Blue Badge
Resident
60,0009+ seat vehicle
Alternative fuel vehicle
Recovery vehicle

40,00020,000

0
Jan04

Mar04

May04

Jul04

Sep04

Nov04

Jan05

Mar05

May05

Jul05

Sep05

Nov05

Jan06

In December 2004, the threshold for the minimum number of commercial
vehicles in a fleet to be registered with TfL to be eligible for the fleet schemes
was reduced from 25 to 10 vehicles. In April 2005 all vehicle types wereallowed onto the automated scheme. The notification scheme, which was
primarily aimed at fleets of cars, was closed down in October 2005 with allaccounts transferred to the automated scheme.
The number of active fleet accounts increased by 50 percent during 2005,
though the increase in usage (ie charges paid through this channel) was muchless, at only 5 percent.

10.10 Frequency of chargepayer use of the scheme
Research was carried out over the period June 2004 to July 2005 to establish
the frequency of chargepayer activity in relation to the congestion charging
scheme. This research was based on identifying the frequency with which
payments were made for individual vehicles.
Figure 10.6 shows that the majority of chargepayers (who travelled to thecharging zone at least once during the year) pay to travel into the charging
zone on less than one occasion per month. 87 percent of unique vehicles forwhich a charge is paid average one payment per month or less. 43 percent
only pay once during the year. Only 1.4 percent of charged vehicles are in thezone on an average of three or more days per week.
This distribution is not equivalent to the traffic data considered elsewhere inthis report, since the relatively small number of unique vehicles in the more
frequent payment categories will feature disproportionately in daily traffic.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

185

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance
Figure 10.6

Number of charge payments made by unique vehicles per year,
July 2004 to June 2005.

900,000

Number of unique vehicles

800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 - 13 - 26 - 41 - 51 - 101 - 151 - >2001225
40
50 100 150 200

Number of times charge paid

186

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Enforcement and Compliance10.11 Background
There are no tollbooths or barriers around the congestion charging zone andno paper tickets or licences. Instead, drivers or vehicle operators pay toregister their vehicle registration number on a database for journeys within the
charging zone during charging hours for single or multiple charging days.
Receipts (or receipt numbers) are available and on occasion are vital for
proving payment of the charge for the correct vehicle on the date of travel.
Cameras at every entry and exit point, and at various points within the zone,
capture images of vehicles within the charging zone during the hours ofscheme operation (07.00 to 18.30) every charging day. The images arecontinually fed through to a central processing centre where automatednumber plate recognition systems interpret the characters on the number
plate of every vehicle ’seen’ by the cameras.
Once a registration number has been interpreted a complex process ofconfidence measurement of the images takes place. At the end of thecharging day, only the best, highest quality interpretation of each individual
detected vehicle is used for checking against the database of paid, exempt,
100 percent discounted or fleet vehicle registrations. Once a match against
the database is made, the vehicle details and the images are automaticallyremoved from the database. Images of all vehicles where there is no matching
payment record on the database are then sent through to the next stage ofthe process. These are potential evaders.
By 02.00 on the next working day after the charging day, all the vehicle
registration numbers for those vehicles where no payment match was madeare sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency using a web enabledinterface developed in partnership by TfL and the Agency. By 07.00 on thesame day the Agency supply TfL with the name and address of the registeredkeeper and vehicle details including the make, model and colour of thevehicle.
The final stage of the process, before the issue of any Penalty Charge Notice,
involves a visual check of all the images of vehicles identified as potential
evaders of the charge. Trained staff check that the camera systems havecorrectly interpreted the number plate. If there is any doubt, the image isrejected for re-interpretation or deletion.
Failure to pay the congestion charge or to register correctly for a discountresults in a Penalty Charge Notice of £100 being issued to the registeredkeeper of the vehicle as supplied by the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency.
This amount is reduced to £50 for prompt payment within 14 days. Failure to
pay the Penalty Charge Notice within 28 days results in the issue of a Charge
Certificate, and the amount due being increased to £150.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

187

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

Should a chargepayer wish to challenge a Penalty Charge Notice, they arelegally required to make a written representation to TfL. From the moment thata written representation is received by TfL, enforcement action is suspended
until the matter is investigated. Should TfL reject the representation, thechargepayer is able to make an appeal against TfL to the independent
Parking and Traffic Appeals Authority.

10.12 Penalty Charge Notices issued
The number of Penalty Charge Notices issued has continued to reduce
throughout 2005. This continuing reduction can be attributed to greater
chargepayer understanding of the operation of the scheme and theimplications of not paying; reduced service provider and customer errors;
fewer chargeable vehicles driving in the zone; and improved quality of service
by Capita. Overall, 21 percent fewer Penalty Charge Notices were issued in2005 compared to 2004.
Figure 10.7

Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued, 2004 and 2005.

