ongestion charging
Central London

Impacts monitoring
Second Annual Report
April 2004

MAYOR OF LONDONTransport for London

Contents

Contents
Overview
The story so far
Congestion
Traffic patterns
Public transport
Social and behavioural impacts
Business and economic impacts
Accidents, amenity and the environment
Scheme operation
Enforcement
Monitoring programme

1.

Introduction

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

PurposeThe central London congestion charging scheme
Overview of the monitoring programme
Findings from the monitoring work so far
Report contents
Further information

2.

Congestion

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Key findings
2.3 Definitions and measurement of congestion
2.4 Moving car observer surveys
2.5 Congestion on the Inner Ring Road
2.6 Congestion on radial routes approaching the charging zone
2.7 Congestion on main roads in inner London
2.8 Effect of reduced congestion on driving speeds
2.9 Congestion monitoring using ANPR cameras
2.10 Panel survey of regular drivers
2.11 Perceptions of congestion

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

1
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6

7
7
8
9
9
10

11
11
11
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
21

Contents

3.

Traffic patterns

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Key findings
3.3 Monitoring framework
3.4 Settled traffic conditions
3.5 Traffic entering and leaving the charging zone
3.6 Traffic circulating within the charging zone
3.7 Traffic on the Inner Ring Road
3.8 Wider orbital traffic
3.9 Traffic on local roads
3.10 Radial traffic approaching the charging zone
3.11 Wider traffic trends in London

4.

Public transport

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Key findings
4.3 Background trends
4.4 Bus patronage
4.5 Bus journey time and reliability
4.6 Underground patronage
4.7 Underground service supply and reliability
4.8 National Rail
4.9 Railhead parking
4.10 Docklands Light Railway (DLR)
4.11 Passenger views

5.

23
23
24
25
26
28
31
33
34
36
37

39
39
40
40
46
47
48
49
51
51
52

Social and behavioural impacts

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Key findings
5.3 Structure
5.4 Survey framework
5.5 Assessing travel behaviour change
5.6 Aggregate changes to car travel to the charging zone
5.7 Individual behavioural change: charging zone residents
5.8 Individual behavioural change: inner London residents
5.9 Individual behavioural change: outer London residents
5.10 Impacts on individuals, households and neighbourhoods
5.11 Charging zone residents
5.12 Inner London residents
5.13 Outer London residents
5.14 Residents living beyond the M25
5.15 Attitudes of Londoners to congestion charging

55
55
55
56
57
57
62
64
66
67
67
70
72
74
76

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Contents

6.

Business and economic impacts

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

Introduction
Key findings
Transport for London’s business surveys
Retail in the congestion charging zone
Congestion charging and economic impacts: A TfL assessment
Cost-benefit analysis of congestion charging in central London

7.

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Key findings
7.3 Accidents
7.4 Quality of the central London environment
7.5 Perceived environmental quality
7.6 Perceptions of air quality and noise
7.7 Impact of congestion charging on the locality
7.8 Air quality
7.9 Emissions
7.10 Air quality models
7.11 Measured air quality
7.12 Weather during 2003
7.13 Fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2)
7.14 Noise

8.

Scheme operation and enforcement

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

Introduction
Key findings
Service provision
Enforcement operations

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

77
77
78
85
90
91

93
93
94
96
97
97
99
100
102
104
104
107
108
108

111
111
111
115

Overview

Overview
Congestion charging was successfully introduced in central London on 17 February 2003.
It contributes directly to four of the Mayor’s transport priorities:• To reduce congestion;• To make radical improvements in bus services;• To improve journey time reliability for car users;• To make the distribution of goods and services more efficient.
It also generates revenues to support the Mayor’s Transport Strategy more generally.
This is the second in a series of annual reports describing the impacts of congestion charging
in and around central London. It supersedes, updates and extends the material previously
published by Transport for London (TfL), in June and October 2003, and in February 2004.
In June 2003 TfL published the First Annual Monitoring Report. This described the scopeof 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, and information given describing how and when any
changes to these indicators would be measured.
Since the introduction of charging TfL has produced three shorter reports detailing key
early results from the monitoring work. These were:• Three Months On, June 2003;• Congestion Charging: Six Months On, October 2003;• Update on scheme impacts and operations, February 2004.
These reports have collectively provided a picture of the effects of the scheme to date.
In general, congestion charging appears to be meeting its principal traffic and transport
objectives, and the various elements of the scheme are now operating satisfactorily.
The key traffic, transport and operational outcomes are described in this report. This report
also covers the business, social, economic and environmental impacts of the scheme,
drawing on newly-available data from surveys undertaken in the latter part of 2003.
The remainder of this report presents a summary of available findings from across themonitoring programme. There are six sections, focusing on each of the key areas of themonitoring work in turn, together with a section updating and extending the information
previously published relating to the operation of the scheme.

The story so far• Congestion charging was introduced successfully under world-wide scrutiny and without
the problems predicted by many commentators;• New aggregate patterns of travel became established very quickly and have remained
stable since;• Congestion within the charging zone has reduced by 30 percent, and the volume of traffic
in the charging zone has reduced by 15 percent (vehicles with four or more wheels);

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 20041

Overview• Public transport is successfully accommodating displaced car users;• There have been significant improvements to bus services in the zone and more widely
throughout London;• Comparative analysis of the many influences on the central London economy
throughout 2003 suggest that the direct impact of congestion charging on businessactivity has been small;• There have been gains in environmental amenity, road traffic emissions and fossil fuelconsumption within the charging zone;• The operation and enforcement of the scheme are now working well; noticeable
improvements in performance have followed the Supplemental Agreement with
Capita, the scheme service provider.

Congestion
Congestion within the zone has reduced by 30 percent.
• Measurements of congestion within the charging zone indicate reductions in congestion
averaging 30 percent since the start of congestion charging. These results are at the
top end of TfL’s range of prior expectation;• Reduced congestion means that the proportion of time that drivers spend stationaryor moving slowly in queues in the charging zone has reduced by up to one-third;• This translates into more reliable and more predictable journey times, which surveys
of businesses and Londoners more generally suggest are being recognised.
The Inner Ring Road continues to operate satisfactorily, despite small increases in traffic.
• Measurements on the Inner Ring Road continue to show small reductions in congestion
compared to pre-charging levels, reflecting better operational management of thiskey route, despite slightly higher traffic flows.

Traffic patterns
Traffic adjusted rapidly and smoothly to the introduction of charging.
• Drivers adjusted rapidly to the introduction of charging and there were very few traffic
operational problems. New patterns of travel became established at an early stage,and have been sustained throughout 2003 and into 2004.
Traffic entering the zone during charging hours has reduced by 18 percent; and traffic
circulating within the zone has reduced by 15 percent.
• Observed reductions of 18 percent in traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering
the zone, and 15 percent in traffic circulating within the zone (also vehicles with four ormore wheels), are towards the top end of the range of TfL’s prior expectation.
As predicted, there have been small increases in traffic on the Inner Ring Road, which is being
satisfactorily managed.
• Although increased traffic has been observed on the Inner Ring Road, these increases are
somewhat smaller than expected and are not leading to significant operational problemson this key route.

2

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Overview
There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic outside the charging zone.
• There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic outside of charging hours
on weekdays or weekends in response to the introduction of the charge;• There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic on local roads outside thecharging zone, during charging hours, in response to the introduction of the charge.

Public transport
Large scale improvements to the bus network have seen increased patronage, both in thecongestion charging zone and more widely throughout London.
• A total of 106,000 passengers entered the charging zone on 560 buses during atypical weekday morning peak in Autumn 2003;• This represents a 38 percent increase in patronage and a 23 percent increase inservice provision compared with 2002. About half of the increased patronage is estimatedto be due to congestion charging;• Although average occupancies per bus have increased, the additional bus passengers
are being accommodated.
The reliability of bus services has improved markedly, both within the charging zone andmore widely across London.
• Within the charging zone there were marked improvements in both the main indicatorsof bus service reliability: additional waiting time due to service irregularity fell by
30 percent; disruption due to traffic delays fell by 60 percent;• Overall bus speeds within the charging zone improved by 6 percent; after allowing
for time spent at bus stops, this is compatible with the improved speeds of general traffic
within the charging zone. The improvement within the zone is greater than that observedin other areas of London.
Travel to central London by Underground has reduced during 2003.
• The Underground has experienced a reduction in the number of passengers exiting
stations in and around the charging zone, a trend reflected across the network. In themorning peak period since charging was introduced there was a reduction in the average
number of station exits within the charging zone of 8 percent from 513,000 to 473,000;• It is likely that a small shift of car users to Underground, because of charging, hasbeen more than offset by overall reductions in Underground travel to central London
for reasons unconnected with congestion charging.
Travel to central London by National Rail remained broadly static between 2002 and 2003.
• Transport for London has observed no significant net change to the number ofpassengers entering central London on the National Rail network between 2002 and 2003.
It is possible that a shift of car users to rail, because of charging, has been masked bybackground changes in the use of rail for travel to central London;• Transport for London has found no evidence of systematic increases in ‘railhead’ parking
at rail stations in inner and outer London associated with congestion charging.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 20043

Overview

Social and behavioural impacts
Transport for London’s analysis of the available data allows a provisional assessment of how
people have adapted to congestion charging.
• Of the 65,000 to 70,000 car trips that are no longer made to the charging zone during
charging hours: between 50 and 60 percent have transferred to public transport,
20 to 30 percent now divert around the charging zone (these being trips with bothorigins and destinations outside of the zone), and 15 to 25 percent have made otheradaptations, such as changing the timing of trips.

Business and economic impacts
Comparative analysis of the many influences on the central London economy throughout
2003 suggest that the direct impact of congestion charging has been small.
• London’s economy has been subject to a wide range of influences during 2003.
Collectively, these have had a much greater impact on the central London economy
than congestion charging. They have also made the task of identifying and quantifying
congestion-charging-related impacts more difficult.
Key results from TfL’s survey of businesses in central London are now available.
• The TfL business surveys have shown that a number of factors are at work ingenerating responses to the congestion charge from the business community;• A majority of businesses in the zone or close to the boundary state that they are
generally supportive.
Further analysis of the impacts of congestion charging on the retail sector confirm thatthe direct effect is comparatively small.
• The scale of reduced travel to central London resulting directly from congestion
charging is not compatible with the scale of effects claimed by some retailers.
This strongly suggests the operation of other more pervasive factors in determining
the economic performance of central London during 2003;• The apparent resurgence of the retail market at the end of 2003/early 2004 indicatescongestion charging has had no long-term effect on the sector;• Structural changes to the retail market and much broader economic and political factors
have been the prime drivers affecting retail performance within the charging zone during
the first half of 2003.

Accidents, amenity and the environment
The recent pattern of decreasing levels of accidents within the charging zone is continuing,
and there is no evidence of detrimental change in road traffic accidents within or aroundthe zone.
• The recent trend of overall year-on-year decreases in road traffic accidents seen acrossLondon is continuing. There is no evidence of disproportionate changes to the numbersof accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles as some had feared, and there is someevidence of an accelerated decline in accidents inside the charging zone.

4

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Overview
Better amenity for central London.
• Surveys of Londoners ‘on-street’ in and around the charging zone suggest that thebeneficial effects of congestion charging and other initiatives on environmental
quality are being recognised.
There has been reduced emissions from road traffic inside the charging zone and littlechange to emissions on the Inner Ring Road.
• By reducing the overall volumes of traffic within the charging zone, and increasing
the efficiency with which it circulates, congestion charging has been directly responsible
for reductions of approximately 12 percent in emissions of both oxides of nitrogen (NOx)and fine particles (PM10) from road traffic (based on 24-hour annual average day);• Traffic changes on the Inner Ring Road are estimated to have resulted in very smallchanges to emissions of NOx and PM10 from road traffic, of less than plus/minus
2 percent respectively.
Valuable savings in greenhouse gases and fossil fuels.
• Traffic changes resulting from charging are estimated to have led to savings of 19 percent
in traffic-related emissions of CO2 and 20 percent in fuel consumed by road transport
within the charging zone (based on a 24-hour annual average day).
No evidence of changes to local noise levels.
• There is no evidence from sample noise measurements in and around the charging zoneof significant changes in the ambient noise climate.

Scheme operation
Approximately 550,000 congestion charge payments are made each week.
• In a typical week, there are around 400,000 non-residential payments, 90,000 residential
payments and 60,000 fleet payments;• Chargepayer preferences for different payment methods were established within thefirst few weeks of operation and have shown only minor changes since. However, useof the text messaging (SMS) sales channel is slowly increasing, at the expense of the retailand call centre payment channels.
The Supplemental Agreement with Capita (the primary service provider for the scheme)
has resulted in real improvements to customer service and scheme operation.
• During the first few months of the scheme TfL became aware that the quality of service
provided by the main contractor was below the standard required. The Supplemental
Agreement with Capita defined an extensive programme of improvements across IT,
management, process and staffing. Along with a tougher quality performance
management regime this has resulted in an increase in performance across a numberof areas, particularly in relation to performance of the call centre, the number andquality of penalty charges being issued and the end to end enforcement process.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

5

Overview

Enforcement
The scheme is being rigorously enforced, and the effectiveness of the process has
benefited from improvements following from the Supplemental Agreement with Capita.
• Representations against Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) have reduced as the accuracy of
PCNs issued has increased. Chargepayer and Capita errors in entering the correct vehicle
and date of entry details have fallen and the effectiveness of the enforcement process
has increased;• Since June 2003 TfL has been pursuing outstanding debts and persistent evaders throughall available channels. Several hundred vehicles have been immobilised or removed anddebt recovery is being followed through for all unpaid PCNs through bailiff action.

Monitoring programme
The monitoring programme is proceeding to plan. A further comprehensive round of surveys
and research are planned for 2004/5.
• This report contains summary results from all areas of the monitoring programme,
reflecting one complete year of scheme operation;• The material so far gathered is undergoing detailed analysis, and a range of technicalreports will be published on the TfL website over the coming months. This will include
a series of case studies;• The future monitoring programme for 2004/5 will proceed broadly along the lines
described in the First Annual Monitoring Report, with some minor changes of emphasis
reflecting experiences since the introduction of charging.

6

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This is the second in a series of comprehensive annual reports describing the impacts
of congestion charging in central London. It sets out emerging findings from acrossthe monitoring programme, reflecting approximately 12 months of scheme operation,and compares these to conditions applying before charging started and – whereappropriate – to Transport for London’s (TfL’s) expectations for the scheme. It also
reports on the operation and enforcement of the scheme during its first 12 months.
The Mayor and TfL are committed to a comprehensive 5 year programme,
one year before and four years after, of objective monitoring covering not only themore immediate traffic and transport effects of the scheme, but also the wider social,economic and environmental impacts. The programme consolidates information fromover 100 specially-designed surveys, while making use of already established surveys
and data sources.
The scope and scale of the data and information now available to TfL exceed what is
possible to publish in a report of this nature. This report therefore concentrates on
those elements of the monitoring work that are likely to be of most general interest.

1.2 The central London congestion charging scheme
The central London congestion charging scheme was introduced on 17 February 2003.
The primary aim of the scheme is to reduce traffic congestion in and around thecharging zone. The scheme was expected to contribute directly to four of the
Mayor’s ten priorities for transport as set out in his Transport Strategy publishedin July 2001:• To reduce congestion;• To make radical improvements in bus services;• To improve journey time reliability for car users;• To make the distribution of goods and services more reliable, sustainable and efficient.
The scheme was also expected to generate net revenues to improve transport in
London more generally.
The congestion charge is a £5 daily charge for driving or parking a vehicle on publicroads within the congestion charging zone between 0700 and 1830, Monday to Friday,
excluding weekends and public holidays.
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.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 20047

Introduction
Figure 1.1 The congestion charging zone
King’s Cross

Bridge

AT E

PSG

HO
BIS

DGE

LondonBridge

NEW

TO

GT

T
ING

PA
R

E
AN

ON

L

KR

D.

KEN T R O A D

AD

B RI

G

W

BO

U
RO

ER

ST

Vauxhall KE N N

Tower
Bridge

H ST
.