8,000
PCNs 2004
7,500

PCNs 2005

7,000
6,500
6,000
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

10.13 Penalty Charge Notices paid
Throughout 2005 the proportion of Penalty Charge Notices paid has remained
consistently between 74 and 77 percent of all Penalty Charge Notices issued.
Figure 10.8 is based on contravention date, and therefore Penalty Charge
Notices recovered in the last few months of 2005 will increase over time to an
anticipated average over the year of some 76 percent, compared to 75
percent in 2004.
This recovery rate for congestion charging Penalty Charge Notices compares
favourably with that achieved by Local Authorities for similar civil debts suchas parking offences. The remaining 24 percent of Penalty Charge Notices arecancelled as a result of an accepted representation or in the event that the188

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliancedebt cannot be recovered as the keeper of the vehicle cannot be traced or isbankrupt or deceased.
Figure 10.8

Proportion of Penalty Charge Notices that were paid, 2004 and 2005.

80%
2004

2005

78%

76%

74%

72%

70%

68%

66%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

10.14 Representations made against Penalty Charge Notices
Every recipient of a Penalty Charge Notice has the right to challenge its issue
through a written representation to TfL. A representation must be made within
28 days of the date of receipt of the Penalty Charge Notice by, or with thewritten permission of, the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The percentage of representations made against Penalty Charge Notices witha contravention date in 2005 is consistently below 18 percent.
Figure 10.9 is based on contravention date with almost all representations
received within 5 – 7 months of the date of contravention. Data up to
September 2005 are considered unlikely to change with minor increases
expected for October through to December. An overall figure of 17 percent is
expected for 2005. This percentage has fallen from a high of 64 percent in2003 (21 percent in 2004) and reflects the improvements to, and increased
understanding of, the scheme.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

189

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance
Figure 10.9

Representations received as a percentage of Penalty Charge Notices
issued, 2004 and 2005.

30%
2004
2005
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

The main reasons for representations being accepted or rejected in 2005 arelisted below.

Representations acceptedx

Vehicle sold before the date of offence – TfL accesses live data for theregistered keeper as held by the DVLA and, as a result, Penalty Charge
Notices can potentially be issued to the old keeper whilst the DVLA record
is updated.

x

Vehicle registration number payment error by chargepayer – TfL applies its
discretion and normally accepts representations where chargepayers canprove that they made an innocent mistake in providing their vehicle
registration mark when paying for the charge.

x

Hire company transfer of liability – TfL will transfer liability for the penalty if
a hire company provides evidence to support claims that the penalty was
incurred by a chargepayer whilst the vehicle was on hire.

Representations rejectedx

No charge/insufficient evidence – TfL will only normally accept a
representation if sufficient evidence is provided and will not normally
accept a representation from chargepayers who simply forget to pay.

x

Representations are often rejected when a hire company is unable toprovide sufficient evidence in the form required by Government
Regulations that govern the transfer of liability from hire company to hirer.
This protects TfL from re-issuing Penalty Charge Notices and thenreceiving complaints and representations from innocent motorists who did

190

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance

not in fact hire the vehicle on the date of offence as indicated by the hire
car company.
Unplanned entry into zone – TfL will not normally accept representations
from those who claimed they did not intend to travel into the zone, did not
see the numerous signs, road markings etc. However, diversions
introduced by the police or Local Authority are recognised.

x10.15 Appeals
The keeper of any vehicle that is the subject of a representation that TfL has
considered but rejected may appeal against this decision to the Parking andTraffic Appeals Service (PATAS). All appeals are considered by independent
adjudicators.
The volume of appeals received consistently reduced throughout 2003 and2004 with further reduction throughout 2005. In 2005, some 1.2 percent of
Penalty Charge Notices issued resulted in an appeal and on average 78
percent of appeals were determined in favour of TfL.
Figure 10.10 is based on contravention date with almost all appeals received
within 5 – 8 months of the date of contravention. Figures up to August 2005
are not expected to change. Minor increases are expected for the period
September to December as a result of some additional late appeals. The
annual average appeal rate for 2005 is expected to be 1.2 percent.
Figure 10.10

Appeals received as a percent of Penalty Charge Notices issued, 2004
and 2005.