HIG

RO

AD

AD

EL
AP
CH
ITE D
WH RO A

AldgateH

Waterloo

O

R RO

GE

LO

XH
RO ALLAD BR
ID

GR O S V E N O
31.7.02

ER

Central London
congestion charging zone

VA
U

D

Fenchurch
StreetCannonStreetAT

Victoria

CHE
Bank
APSI
LUD
DE
GA
HIL TE
L

ET

Blackfriars

ND

Charing
Cross

Westminster

KEN SIN GT O N ROA D

TRE

ON

SquareROA

S T.

Liverpool Street

W

C

RA

S
ET

IN

NE

PI

Y
I L L Trafalgar

EFL

Th am e s

Piccadilly
CircusD
CA

Holborn

C R OS S
RING ROADLA

Hyde Park
Corner

EET

CHA

RK

Hyde
Park

Marble
Arch

PA

AD
ER RO

D STR

M IL L B A N K

E
W AT

OXFOR

OLD

L

City
Thameslink

H IG H H OL B O R N

River

AR
B AY SADELENW
CLERK AD
RO

AL
CI
ER ET
M M T RE
S

GW
RO

OAD

OxfordCircus

AD

NE Y

CO

YL

RO

K
AC

Old Street

M
HA D
EN A
TT RO
TO URT
CO

ED

MAR

R
EBONE

ST

AD

CI TY

Elephant & Castle

OL

D

KE

NT

RO

NN

EU

Marylebone

ON

RO

TON V IL LE
ROA D

RO

Euston

Angel

N
PE

H

St. Pancras

AD

KE

HA M P S T E A D
RO A D

Regent’sPark

The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the congestion charging zone,
and no charge applies to vehicles using that route.
Certain categories of vehicle, notably taxis, motorcycles and buses, are exempt fromthe 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 Blue Badge holders and certain
alternative fuel vehicles are eligible for a 100 percent discount.

1.3 Overview of the monitoring programme
The scope of the monitoring programme was described in detail in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report.
The monitoring programme consists of five key work streams, designed to assess
the range of traffic, transport, social, economic and environmental effects.
The programme features over 100 directly-sponsored survey and research activities,
designed to investigate specific issues and complement the wealth of information
gathered by third-parties, such as the public transport operators, 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 academic and professional external advisers.

8

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Introduction

1.4 Findings from the monitoring work so far
In June 2003 TfL published the First Annual Monitoring Report. This described thescope of the monitoring work that had been put in place to ensure that the impacts
of congestion charging were robustly and comprehensively measured. Conditions
applying before charging 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 charging TfL has produced three reports detailing key early
results from the monitoring work. These are:• Three Months On, June 2003;• Congestion Charging: Six Months On, October 2003;• Update on scheme impacts and operations, February 2004.
These reports have collectively provided a picture of the early effects of the scheme.
In general, congestion charging appears to be meeting its principal traffic and transport
objectives, and the main elements of the scheme are operating satisfactorily.
The key traffic, transport and operational outcomes after one year are described inthis report. This report also covers the business, social, economic and environmental
impacts of the scheme, drawing on newly-available data from surveys undertaken in
the latter part of 2003.

1.5 Report contents
The remainder of this report presents a summary of findings from across themonitoring programme. There are six sections, taking each of the key areasof the monitoring work in turn, together with a section updating and extending
the information previously published relating to the operation and enforcementof the scheme:• Congestion;• Traffic patterns;• Public Transport;• Social and behavioural impacts;• Business and economic impacts;• Accidents, amenity and the environment;• Scheme operation and enforcement.
Congestion charging was introduced against a backdrop of wider change to travel
patterns in London, brought about by economic and social change and theimplementation of the other elements of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
All of these will have had an effect on the measurements described in this report,
which in general reflect the net out-turn of a combination of traffic, transport andother effects. For example, the overall level of travel to central London by car has
declined in recent years, and in 2003 there was a net decline in public transport travel
to central London.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 20049

Introduction
It is therefore usually not possible to precisely identify the ‘congestion charging effect’,
although in many cases the available evidence allows a reasonable estimate.

1.6 Further information
The structure and content of the monitoring programme was fully described in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report (Appendix 3), as were the principles for access tofurther data and results from across the programme (Appendix 2).
During 2004 the TfL website will increasingly be used to publish a variety oftechnical reports and other materials from the monitoring work.
If you have any queries relating to this report or the wider impacts monitoring
programme – please e-mail TfL at ccsmonitoring@tfl.gov.uk

10

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion

2. Congestion
2.1 Introduction
The main objective of congestion charging was to reduce traffic congestion in andaround the charging zone. Congestion charging would achieve this by reducing theamount of traffic attracted into the charging zone. This chapter examines the extent
to which this objective has been achieved, drawing on the range of evidence now
available from the monitoring programme.

2.2 Key findings• Measurements of congestion within the charging zone indicate reductions incongestion averaging 30 percent since the start of congestion charging. These
results are at the top end of Transport for London’s (TfL) range of prior expectation;• Measurements on the Inner Ring Road continue to show small reductions incongestion compared to pre-charging levels, despite higher traffic flows,reflecting better operational management of this key route;• Transport for London has found no statistically significant change to congestion
levels on major roads in the inner London area outside the charging zone during
charging hours, although congestion on radial routes approaching the charging zone
appears to have reduced by up to 20 percent;• Decongestion means that the proportion of time that drivers spend stationaryor moving slowly in queues in the charging zone has reduced by up to one-third;• Preliminary analysis of speed and congestion data from Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) enforcement cameras tends to corroborate findings fromother surveys and the cameras are a valuable new data source for monitoring
traffic conditions in London;• Panel surveys of regular drivers travelling between other parts of London and thecharging zone, undertaken across the period when charging was implemented,
demonstrated clear savings in journey times (averaging 14 percent) and an increasein the reliability (a measure of the variability of journey times reducing by 27 percent
for outward journeys and 34 percent for return journeys);• Reduced congestion in and around the charging zone is being recognised bybusinesses and Londoners more generally.

2.3 Definitions and measurement of congestion
A full definition of congestion (and the relevant indicators) was set out in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report. The approach adopted here follows that currently
used by the Department for Transport. This defines ‘congestion’ as the ‘lost’ travel
time experienced by vehicle users on a road network. It relates to the lost timeelement of travel time spent over and above that under ‘uncongested’ or ‘free-flow’
conditions. In broad terms, congestion in an urban road network equates to timespent in queues at junctions.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

11

Congestion
For London, ‘uncongested’ conditions are taken as being those applying during theearly hours of the morning, when traffic flow is at its lightest and traffic is most able
to move around the network at its ‘free-flow’ speed. Similar measurements taken atother times of the day, when traffic would generally be moving more slowly, are thencompared to ‘free-flow’ conditions and the difference is considered to be congestion.
In practical terms, the measurement of congestion involves gathering data describing
average speeds of travel on the road network. Network speeds, expressed in termsof kilometres per hour (km/h), can be translated directly into the corresponding travel
rate minutes per kilometre (min/km) and these are the units in which congestion ismost usually expressed. Congestion is therefore considered to be the difference inmin/km between the measured travel rate and the night-time travel rate, i.e. theexcess travel rate.
Traditionally, average traffic speeds in London have been measured using Moving Car
Observer surveys (MCO – also known as ‘Floating Car’ surveys). This method consistsof an instrumented car that travels around the network following a pre-definedschedule of routes and behaving in the same way as the generality of other traffic.
The routes are selected so as to be representative of traffic conditions across the
network. The car records time and distance covered and, over the course of any one
survey will return an average speed for traffic on the survey network along with detailsof the variation in speed throughout the survey. The surveys of this type that had
been put in place to monitor the impacts of congestion charging were outlined in
the First Annual Monitoring Report and a full set of results from these surveys is
described below.
The MCO method has certain shortcomings in this context. The monitoring work
therefore sought to strengthen the understanding of the congestion effects of thescheme by using data from two other sources. These are:
• A ‘panel’ survey of regular drivers, that monitored the changes in time taken
for a selection of regular daily journeys between other parts of London andthe charging zone;• Data from the ANPR cameras that are used to enforce the scheme.
A summary of findings from each of these sources is presented, alongside someresults from ‘attitudinal’ surveys of businesses and Londoners, that provide insights
into the way that the reduced levels of congestion have been recognised.