4%
2004
2005
3%

2%

1%

0%
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

Dec

191

10. Scheme operation, enforcement and compliance10.16 Debt collection and persistent evasion
Where a Penalty Charge Notice remains unpaid and there is no outstanding
representation or appeal then the debt is registered at County Court and awarrant is passed to bailiffs for recovery of the debt. The registration process
does not result in a County Court Judgement or contribute to credit history or
credit ratings. The use of these measures to recover unpaid penalties is a lastresort which TfL would rather not have to use but which is necessary toensure that those who fail to pay the initial charge or penalties arising from
non-compliance are pursued where possible.
As at December 2005 some 571,000 warrants had been issued to bailiffs
since the start of the scheme. The number issued in 2005 was 245,000. TfL
have four contracted bailiff companies who, through the warrant, have thepower to seize goods to the value of the debt outstanding plus a defined set of
additional fees incurred in the recovery of the debt. Since the start ofcongestion charging in February 2003 an average of 15 percent of warrants
issued have resulted in payment, which is comparable with the recovery rateby bailiffs collecting unpaid parking and bus lane penalties.
In addition to bailiff recovery, TfL also carries out on-street enforcement using
its powers to clamp and remove vehicles that are persistent evaders of thecharge. A persistent Penalty Charge Notice evader is defined as a vehicle thathas three or more outstanding Penalty Charge Notices with no representation
or appeal outstanding. The on-street enforcement service is also effective inthe enforcement of vehicles that are not registered with the Driver Vehicle andLicensing Agency.
As detailed earlier, TfL’s ability to effectively identify and enforce against
persistent evaders improved in 2005 through the introduction of the ’Locust
Van’.
In addition to the clamping and removal of vehicles kept by persistent evadersand vehicles not displaying a valid tax disc, TfL’s Congestion Charging
Division and its service providers are actively involved in periodic on-street‘Filter’ operations with Transport Policing and Enforcement Directorate, theMetropolitan Police and other enforcement agencies such as the Driver
Vehicle and Licensing Agency and the Vehicle Inspectorate. Such exercises
co-ordinate intelligence-led enforcement activities to target vehicles that are ofinterest to TfL, the police and the other enforcement agencies. The total
number of vehicles clamped and removed during 2005 was 1,126.
From September to December 2005 operations were carried out which
resulted in the identification of 190 persistent evaders and 44 vehicles with
tampered number plates, no valid insurance or no valid tax disc.
The exercises have also proved helpful to the police in the identification of
more serious criminal activity such as burglary, assault, drug related crimes
and weapons. TfL expects the joint exercises to continue throughout 2006
with increasing effectiveness.

192

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11

Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11.1

Introduction

This section sets out the main elements of the planned monitoring programme
for the extended central London congestion charging zone for the next five
years. It considers TfL’s proposed approach to monitoring the westernextension area as well as the ongoing monitoring of the current central
London charging zone. It also provides an early indication of conditions within
the extension zone, in advance of a full baseline analysis to be published in
the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report, to be published in 2007.

Extending the central London congestion charging zone
In September 2005, the Mayor of London confirmed the Scheme Order for theextension westwards of the central London congestion charging zone. The
extension will be bounded by Harrow Road (with a number of deviations), theWest Cross Route, the inner southbound arm of the Earls Court One Way
System and Chelsea Embankment. There will be no charge for using theseboundary routes, and also no charge for using the elevated section of the A40(Westway) and the western arm of the Inner Ring Road (Edgware Road, Park
Lane, Grosvenor Place and Vauxhall Bridge Road).
Figure 11.1

Kensington High Street, Kensington, a main shopping street within thewestern extension to the congestion charging zone.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

193

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone
Figure 11.2

The extended central London congestion charging zone.

Figure 11.3

Map comparing extended central London congestion charging zone toGreater London.

194

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

The Scheme Order includes provision for the residents’ discount to apply tothe area inside the outer arm of the diversionary route where this differs fromthe location of the extended zone boundary. In addition, there are threefurther extensions to the residents’ discount zone to alleviate potential parking
and severance issues:x

The area between Grosvenor Road and the river Thames.

xHouseboats moored on the Thames west of Battersea Bridge.

x

The area between the outer (northbound) arm of Earls Court One Way
System and the West London rail line.

To coincide with the western extension becoming operational, the finish time
for charging within the whole of the enlarged charging zone will move back to
18.00.

Monitoring the extended zone
A key component of the western extension of the congestion charging zone is
a comprehensive programme of impacts monitoring. This will allow actual
impacts to be measured; provide early indications of any problems that mightarise; and contribute to the ongoing assessment and review of theperformance of the scheme.
Full baseline data collection for the extended zone commenced in early 2006,
running concurrently with on-going monitoring of the existing central London
scheme. Monitoring of the extended scheme is planned to continue for afurther four years – to 2010 in the first instance.
The monitoring arrangements applicable to the central London scheme were
described in TfL’s First Annual Monitoring Report and have been updated,
where necessary, in subsequent Annual Reports. In general, thesearrangements have proven satisfactory. Therefore, the overall approach tomonitoring the extension is to extend these arrangements to cover the key
areas, issues and quantities of interest in the extended zone, revised whereappropriate to build on lessons learned from the central scheme monitoring
work and to accommodate local issues.
Design of the monitoring programme has also taken account of comments
received during the public and stakeholder consultations on the extension
undertaken in 2004 and 2005.
The western extension, and the new charging finish time of 18.00, will have
implications for conditions in the existing central zone. Indeed, following theimplementation of the extension, the combined scheme will operate as one
extended charging zone. Key implications for the central zone monitoringarrangements are also therefore summarised.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