12

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion

2.4 Moving car observer surveys
Congestion within the charging zone
Intensive MCO surveys have been undertaken in the charging zone since the startof 2002. These surveys directly adopted the methodology that had applied incentral London since at least the mid-1980s, with the historical surveys that
had been undertaken once every three years increased to bi-monthly frequency,
giving effectively continuous coverage.
Figure 2.1 presents results from these surveys, up to and including the latest survey
undertaken in January/February 2004. Surveys undertaken post-charging are coloured
blue, and those taken pre-charging are coloured red.
Figure 2.1 Congestion levels in the charging zone during charging hours
5
Congestion
Nighttime travel rate

Travel rate (min/km)

4

3

2

1

Se ug 0
p/
O 2
N ct
ov 02
/D
e
Ja c 02
n/
Fe
M b0
ar
/A 3
M pr
ay 03
/J
un
0
Ju
l/A 3
Se ug 0
p/
O 3
N ct
ov 0
/D 3
e
Ja c 03
n/
Fe
b
04

02

l/A

Ju

un
/J

ay

M

M

ar

/A

pr

02

02

0
Ja

n/

Fe

b

l0

7
Ju

l9
Ju

n/

4
Ju

l9
Ju

n/

0
Ju

l9

n/
Ju

Ju
n/

Ju

Ju

n/

Ju

l8

6

0

Survey period

Transport for London expected a 20 to 30 percent reduction in congestion inside
the charging zone during charging hours, against typical traffic delays of 2.3 min/km,
estimated to have been representative of conditions before charging was introduced.
Figure 2.1 shows consistent and significant reductions in congestion, against the2002 surveys, with typical delays in the charging zone around 1.7 min/km and average
network speeds during weekday charging hours consistently around 17 km/h per hour.
Taking into account the most recent survey in January/February 2004, the average
reduction in congestion since charging commenced is 30 percent.
The congestion benefits seen in the early months of the scheme are therefore
being sustained, with reductions in congestion consistently towards the upper
end of the range of TfL’s prior expectation.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

13

Congestion
Figure 2.2 shows how these improvements in congestion have been reflected by
faster average journey speeds. Average travel speeds during charging hours are
now around 17 km/h.
Figure 2.2 Average network speeds within the charging zone
30

Jan/Feb 2002
Jul/Aug 2002
Jan/Feb 2003
Jul/Aug 2003
Jan/Feb 2004

Average speed (km/h)

25

Mar/Apr 2002
Sep/Oct 2002
Mar/Apr 2003
Sep/Oct 2003

May/Jun 2002
Nov/Dec 2002
May/Jun 2003
Nov/Dec 2003

20

15

10

5

0
AM shoulder

AM peak

AM off-peak

PM off-peak

PM peak

PM shoulder

Time period

2.5 Congestion on the Inner Ring Road
The Inner Ring Road forms the boundary of the charging zone. No charge applies
to vehicles using this route. Concerns were raised before the start of charging that
traffic diverting on to the Inner Ring Road to avoid the charge could lead to increased
congestion. Transport for London expected that with the implementation of improved
traffic management arrangements, there would be no overall increase in congestion
on this route.
Congestion on the Inner Ring Road has been measured by dedicated two-monthly
MCO speed surveys. Four surveys have been completed following the start of charging
and these can be compared with equivalent surveys conducted during 2002.
Figure 2.3 shows that observed levels of congestion have reduced since theintroduction of charging. The latest three surveys all indicate a stable picturewith typical all-day delays of between 1.5 and 1.7 min/km, compared to arepresentative pre-charging value of 1.9 min/km.

14Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion
Figure 2.3 Congestion levels on the Inner Ring Road during charging hours
5
Congestion
Nighttime travel rate
Travel rate (min/km)

4

3

2

1

/J
ul
00
Ja
n/
Fe
b
02
M
ar
/A
pr
02
Ju
n/
Ju
l0
Se
2
p/
O
ct
N
ov 02
/D
ec
02
Ja
n/
Fe
b
03
M
ar
/A
pr
03
Ju
n/
Ju
l0
Se
3
p/
O
ct
N
ov 03
/D
ec
03

97

Ju
n

/J
ul

94
Ju
n

/J
ul

90
Ju
n

/J
ul

Ju
n

Ju
n

/J
ul

86

0

Survey period

As with the charging zone, travel rates in the 2003 post-charging surveys are generally
faster than during 2002. The uncongested travel rate on the Inner Ring Road is
1.8 min/km, and the actual levels of congestion experienced during 2002 fluctuatedconsiderably throughout the year.
Measurements of traffic volumes on the Inner Ring Road suggest overall increases intraffic of about 4 percent following the introduction of charging, towards the lower end
of TfL’s range of expectations. It is therefore likely that the congestion improvements
reflect the better operational management of this key route and to a more limited
extent, the end of the disruptions connected with some roadworks around theInner Ring Road area in 2002.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

15

Congestion

2.6 Congestion on radial routes approaching the charging zone
Figure 2.4 Congestion levels on main radial roads approaching thecharging zone during charging hours
3.5

Congestion
Nighttime travel rate

Travel rate (min/km)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

03
20

03

ec

ct
N

ov

/D

O
p/
Se

n/

Ju

l2

20

00

3

03
Ju

M

ar

/A

Fe

b

pr

20

20

03

02
n/
Ja

/D
ov
N

Se

p/

O

ct

ec

20

20

02

2
00
l2
Ju
n/

Ju

/A
ar
M

Ja

n/

Fe

b

pr

20

20

02

02

0

Survey period

Congestion on the main radial routes approaching or leaving the charging zone has
been surveyed in both directions as part of the intensified MCO survey arrangements
for the Inner Ring Road (Figure 2.4). This survey covers a representative selection ofradial routes up to a distance of 3 to 5 kilometres from the charging zone. For the
purpose of this report the night-time travel rate for inner London of 1.5 min/km isused as a representative pre-charging value for congestion, giving an average value
for congestion before charging, during charging hours, of 1.5 min/km.
The 2003 post-charging surveys have, in general, seen decreases in travel rate on
the main radial approach roads during charging hours. The reduction has averaged
0.3 min/km. This means that all day levels of congestion are now averaging
1.2 min/km, a reduction of around 20 percent.

2.7 Congestion on main roads in inner London
Inner London in this context means the area outside the Inner Ring Road, but within the
North and South Circular Roads. Transport for London expected small reductions incongestion in inner London outside of the charging zone. This would arise from reduced
traffic volumes, reflecting lower volumes of travel to and from the charging zone.

16

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion
An MCO survey of network speeds on the more major roads in inner London was
conducted between March and June 2003. Transport for London estimated therepresentative all-day level of congestion before the introduction of charging tobe 1.3 min/km on main roads in inner London. Transport for London has found nostatistically significant change in congestion levels on major roads in inner London
during charging hours.
It may be that reduced traffic levels across inner London resulting from congestion
charging, in combination with environmental traffic management schemes on
residential roads, have meant a transfer of traffic from minor to more major roads.
Such roads are more likely to be covered in the congestion survey – so the survey
may not reflect the full picture of congestion across inner London. Traffic management
schemes on the Inner Ring Road during 2002, at Vauxhall Cross and at Shoreditch –for purposes unconnected with congestion charging – are likely to have diverted
traffic to main roads in inner London and hence may have increased congestion
within this survey area.

2.8 Effect of reduced congestion on driving speeds
The TfL report Six Months On illustrated the important point that reduced
congestion in central London was mainly reflected by a reduced amount of timespent stationary or moving slowly in queues, rather than increases in driving speed.
Figure 2.5 extends this analysis to look at the whole series of bi-monthly surveys
from January/February 2002 to January/February 2004.
Figure 2.5 Time spent travelling at different speeds in the charging zone
during charging hours
180,000
Jan/Feb 2002
Jul/Aug 2002
Jan/Feb 2003
Jul/Aug 2003
Jan/Feb 2004

Length of time (seconds)

160,000
140,000

Mar/Apr 2002
Sep/Oct 2002
Mar/Apr 2003
Sep/Oct 2003

May/Jun 2002
Nov/Dec 2002
May/Jun 2003
Nov/Dec 2003

120,000
100,000
80,00060,00040,00020,0000
0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 30
30 - 40
Speed bands (km/h)

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

40 - 5060+

17

Congestion
Figure 2.5 shows that decreased congestion in the charging zone is mainly reflectedby a reduced amount of time spent stationary or moving slowly in queues, rather thanincreases in driving speed.
In all of the post charging surveys, the amount of time spent in the lowest speed
band (0 to 10 km/h) has reduced by up to one third when compared to equivalentpre-charging surveys.
Whilst there are some small increases in the amount of time spent travelling at thehigher speeds up to 40 km/h, the gain is overwhelmingly in terms of reduced timespent in queues. This should mean better journey time reliability as periods of
temporary ‘gridlock’ are greatly reduced.

2.9 Congestion monitoring using ANPR cameras
The possible application of the ANPR enforcement cameras to monitoring congestion
was outlined in the First Annual Monitoring Report. This described how traffic speeds
could be monitored by matching observations of the same vehicle moving between
related pairs of cameras, where the time taken and distance covered were known.
A potential benefit of this approach would be the large volumes of data arising
as a by-product of the scheme enforcement process. Cameras operate continuously
during charging hours. Such volumes of data would allow statistical treatment of issues
such as travel time reliability (which is not currently possible using MCO data) and open
up new research possibilities into various aspects of traffic behaviour.
Taking full account of Data Protection principles, a system was put in place to begin to
exploit these data. Data from the cameras started coming ‘on-stream’ at the very startof 2003, providing a short ‘pre-charging’ dataset. However, since charging started, data
have been accumulating continuously and some initial analyses have been undertaken.
An important consideration for the future is the extent to which data from this source
are comparable to those from the MCO speed surveys. This might allow greater useof this technology as a primary measure of changes in congestion, resulting in costsavings, as well as improving the robustness of conclusions and the rapidity with which
they can be produced. However, it is recognised that differences in network coverage
and other factors will inevitably mean that the estimates of network speeds fromeach source will differ.

18

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion
Figure 2.6 shows an example of the relationships between ANPR and MCO data,in this case relating to the early months of charging. For the network of cameras
within the charging zone, it is seen that the estimated ANPR measurements havea tendency to produce higher speed estimates than the MCO measurements.
On the Inner Ring Road, however, the reverse is true, ANPR tending to record
consistently lower speeds than the MCO surveys.
Figure 2.6 Example relationship between car speeds measured by
ANPR cameras and MCO surveys during the early months of charging
35
Boundary to centre of the charging zone
Centre of charging zone

ANPR speed (km/h)

30

Inner Ring Road

25

20

15

10
10

15

20

25

30

35

MCO speed (km/h)

These differences are not unexpected, relating to differing ‘samples’ of congestion
measured in each case. For example, within the charging zone, the network of cameras
is heavily biased towards the busier, more direct routes.
The important finding here is not that the estimated average speeds are different,
but that the differences appear to be reasonably consistent across different days
and time periods. This suggests that it may be possible in the longer-term to develop
robust methods of monitoring congestion using this technology.

2.10 Panel survey of regular drivers
Technology-based methods of measuring aggregate changes in congestion do notnecessarily reflect the experience of ‘real’ travellers. To tackle this and provide
additional information across the period during which the scheme was implementeda ‘panel’ survey of regular drivers was put in place over the period November 2002
through to end April 2003.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

19

Congestion
This consisted of a panel of regular commuters who kept a daily record of theirjourney times on their regular journeys either to/from or across the charging zone.
Over 7,000 journeys were monitored in total. Their logs provide information on‘replicated’ journeys, one use for which is to look at how the reliability of regularjourneys has changed.
Panel members were selected from all parts of London. Their journeys were analysedin concentric zones according to the origin or destination of the journey and for‘outward’ or ‘return’ journeys as appropriate.
Results show that both outward and return journey times each decreased by an averageof 14 percent following the introduction of charging. The largest decreases in journey
times were experienced by those travelling the longer distances. Summary results for‘outward’ journeys (largely corresponding to the morning peak) are shown in Figure 2.7.
There were also clear indications of improved reliability for journey times, although
the findings varied between the different types of journey. The standard deviationof travel times (one measure of the variability of journey times) was reduced by
27 percent for outward journeys and 34 percent for return journeys.
On a typical round-trip of 80 minutes, this could mean savings in travel time, on
average, of about 10 minutes. Although these results relate to the early monthsof charging, the more recent trends in congestion described elsewhere in thischapter suggest that comparable gains are likely to have continued.
Figure 2.7 Comparison of ‘outward’ journey times (in minutes) for a selectionof regular journeys into or across the charging zone
All outer zone
Near M25
Near North/South
Circular Roads
All inner area
Inner London
Central London outside
charging zone
Charging zone
Post charging
Pre charging

All panel members
0

20

10

20

30
40
Journey time (minutes)

50

60

70

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Congestion

2.11 Perceptions of congestion
There is increasing evidence that businesses and the general public are recognising
the benefits of reduced congestion in central London. Figure 2.8 shows a shift in theperception of traffic congestion among central London businesses surveyed by TfL,
comparing opinions expressed in Autumn 2003 with those of Autumn 2002. There has
been a noticeable reduction in the proportion of businesses categorising congestion
as ‘at a critical level’ or ‘very bad’, with an associated increase in those saying it was‘not too bad’ or ‘not a problem at all’.
Figure 2.8 Change in perceived level of congestion by businesses incentral London

Congestion
during peak

BeforeCongestion
during the day0%

Before

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

After

After

At a critical level

Very badQuite bad

Not too bad

Not a problem at all

Other indications of how the decongestion effects of the scheme are being perceived
by Londoners are given in Chapters 5 and 7.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

21

Congestion

22

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns

3. Traffic patterns
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the key changes to the volumes and characteristics of roadtraffic that have been observed in and around the charging zone during 2003. It builds
on information already presented in earlier TfL reports, giving some further detail inrespect of indicators for which headline findings have already been published, andconsiders other data sources that have more recently become available.
Congestion charging was expected to deliver decongestion benefits by reducing thevolume of traffic entering and circulating within the charging zone during charging
hours. The scheme was also expected to lead to several other changes to traffic
patterns around the charging zone. The key expected traffic changes were:• A reduction of between 10 and 15 percent in traffic circulating within the
charging zone (measured as vehicle-kilometres travelled by all vehicles withfour or more wheels);• A corresponding reduction in traffic entering and leaving the charging zone acrossthe boundary;• Changes to the composition of traffic, as different types of vehicle are differentiallyattracted or deterred with respect to the charging zone;• An increase in traffic on the Inner Ring Road, as drivers elect to avoid paying thecharge by diverting around the boundary of the charging zone;• A reduction in traffic on the radial approaches to the charging zone, reflecting
reduced vehicle-trips to and from the charging zone;• A possible small increase in orbital traffic in inner London, from drivers also seeking
to avoid paying the charge by diverting around the charging zone on roads beyond
the Inner Ring Road;• Other possible changes to the pattern of trip-making, for example drivers changing
the timing of their trips so as to be outside of charging hours.
Information is now available that allow all of these expected effects within the first
12 months of charging to be assessed.

3.2 Key findings
The key findings from the monitoring work are as follows:• Traffic adjusted rapidly and with very few traffic operational problems. New patternsof travel became established at an early stage, and have been sustained throughout
2003 and into 2004;• Observed reductions of 18 percent in traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering
the zone, and 15 percent in traffic circulating within the zone (also vehicles with fouror more wheels), are towards the top end of the range of TfL’s prior expectation;• Responses of individual vehicle types tended to be slightly more pronounced than
expected, with larger-than-expected decreases in cars, and greater than expected
increases in taxis and two-wheeled vehicles;

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200423

Traffic patterns• Although increased traffic has been observed on the Inner Ring Road, theseincreases are somewhat smaller than expected and are not leading to significant
operational problems on this key route;• There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic outside of charging hours
on weekdays or weekends in response to the introduction of the charge;• There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic on local roads outsideof the charging zone in response to the introduction of the charge;• Reductions in radial traffic approaching the charging zone in inner London are
towards the low end of TfL’s range of prior expectation, but interpretation ofthis finding is difficult in the absence of further data describing recent traffic
trends more widely in inner London.