195

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

Impacts monitoring work packages
The aim of the monitoring programme will be to achieve a robust
understanding of scheme impacts in the following five areas:x

Impacts on road traffic volumes and road network performance.

x

Impacts on public transport operations and travel behaviour.

x

Impacts on people in general and specific groups in particular.

x

Impacts on the economy, in general and in relation to specific activities.

x

Impacts on the environment, principally air quality.

The content of each of these monitoring work packages is outlined below,
illustrated with some examples of the data and key indicators that will beavailable. The monitoring reports will also cover scheme revenues, scheme
operations and enforcement to ensure that all aspects of the extended
scheme and its ongoing operation are appropriately monitored anddisseminated.
The monitoring programme is intended to be flexible in its scope, and it isexpected that the scope and coverage of the work will evolve over time inresponse to emerging interests and requirements.

Structure and management of the impacts monitoring programme
The impacts monitoring programme will be managed by a team of permanent
TfL staff, with independent contractors undertaking many of the data collection
elements. It is anticipated that key indicators relating to the operation andenforcement of the western extension will arise primarily from the service
providers for the scheme.
The monitoring programme takes place within the wider context of otherexisting or planned monitoring work in London. This means that, as with theexisting central London scheme, much of the monitoring programme will
involve the collation of data from external sources, either from within the TfL
and GLA family, or from outside.

Publications strategy
Impacts monitoring outputs will be published in definitive Annual Reports,
commencing with a comprehensive statement of pre-extension conditions, tobe published in 2007. Reports will be published in hard copy and on theinternet. It is anticipated that a series of ‘interim bulletins’ will be produced
over the first 18 months of the extension scheme to give early indications ofscheme impacts.

196

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11.2

Traffic congestion and journey time reliability

Reduced congestion is the primary objective of the extension. Congestion isdefined in terms of additional, or ‘excess’ delays, expressed in terms of a
travel rate over and above that which would be experienced under
uncongested conditions.

Moving car observer surveys
Moving car observer surveys of congestion, whilst limited in terms of statisticalprecision, have provided a good time-series dataset for the central zone. New
surveys have been developed for the extension zone, operating on acontinuous basis from the start of 2006. These comprehensively cover theextension zone, the boundary roads and a wider ‘annulus’ of inner London
surrounding the extension zone (Figure 11.4).
Figure 11.4

Map of the western extension speed survey network.

Source: © Crown copyright 2006. All Rights reserved (GLA) (100032379).

These surveys will operate in conjunction with the continuing central London
scheme surveys and will provide the primary indicator of congestion for theextended central London scheme.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

197

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

Automatic number plate recognition camera data
Vehicle number plate data, available as a by-product of the scheme
enforcement process, will be adapted to give a secondary indicator ofcongestion, taking full account of data protection considerations. In this case,two sets of cameras are expected to be used. The first set, monitoring-only
cameras, use simple semi-fixed, non-evidential cameras. These are already inplace and generating data. The second set would comprise enforcement
cameras when these become available closer to the implementation date of
the extension. These two sets of cameras would operate in a similar way to,and in conjunction with, existing central zone cameras.

ITIS Data
Data from ITIS, a satellite-based vehicle tracking system, offers many
possibilities for enhancing our understanding of congestion trends, mainly byvirtue of the volumes of data potentially available. It is planned to develop aseries of ITIS based indicators for networks across the extended zone. These
would provide additional data and allow a greater depth of analysis of specificissues such as localised congestion changes. The characteristics of thesedata are described in Section 3.

Indicative findings
Congestion occurs when vehicles impede the progress of other vehicles.
Congestion intensifies as the amount of traffic on the network (measured as
vehicle-kilometres) increases. It is experienced as delay (measured as
vehicle-minutes) by road users. When there is very little traffic on the road
network, ‘free-flow’ conditions are said to apply. In practice, night-time
conditions are used to derive the ‘free-flow’ travel rate.
Congestion, or ‘excess delay’, is the amount of time spent travelling over andabove that under ‘free-flow’ conditions, and is measured as minutes per
kilometre. It is experienced by road users mainly as time spent in queues atjunctions.
It is important to note that on policy, economic and operational grounds, it is
not desirable to remove all congestion from a road network. A precise‘optimum’ level of congestion is difficult to determine, but in central London
during weekday charging hours is likely to be about half the level prevailingwithout charging.
Moving car observer congestion surveys carried out in the western extension
at intervals between Autumn 2003 and 2005 show that the average excess
delay inside the western extension area is around 2 minutes per kilometre andthe average speed is 17 kilometres per hour. In comparison, observed excess
delays in the charging zone during charging hours are now typically 1.7
minutes per kilometre. Note that different values for ‘free-flow’ conditions
apply to the two networks, and that the PM peak period has been adjusted toreflect the changed charging hours that will apply to the extended charging