3.3 Monitoring framework
The First Annual Monitoring Report described the range of indicators that would
be measured, and set out a range of data describing traffic conditions as they wereobserved in 2002 before the scheme started. This information forms the starting point
for the commentary below.
Surveys of all key indicators were undertaken during 2003 following the introductionof charging, and in most cases a direct comparison with 2002 is therefore possible.
These are considered under the following headings:• Traffic entering and leaving the charging zone;• Traffic circulating within the charging zone;• Traffic on the Inner Ring Road;• Orbital traffic, and traffic on local roads beyond the Inner Ring Road;• Radial traffic approaching the zone;• Wider traffic trends in London.
Readers should be aware that there have been many other potential influences on
traffic patterns operating at the same time that congestion charging was introduced.
These include longer-term ‘background’ trends in traffic across London, together
with a variety of shorter-term temporary effects. Also pertinent are changes to thecentral London road network, which in some cases may affect the direct comparabilityof 2003 and 2002 measurements.
In the absence of longer-term information for many of the indicators that were
only first measured in 2002, the following approaches have been used to ensurecomparability of estimates between 2002 and 2003:• Where surveys were done at a particular time during 2002, these have been
replicated as closely as possible during 2003;• Where estimates of annual change are required, these have been derived froman average of counts taken during the Spring and Autumn ‘neutral’ traffic counting
periods; these being periods when traffic volumes most closely approximate totheir annual average levels. These estimates are therefore not true annual averages.
They are nevertheless a sound basis for measuring relative change, and are referred
to as ‘annualised’ estimates throughout.

24

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns

3.4 Settled traffic conditions
Early feedback on the traffic impacts of the scheme was available from automatic
traffic counters located at a selection of major-road entry points to the charging zone.
These cover approximately 40 percent of inbound traffic during charging hours, andare therefore a good indicator of overall traffic trends. However, their location on
major roads may tend to under-state the overall effects of the scheme as, with
reduced overall traffic levels, the relative attractiveness of the more major roads
may have increased.
Figure 3.1 compares traffic levels over a complete year of charging against levels
recorded in the early weeks of 2003 just before charging was introduced.
The rapidity with which traffic levels adjusted to the charge is evident, as is the relative
stability of traffic levels since. Also evident from the graph is the absence of significant
changes in weekend traffic corresponding with the introduction of the scheme.

Pre charging weekday
Pre charging weekend & public holiday

Post charging weekday
Post charging weekend & public holiday

20/03/03

20/09/03

150
125
100
75
50
25

20/02/04

20/01/04

20/12/03

20/11/03

20/10/03

20/08/03

20/07/03

20/06/03

20/05/03

20/04/03

20/02/03

0
20/01/03

Vehicles (excluding two-wheelers, thousands)

Figure 3.1 Traffic entering the charging zone during charging hours on arepresentative selection of major entry points

Week beginning

Figure 3.1 makes an interesting comparison with Figure 8.1, which shows weekly levelsof charge payments over a similar timescale. Both traffic and payment trends continue
to suggest the existence of stable travel patterns.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200425

Traffic patterns

3.5 Traffic entering and leaving the charging zone
Traffic crossing the boundary of the congestion charging zone has been comprehensively
counted on several occasions since the start of 2002. There are no comparable data forthe period before 2002.
The results of these counts in the inbound and outbound directions during charging
hours are shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, summarised by the main vehicle types.
Counts taken after charging started are coloured blue, and those before charging
started are coloured red.
Figure 3.2 Total traffic entering the charging zone during charging hours
250,000
Feb/Mar 2002
Feb/Mar 2003

May/Jun 2002
May/Jun 2003

Sep/Oct 2002
Sep/Oct 2003

Jan 2003

Total flow

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Cars

Vans

Lorries andOthersTaxis

Bus andCoach

Motorcycles Pedal cycles

Vehicle typeFigure 3.3 Total traffic leaving the charging zone during charging hours
250,000
May/Jun 2002
Feb/Mar 2003

Sep/Oct 2002
May/Jun 2003

Jan 2003
Sep/Oct 2003

Total flow

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
Cars

Vans

Lorries andOthersTaxis

Bus andCoach

Motorcycles Pedal cycles

Vehicle type26

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns
It is now possible to give estimates of annualised change, by combining the resultsof counts taken during Spring and Autumn in both 2002 (before charging) and 2003
(after charging). Table 3.1 sets out the key comparisons.
Table 3.1 Key changes in traffic entering and leaving the charging zone
during charging hours. Annualised weekday 2002 comparedwith 2003 (post charging)

Vehicle type

Change in
inbound traffic
2003 versus 2002

Change inoutbound traffic
2003 versus 2002

All vehicles

-14%

-18%

Four or more wheels

-18%

-21%

Potentially chargeable

-27%

-29%

Cars

-33%

-35%

Vans

-11%

-15%

Lorries and other

-11%

-12%

Licensed taxis

+17%

+8%

Buses and coaches

+23%

+21%

Two wheeled vehicles

+15%

+5%

Note: Changes given in bold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

It is clear from Table 3.1 that there have been overall reductions in the volume oftraffic crossing the charging zone boundary during charging hours between 2002
(before charging) and 2003 (after charging). Statistically significant reductions
in total traffic, traffic with four or more wheels and potentially-chargeable vehicles(cars, vans and lorries) have been observed in both inbound and outbound directions.
For the individual vehicle types, the volume of cars has reduced by about one-third,vans by between 10 and 15 percent, lorries by about 10 percent. Buses have increased
by about 20 percent, and inbound two-wheelers by about 15 percent, although not
all of these changes are statistically significant.
The First Annual Monitoring Report quoted figures of 388,000 inbound, and377,000 outbound as an annualised estimate for all vehicles entering and leaving
the charging zone for 2002. These ‘starting’ volumes have subsequently been revised
downwards slightly, taking into account various small incompatibilities between
the four survey datasets involved in the comparison. Revised figures for 2002,
and the equivalent estimates for 2003, are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Total traffic entering and leaving the charging zone during
charging hours
Inbound

Outbound2002 (before charging)

378,000

374,000

2003 (after charging)

324,000

306,000

Change (all vehicles)

-14%

-18%

Change (four or more wheels)

-18%

-21%

Note: Changes given in bold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200427

Traffic patterns
In addition to periodic full manual classified counts of traffic crossing the charging zone
boundary, the Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) sites referred to in Section 3.4 also
provide information on traffic crossing into and out of the charging zone. Of particularinterest, they allow examination of traffic changes outside charging hours that could
reflect, for example, any displacement of trips to evenings or weekends to avoid
liability for the charge.
Figure 3.4 Indicative hourly flow profile of traffic entering the charging zone,
typical day(s) 2002 compared with 2003 (post charging)
12000

Total flow(vehicles excluding two wheelers)

2002 Weekday
2003 Weekday

2002 Saturday
2003 Saturday

2002 Sunday
2003 Sunday

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

00
22

00
20

00
18

00
16

00
14

00
12

00
10

00
08

00
06

00
04

00
02

00

00

0

Hours beginning

Figure 3.4 shows the hourly profile of traffic entering the charging zone at a sampleof the more major entry points on weekdays and at weekends. This clearly shows
the reduced flows into the charging zone during weekday charging hours.
Flows on Saturdays and Sundays in 2003 are very similar to their 2002 levels,with again some evidence of slightly lower overall flows in 2003.
There is thus no evidence from Figure 3.4 of systematic increases in traffic outsideof charging hours. However, the comprehensive manual counts referred to above
have suggested some increases over 2002 flows in the half-hour period immediately
following the end of charging hours (see TfL’s report Six Months On).

3.6 Traffic circulating within the charging zone
Vehicle-kilometres driven is the most appropriate measure to quantify changes
to the total volume of traffic circulating within the charging zone. TfL expected a
reduction of between 10 and 15 percent in the vehicle-kilometres driven by vehicles
with four or more wheels (i.e. excluding two wheeled vehicles) during charging hours.