198

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

zone (Figure 11.5).
Figure 11.5

Average excess delays by time of day (minutes per kilometre) in thewestern extension, all available moving car observer surveys 2003-2005.

2.5
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 18:30
18:30 - 20:00
07:00 - 18:00

Excess delay (min/km)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Inside Western Extension

11.3

On Boundary Road

Traffic patterns

With minor adaptation, traffic volume surveys already in place for the central
zone would continue. These would measure trends in traffic volumes in theexisting central zone and any ‘consequent’ effects of the extension on thisarea. A range of new indicators would be developed to monitor traffic volume
changes in the western extension zone. As in the central zone, a combinationof automatic traffic counts and manual classified counts would be used, eachto best effect.
The following western extension-specific traffic change indicators would bemeasured:xEntering and exiting traffic (boundary crossing counts, automatic andmanual classified counts).

x

Circulating traffic (using internal screenlines and an indicative vehiclekilometre based estimate).

x

Traffic volumes on the boundary routes and alternative nearby orbitalroutes (automatic and manual classified counts).

x

Traffic on the ‘free through route’, from the Westway to Vauxhall Bridge.

xRadial traffic approaching the extended charging zone, across two
cordons, one just outside the boundary, and one further out running
through inner west London.

x

Orbital traffic moving around the extended zone across a series of radialscreenlines.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

199

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zonex

Traffic on local roads, generally via additional automatic counters incollaboration with host boroughs.

Figure 11.6

Principal cordons and screenlines used for traffic monitoring.

Source: © Crown copyright 2006. All Rights reserved (GLA) (100032379).

In relation to the existing central London charging zone, the following wouldfeature:x

Maintenance of existing arrangements for boundary crossing and internaltraffic, increasing frequency of surveys around the date of implementationof the western extension.

x

Maintenance of existing arrangements for the remainder of the Inner Ring
Road and for measuring traffic on local roads surrounding the charging
zone.

x

Supplementary surveys along the eastern side of the ‘free through route’ tomeasure trips made between the existing and extended areas of thecharging zone.

200

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

The smaller scale traffic impacts forecast for the western extension generally
require more frequent counts. These, in turn, are best directed to higher-flow
links. The general approach to counting western extension-specific indicators
would therefore be to partially count each up to six times per year. These
would allow both ‘conventional’ annualised indicators and a series of ‘periodspecific’ indicators more appropriate for assessing short-term effects.
Established indicators for the existing zone would be aligned with these where
feasible, giving a corresponding set of indicators for the full extended zone.
Particular attention would be paid to local traffic impacts that are likely to be of
specific interest. The following are examples:x

The White City development.

x

Developments around Paddington.

x

Thames Bridges.

x

Non-adjacent orbital routes (eg Hammersmith Gyratory).

x

The new 18.00 finish to charging hours.

Indicative findings
Traffic counts carried out in the western extension area show that, at present,
217,000 vehicles with four or more wheels enter the western extension zone
on a daily basis during charging hours. Table 11.1 shows the projected impactof the charging zone extension on traffic levels, by vehicle type.
Table 11.1

Current
conditions(modelled)

Traffic entering western zone before and after introduction of an £8congestion charge 07.00 to 18.00.

CZ payers
Non CZ payers-Terminating-Through-Exempt/discounted
Total
Post-charging
CZ payers(modelled)
Non CZ payers
lower sensitivity -Terminating-Through-Exempt/discounted
Total% change
Post-charging
CZ payers(modelled)
Non CZ payers
higher sensitivity -Terminating-Through-Exempt/discounted
Total% change

Cars

Vans

LorriesPotentiallychargeable
vehicles

56,00014,0005,000

41,00021,00017,000135,000
56,00011,0006,000
2,000
33,00014,000

2,000
1,000

54,00028,000

8,000
5,000

82,00023,0009,000
17,000106,000-22%
55,00011,0004,000
2,000
31,000-6%
13,000

2,000
1,000

36,00014,000

8,000
0%
5,000

50,000-39%

17,0007,000
17,00096,000-28%

10,0004,000
2,000
29,000
-12%

2,000
1,000

29,00011,0007,000-3%40,000-51%

Taxis

Buses, Total 4(+)
Coaches wheeledvehicles

33,0008,000

217,000

36,000
9%

9,000
10%

189,000-13%

37,000
10%

9,000
15%

178,000-17%

Note: figures have been rounded.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

201

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11.4

Public transport

Underground
Changes to Underground patronage and revenue will continue to bemonitored using the same datasets and time periods currently in place for thecentral London scheme, disaggregated to cover western extension related
indicators in detail. Patronage changes are monitored through average
passenger exits and entries over four-weekly periods during the morning peak
period and charging hours. Trends in average revenue taken at the same
stations over the same four-weekly time periods will be included forcomparison.
Stations within the extended charging zone are currently included in the grouptermed ‘Remainder of Fare Zone 1’. Stations of particular interest will be
included in one of four new key groups:xinside central zone;x

inside extended area;xboundary;x

remainder of Fare Zone 1.

National RailThe observed net change in National Rail patronage corresponding to theintroduction of the central London scheme was small. Nevertheless, fullcounts of rail passengers will be undertaken at stations within or immediately
adjacent to the western extension area. Initial counts were undertaken during
Spring 2006, and will be repeated during comparable periods in 2007, after
the extension is implemented. National Rail counts are undertaken between
06.00 and 20.00 for passengers travelling outbound from the zone andbetween 07.00 and 10.00 for passengers arriving in the zone by National Rail.

Bus
To determine the trends in bus service supply and patronage corresponding to
the implementation of the extension zone, a comprehensive programme ofcordon of counts will be undertaken before and after the implementation of theextended scheme. These surveys will include:x

Full counts of stage buses and passengers entering the extended zone.

x

Counts at the eastern side of the ‘free through route’ boundary to measure
any changes in the number of passengers entering the central zone due toincreased patronage from the extension zone.

x

Counts at a selected number of the busier sites within the extension zone
in order to determine how buses are coping with any increased patronage.

202

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

Indicators of bus reliability and journey time trends will continue to be provided
on a rolling four-weekly basis. These data will be provided for the following
geographical areas, as at present:xcentral;x

Inner Ring Road;xother inner;xouter;

x

network-wide average.

Additionally, new analysis will be carried out in parallel including additional
geographical areas. The size of these will depend on available data but could
include for example:
xwestern extension;x

Inner Ring Road West;x

Inner Ring Road East;x‘free through route’.

11.5

Travel behaviour change

A comprehensive understanding of travel behaviour change in relation tocongestion charging is highly desirable but difficult to achieve. The
implications of travel behaviour change on people’s wider lives, budgets andwell-being can never be fully understood in the absence of a comprehensive
understanding of those changes.
The group of most specific interest will be change by those who drove to,within or through the western extension area before the introduction of theextended charging zone. There are many other interests that can also be
addressed under this heading, such as the dynamics of modal shift, businesstravel implications and the effect of the extended residents’ discount zone on
travel to the existing central zone.
A survey framework along the following lines is planned:xGood ‘segmentation’ of travellers to, within and through the westernextension area, achieved primarily through a comprehensive programmeof roadside interviews, focused around the boundary, including the ‘free
through route’.

x

Measurement of volume and (travel) segment change via repeatedsurveys, together with the development of a ‘context’ framework for
estimating total effects.

x

Use of respondents from roadside interviews to develop a suite of ‘panel
surveys’, each focusing on one specific aspect of travel behaviour change(but collectively building into a comprehensive picture). For example,
travellers on business by economic activity sector, taxi users, thosebenefiting from the ‘inter-available’ residents’ discount.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

203

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zonex

Use of ITIS traffic speed/congestion data and (forthcoming) estimates ofchargepayer compliance costs to enable a segment-specific estimation of
overall costs and benefits.

As well as serving specific travel behaviour related requirements this work
would interface directly to two other important considerations. The first would
be to provide a sample frame for studies, for instance, of potential the impactof the extension on potentially-vulnerable groups. The second would be toprovide a sample frame for work to quantify the costs and benefits tobusiness-related travel segments. In both cases, it would be possible toquantify findings in terms of travellers directly impacted by the extension.

11.6

Social impacts

Social impacts can be defined as the effects that the extension to the scheme
has on people and communities particularly in relation to access to services;
social behaviour and available time; and the cost of living and financial
hardship. An understanding of the social impacts of the scheme can help to
explain trends observed elsewhere in the monitoring work, and contribute to
an informed assessment of the contribution of the scheme to the daily lives of
Londoners.
The social impacts of the western extension will be monitored primarily by two
surveys, to be carried out at regular intervals before and after the
implementation of the scheme. These are:x

A survey of ‘Londoners’ – to provide a representative sample of thoseliving within the M25, which can be disaggregated to be representative ofsmaller sub areas. This will provide a set of standard indicators that can betracked over the series of surveys, whilst remaining flexible enough toincorporate emerging areas of interest. The sample will be a crosssectional survey, re-drawn for each survey wave.

x

A survey of ‘western extension users’, those that travel into and within thewestern extension – to provide robust trend and change data, by tracking
the same panel of individuals, before and after charging. This will also beable to track responses to standard questions, whilst remaining flexible
enough to incorporate emerging areas of interest.