28

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns
The First Annual Monitoring Report estimated a total daily charging hours figure of
1.5 million vehicle kilometres for 2002. The estimate for vehicles with four or more
wheels was given as 1.3 million vehicle-kilometres. It was stated that although theabsolute estimate of vehicle-kilometres would be subject to some uncertainty, acomparison between 2002 and 2003 made on the same basis should provide more
precise estimates of relative change.
Again, there have been changes to the central London road network and available
traffic count sites between 2002 and 2003. A computational error was also
discovered in the 2002 dataset that had the effect of under-stating the absolutelevel of vehicle-kilometres driven in 2002. These have necessitated some adjustments
to the ‘starting’ estimate for 2002; the net effect in this case is to revise the2002 estimates upwards slightly from those originally published. In considering
these adjustments, it is important to understand that the comparisons between
2002 and 2003 presented below have been made on a strictly like-for-like basis.
Table 3.3 Key changes in vehicle-kilometres driven within the charging zone
during charging hours. Annualised weekday 2002 compared with 2003
(post-charging)
Vehicle type2002 vkm(millions)2003 vkm(millions)percentagechangeAll vehicles

1.64(100%)

1.45(100%)-12%

Four or more wheels

1.44

(88%)

1.23

(85%)

-15%

Potentially chargeable

1.13

(69%)

0.85

(58%)

-25%

Cars

0.77

(47%)

0.51

(35%)

-34%

Vans

0.29

(18%)

0.27

(19%)

-5%

Lorries and other

0.07

(4%)

0.07

(5%)

-7%

Licensed taxis

0.26

(16%)

0.31

(21%)

+22%

Buses and coaches

0.05

(3%)

0.07

(5%)

+21%

Two wheeled vehicles

0.20

(12%)

0.23

(16%)

+14%

Note: Changes given in bold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
The percentage contribution to total charging zone traffic is also shown for each of 2002 and 2003.

These results are towards the top end of TfL’s prior expectations, and are consistent
with earlier findings previously reported, which were indicating traffic reductions
within the 10 to 15 percent expected range.
When looked at in conjunction with the results for traffic entering the zone describedabove, they do suggest specific effects at the level of the individual vehicle type.
These can be summarised as follows:• The overall traffic decrease observed in the charging zone is of slightly smaller
magnitude than that observed at the boundary. This would be expected as,
for example, many vehicles already within the zone, such as residents’ vehicles,
are less affected by the scheme;• The observed decrease in cars entering the zone is above the top end of the range
of TfL’s prior expectation;

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200429

Traffic patterns• The observed changes to vans and lorries are broadly in-line with TfL’s priorexpectation. The smaller-magnitude decreases to these vehicles within the charging
zone (as compared to the boundary) may be indicative of a degree of ‘consolidation’of trips among these vehicles – a rational economic response to charging;• The increases in licensed taxis of about 20 percent are higher than TfL’s priorexpectation, but should be seen in the context of these vehicles potentiallybenefiting most directly from overall increased traffic speeds;• The increases for buses are broadly in line with enhanced service provision put inplace by TfL, both to accommodate trips displaced by charging, but also as part ofwider improvements to the bus network in London (see Chapter 4);• The annualised estimates of change for two wheeled vehicles are less thanpreviously reported, as fewer vehicles of these types were observed in the
Autumn 2003 round of surveys relative to Autumn 2002. It is possible that theunusually good weather conditions prevailing at the time of the Spring 2003
counts, coupled with the ‘novelty’ of charging, may have influenced the relativebalance between these two sets of post-charging counts.
To provide further information on traffic changes within the charging zone, secondary
indicators are also available. These consist of periodic counts of traffic crossing two
strategic screenlines within the charging zone – the six Thames bridges that are whollyinternal to the charging zone (the ‘Thames Screenline’), and a screenline running
north/south between the river and the Inner Ring Road (the ‘Northern Screenline’).
Both of these are portions of larger screenlines that have been counted historically,
and which have been recently counted as part of congestion charging monitoringarrangements. Summary results are shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Traffic changes across key screenlines within the charging zone.
Annualised weekday 2002 compared with 2003 (post-charging)
Vehicle TypeThames bridges

Northern screenline

All vehicles

-11%

-11%

Four or more wheels

-16%

-12%

Potentially chargeable

-28%

-18%

Cars

-35%

-22%

Vans

-8%

-8%

Lorries and other

-7%

-23%

Licensed taxis

+19%

-1%

Buses and coaches

+19%

+7%

Two wheeled vehicles

+23%

-8%

Note: Changes given in bold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

Both of these screenlines also indicate substantial falls in total traffic within the
charging zone following the introduction of charging. These can be comparedwith the estimate of 15 percent described above, and with TfL’s prior expectationof a 10 to 15 percent decrease in traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels)
within the charging zone.

30

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns
However, there are some differences between the two screenlines. The estimates
for the Thames Bridges are based on annualised totals, combining counts taken in
Spring and Autumn in both years. Those for the northern screenline are from manual
counts taken in January of each year only, and therefore are perhaps less reliable.
They exclude the Inner Ring Road site on this screenline. The statistical confidence
limits applying to these counts are therefore comparatively wide, and seasonal factors
may have been expected to affect, for example, the numbers of two wheeled vehicles
observed. The differences between the changes at the two screenlines probably also
reflect the fact that much of the economic activity inside the charging zone takes place
to the north of the Thames.

3.7 Traffic on the Inner Ring Road
The Inner Ring Road forms the most obvious alternative route for through traffic
wishing to avoid the charging zone. TfL expected that congestion charging would
lead to increases in traffic on this route, but that these increases would be dealt
with by better operational management, such that overall congestion levels would
remain broadly unchanged.
Table 3.5 Key changes in vehicle-kilometres driven on the Inner Ring Road
during charging hours. Annualised weekday 2002 compared with 2003
post-charging
Quantity

2002 vkm(millions)2003 vkm(millions)percentagechangeAll vehicles

0.65

0.68

+4%

Four or more wheels

0.61

0.62

+1%

Potentially chargeable

0.51

0.50

-2%

Cars

0.37

0.35

-7%

Vans

0.10

0.12

+12%

Lorries and other

0.04

0.04

+7%

Licensed taxis

0.08

0.09

+16%

Buses and coaches

0.02

0.03

+24%

Two wheeled vehicles

0.04

0.06

+43%

Note: Changes given in bold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

Table 3.5 shows the key changes in traffic on the Inner Ring Road between 2002 and 2003
(post charging). Total vehicle kilometres on the Inner Ring Road are estimated to haveincreased by 4 percent overall. For vehicles with four or more wheels, the equivalent
figure is 1 percent, a change that is not statistically significant. This aggregate change
comprises small reductions in cars, counterbalanced by increases in buses, taxis,
commercial vehicles and two wheelers. It also takes into account changes to theInner Ring Road in the Shoreditch area, which have had the effect of reducing
the length of the clockwise alignment (only) by approximately 3 percent.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200431

Traffic patterns
The overall magnitude of the change in total traffic is towards the lower end of TfL’s
prior expectation. It is also clear from Section 2 that there is no evidence that traffic
conditions on the Inner Ring Road have deteriorated as a result of the additional traffic.
Indeed, small reductions in congestion have been observed since charging started.
These conclusions need to be seen in the context of improved traffic managementon the Inner Ring Road, and the impact of traffic management and other infrastructure
schemes in the vicinity of the Inner Ring Road completed before the introductionof charging.
The Inner Ring Road consists of numerous individual links of varied character, and theaggregate changes described subsume changes of larger magnitude at the more local
scale. These range from site and direction specific increases of up to 40 percent
to decreases of about 20 percent. 2003 has seen particular increases around
Vauxhall Cross and Shoreditch, which might be expected to reflect suppressedflows during 2002 because of the road works in these two areas.
Figure 3.5 shows the daily flow profile for the Inner Ring Road from a selectionof permanent automatic counting sites.
Figure 3.5 Indicative hourly flow profile of traffic on the Inner Ring Road,
typical day(s) 2002 compared with 2003 (post charging)Total flow(vehicles excluding two wheelers)