The surveys are by their nature large scale and quantitative. This can provide
a statistically reliable response, but limits the amount of ‘exploration’ that canbe carried out into the reasons behind individual responses. Additionally, it isrecognised that some groups within the population may be affected more thanothers, and that some of these groups may be hard to reach through the main
surveys. A further programme of small-scale and mainly qualitative surveys
will be put in place to monitor the impacts on particular groups and explore
responses in depth.
In the first instance, these are likely to incorporate surveys of key public sector
workers; shift workers; people with disabilities and their carers; ethnic
minority, religious and cultural communities; boundary residents; and tourists

204

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

and one-off visitors. This part of the survey programme will be flexible enoughto incorporate emerging issues, and is likely to include follow-up work from themain surveys.

11.7

Economic and business impacts

Achieving robust estimates of the nature and scale of any impacts on
business activity is difficult as there are limited data available that will allow
the detection and attribution of these effects against the backdrop of moregeneral economic trends.
TfL has developed the planned business and economic monitoring
programme in collaboration with GLA Economics, and will continue to build on
the relationship between the two organisations.
The planned programme incorporates the following elements:x

Development of a quantitative approach to segmentation of businesstravel, and measurement of costs and benefits, through an extensive roadside interview-based recruitment exercise and other surveys.

x

A review of available ‘assessment frameworks’ with a view to developing
one suitable for more closely quantifying the impacts of congestion
charging on business.

x

Development of new indicators for the western extension area for retail,activity, business turnover, and property prices, alongside establishedsimilar indicators for the central zone and appropriate ‘control’ areas.

x

Closer liaison with the business community through the established andGLA-led Business Reference Group, providing feedback and a ‘sounding
board’.

x

Surveys of visitors to shops, restaurant and other shop front service
providers (such as hairdressers, banks and so on) in the westernextension area, to be carried out before and after the implementation of
the extended zone.

x

Surveys of businesses in the current charged area, the western extension
area and related ‘control’ areas to investigate the perceived impacts ofcongestion charging on business performance among those operating
locally.

In addition, a number of quantitative case studies are being examined, togather specific information on interventions or issues that are likely to besignificant over the timescale of the monitoring.
Key among these is the possible effect of the White City development on retail
activity. Alongside specific traffic surveys identified above, comprehensive
footfall and turnover based indices at the site, together with corresponding‘vulnerable’ sites within and outside of the western extension area, will be
involved. Other candidates for case study research include key retail sites in
the western extension, boundary business effects and the leisure/tourism
sector.
Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

205

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

Economic characteristics of the western extension
The business population of the western extension zone is significantly
different to the existing central London charging zone. The Annual Business
Inquiry in 2004 indicated that the number of business units in the westernextension area was about 27 percent and the number of employees around18 percent that of the existing charging zone (Table 11.2).
Table 11.2

Employees and business units, Annual Business Inquiry 2004.

Number of business units
Employee jobs

Western extension
area
21,692
218,477

Existing charging
zone
81,6671,235,257

Greater London
365,126
3,953,351

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, December 2005.

The business sector composition of the two areas is also significantly different
in terms of employee jobs, as shown in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3

Employee jobs by business sector, Annual Business Inquiry 2004.

Primary and utilities
Manufacturing
Construction
Wholesale
RetailHotels and restaurants
Transport andcommunications
Financial and businessservices
Public administration
Education and health
Other services
Total

Western extension
area
Employee
% of
jobs
zone
988
<1
6,317
3
2,106
1
5,752
3
30,181
14
35,682
16
11,048
5

Existing charging
zone
Employee
% of
jobs
zone
3,406
<1
41,242
3
13,733
1
34,063
3
73,886
6
95,681
8
86,612
7

Greater London
Employeejobs
11,139215,591
119,125
212,190379,905
289,125305,210

% of
zone
<1
5
3
5
10
7
8

61,53928

604,89649

1,249,903

32

14,09532,624
18,145
218,477

6
15
8
100

85,52999,51596,694
1,233,257

7
8
8
100

229,987
665,798
275,378
3,953,351

6
17
7
100

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, December 2005.

The western extension area is relatively under-represented in sectors such as
financial and business services compared to the existing charging zone; andis over-represented in sectors such as retail, hotels & restaurants, and otherservices.
TfL’s Economic and Business Impact Assessment of the western extension to
the congestion charging zone concluded that, overall, the net aggregate
economic and business impacts of the western extension would be broadly
206

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

neutral. Table 11.4 shows the anticipated potential economic impact bybusiness sector.
Table 11.4

Potential aggregate impact of the western extension by business sector.

Primary & utilities<1

Potential net aggregate
business impact
Negligible

Manufacturing

3

Negligible

Construction

1

NeutralWholesale3

NeutralRetail15

Marginal negative impact

Hotels & restaurants

17

Marginal negative impact

Transport & communications

6

Positive impact

Financial & business services

25

Marginal positive impact

Public administration

4

Neutral

Education & health

15

NeutralOther services

11

Marginal negative impact

Business sector

11.8% area jobs

Environment

Although expected to be small in scale, the air quality impacts of the westernextension will be of interest.
As with the existing central London scheme, air quality impacts will beassessed in two ways. The first is to use observed traffic change data tocalculate emissions change through the established London Atmospheric
Emissions Inventory framework. The second is to use data from existing air
quality monitoring sites located in and around the extended charging zone. In
this regard, the extended charging zone is relatively well provided for. Taking
into account the particular requirement here for lengthy baselines of preimplementation data, no additional monitoring sites are proposed.
Existing TfL noise survey sample sites, measured annually, in and around theextended charging zone will continue to be surveyed to provide indications ofany significant changes in local noise climates that may have arisen from theextension, although the available evidence from the central zone suggeststhat this is unlikely to be significant.
Perceptions of changed environmental quality of residents and travellers
within the extended zone will be addressed through the social impacts
framework described above.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

207

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11.9

Accidents

Road and traffic accident data will continue to be available on a monthly basis
through the TfL Road Safety Unit.
The standard geographical areas reported will be restructured to include;xcentral zone;x

extension zone;x

Inner Ring Road West;x

Inner Ring Road East;x‘free through route’;x

rest of London.

11.10 Boundary effects
As with the existing central London scheme, most elements of the monitoring
programme will have a boundary-related dimension. Examples include theextension of traffic and congestion surveys to comprehensively cover the area
outside the extended charging zone, and the inclusion of ‘boundary’ and‘control’ areas into the economic and business research. Owing to thediversity of local issues and locations around the boundary of the westernextension, it is considered that monitoring of boundary impacts is best taken
forward through extension of general surveys to cover the boundary, coupledwith specific studies of issues of particular interest (eg the White City
development). It is not therefore proposed to designate a ‘boundary casestudy’ area in relation to the western extension, although existing activity inrelation to the central zone in Islington and Hackney will continue.
One aspect of boundary conditions that will require particular attention ischanges to parking behaviour and supply. Surveys to address this are being
developed, and these would most appropriately be taken forward on an areaspecific basis.

11.11 Scheme revenues
An important impact of the extended scheme is the surplus revenues it
generates. By law, these must be spent on measures to further the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy in accordance with an appendix to the Scheme Orderapproved by the Secretary of State for Transport. TfL is required to report
every four years to the Secretary of State on the expenditure of scheme
revenues.
The cumulative costs and revenues of the extended scheme and an indicationof the allocation of net revenues to transport programmes will be reported indue course.

208

Central London Congestion Charging Scheme

11. Monitoring an extended congestion charging zone

11.12 Scheme operation and enforcement
Data describing aspects of the operation and enforcement of the extended
congestion charging zone will become available from service providers for thescheme and be reported in due course. These data will cover the following
broad areas:x

Service provision and performance of the main service provider, including
the quality of service at the call centre and via other payment andinformation channels, such as the web.

x

Congestion charge payment trends, broken down by full and discounted
charge payments, and by method of payment; and trends in registration for
discounts including the fleet scheme.

xTrends in Penalty Charge Notice issue and payments; representations andappeals; and debt collection and persistent evasion.

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006

209

Glossary

Glossary
ANPR
Dun & Bradstreet
DVLA
Ernst & Young
Experian Business Strategies
GLA
GPS
Investment Property Databank
ITIS
IVR
MCO
NCP
PCN
SMS
SPSL
TfL
The Beta Model
VAT

AAutomatic number plate reading
Dun & Bradstreet Limited
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Ernst & Young Limited Liability Partnership
Experian Business Strategies Limited
Greater London Authority
Global positioning system
Investment Property Databank Limited
ITIS Holdings Public Limited Company
Interactive voice response
Moving car observer
National Car Parks Limited
Penalty Charge Notice
Short Message Service
Solution Products Systems Limited
Transport for London
The Beta Model Limited
Value Added Tax

Fourth Annual Monitoring Report: June 2006