30000

2002 Weekday
2003 Weekday

2002 Saturday
2003 Saturday

2002 Sunday
2003 Sunday

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

00
22

00
20

00
18

00
16

00
14

00
12

00
10

00
08

00
06

00
04

00
02

00

00

0

Hours beginning

32

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns

3.8 Wider orbital traffic
Some traffic previously making through journeys across the charging zone may haveelected to divert to the wider network of orbital roads in inner London following the
introduction of charging. This could potentially give rise to small increases in traffic
on these roads.
To measure any changes, four radial screenlines were established, extending outwards
from, and including, the Inner Ring Road. These were comprehensively counted
during Autumn 2002, and again at the same time in 2003. The results are summarisedin Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Traffic crossing four radial screenlines (both directions).
Autumn 2002 and Autumn 2003
Screenline
andtime
periodFlow
2002 (000’s)
Total
Using
IRR

Flow
2003 (000’s)
Total
Using
IRR

Percentagechangeincluding
IRR

Percentagechangeexcluding
IRR

0700-1830

151

35

156

39

+3%

+1%

0600-2000

177

43

181

47

+2%

0

0700-1830

155

16

159

19

+3%

+1%

0600-2000

184

19

189

23

+3%

+1%

0700-1830

102

26

99

27

-3%

-6%

0600-2000

122

32

118

33

-3%

-6%

0700-1830

197

57

190

61

-3%

-8%

0600-2000

231

68

223

73

-3%

-8%

Northern

Eastern

Southern

Western

Note: Figures in bold have been revised from those published in the First Annual Monitoring Report

Overall, the picture is one of stable or slightly-declining traffic. There is no evidence of
detrimental increases in traffic levels that might have resulted from congestion charging.
Across all four screenlines (Figure 3.6), there is very little evidence of significant
change. Small reductions in cars and vans are partly balanced by a small increasein two wheeled vehicles.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200433

Traffic patterns
Figure 3.6 Observed change across four radial screenlines outside of thecharging zone (both directions) excluding the Inner Ring Road.
Typical weekday, charging hours. Autumn 2002 compared with
Autumn 2003
350,000
Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

300,000

Total flow

250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,0000
Cars and
Minicabs

Taxis

Two
Vans
wheelers
Vehicle type

LorriesBuses

3.9 Traffic on local roads
Traffic on selected local roads surrounding the charging zone has been monitored at
the request of individual boroughs. 28 sites have been monitored continuously since
the end of 2002, providing reliable and comparable data, and a further 28 have beenmonitored periodically.
Traffic levels at sites monitored continuously have previously been compared at
different times of the year, and therefore the changes that were observed may havebeen subject to seasonal effects. Traffic levels in January 2003 before charging andJanuary 2004 after charging can now also be compared. This gives a more directcomparison, although only for the month of January. The results of the year-on-yearcomparisons are presented in Table 3.7.
Although local sites do not provide a statistically-robust indicator of total traffic withina borough they are a useful gauge when grouped on a borough-wide basis. Comparing
January 2004 to January 2003, sites in the boroughs of Southwark and Kensington
and Chelsea have seen no significant change overall, whereas overall reductions of
5 percent have been observed in Westminster, 11 percent in Tower Hamlets and13 percent in Camden.

34

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns
Table 3.7 Traffic change on local roads surrounding the charging zone,
charging hours, vehicles with four or more wheels
Beforecharging
Jan/Feb 03
(1)

After
charging
Jan 04(2)

Percentagechange1 and 2

Dunton Rd

9,023

9,788

8%

John Ruskin St

5,177

4,657

-10%

St James’s Rd

15,15715,3081%

Total

29,35829,752

1%

Abbotsbury Rd

6,636

5,791

-13%

Addison Rd

4,629

4,170

-10%

Campden Hill Rd

9,358

9,917

6%

Fulham Rd

11,28011,210-1%

Holland Park Ave

24,572

25,571

4%

Kensington Church St

11,885

12,8338%

Kensington High St

14,926

15,612

5%

North Pole Rd

13,078

12,216-7%

Old Brompton Rd

10,727

10,242-5%

Total

107,091

107,561

0%

Sites
Southwark

Kensington& Chelsea

Tower Hamlets Bethnal Green Rd

CamdenWestminster

8,687

7,850

-10%

Bow Common Lane

6,969

6,866

-1%

Old Bethnal Green Rd

6,373

4,434

-30%

Poplar High St

5,004

4,878

-3%

Total

27,03324,027-11%

Agar Grove

9,615

9,912

3%

Warren St

1,733

1,436

-17%

Tavistock Place

9,866

7,113

-28%

Prince of Wales Rd

12,407

11,617-6%

Prince Albert Rd

12,997

10,928-16%

York Way

9,483

7,863

-17%

Total

56,10048,870-13%Belgrave Rd

5,312

5,359

1%

Prince Albert Rd

15,842

14,124-11%

St George’s Drive

4,643

4,614

-1%

St John’s Wood Rd

13,141

12,834-2%

Sussex Gardens

12,763

12,9722%West Carriage Drive

16,902

15,388-9%

Total

68,602

65,291-5%

Sites monitored periodically within the boroughs of Wandsworth, Lambeth andHackney have shown decreases in traffic of up to 9 percent, as previously reported.
Although there are variations between sites, the majority of sites indicate stable ordecreasing traffic levels. There is therefore no evidence of systematic increases intraffic on monitored local roads outside of the charging zone.
Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200435

Traffic patterns

3.10 Radial traffic approaching the charging zone
Transport for London expected that charging would lead to a reduction in radial
traffic on routes in inner London approaching the charging zone, particularly by cars.
This would result from fewer journeys to and from the charging zone. Reductions in
total traffic of between 4 and 8 percent were expected at the extended central London
cordon during charging hours (see Appendix 5 of the First Annual Monitoring Reportfor the location of this cordon).
The basic form of this cordon, for which a lengthy time-series of data exists,lies mostly just outside of the charging zone (except for a short distance southof the Thames where it runs inside the zone). The basic cordon has been extended
specifically for congestion charging monitoring to lie wholly outside of the charging
zone, but the only available historical data for this modified cordon relates to 2002.
All variants of this cordon were counted in both Autumn 2002 and 2003.
Table 3.8 Summary of traffic changes across the extended central London
cordon. Weekday Autumn 2003 compared to Autumn 2002
Inbound

Wholly outside CZ (% change)

All vehicles-5

Four or more wheels-6

Potentially chargeable

-8

Cars

-12

OutboundWholly outside CZ (% change)

All vehicles-5

Four or more wheels-6

Potentially chargeable

-10

Cars

-12

Table 3.8 summarises observed traffic changes across the extended central London
cordon. The net decreases in total traffic across this cordon are consistent with the
expected magnitude of congestion charging impacts. However, the recent historical
trend at the original cordon has been for year-on-year decreases of between 6 and
7 percent during charging hours. This finding therefore needs to be interpreted in
the context of recent traffic trends in inner London.
A secondary indicator for radial traffic approaching the charging zone is the
TfL Central Area Peak Count survey (CAPC). This provides a count of vehicles(alongside person-trip estimates by private and public modes) crossing a similarcordon for the AM weekday peak period (inbound) only. Comparing provisional
results for Autumn 2003 with Autumn 2002, 18 percent fewer cars were observed
crossing this cordon during the three hour weekday AM peak period.

36

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Traffic patterns

3.11 Wider traffic trends in London
The First Annual Monitoring Report, and other reports published by TfL since the startof charging, have made reference to wider ‘background’ trends in traffic in London thathave needed to be taken into account when interpreting the key traffic changes
observed in response to the scheme.
The overall picture has been one of declining traffic over a number of years. This trend
mainly affected cars, was particularly pronounced in central and inner London, andappeared to accelerate in 2002.
Comparisons of available indicators (as described in the First Annual Monitoring Report)suggested that traffic in the charging zone fell by about 6 percent between 2000 and
2002, and there was evidence of greater falls from traffic surveys in the inner London
area outside the charging zone.
These trends probably reflected a combination of longer-term economic, road network
capacity and modal shift factors, coupled with a possible temporary exaggeration
caused by exceptional network conditions in and around the charging zone during 2002.
A full set of information that will show the development of these trends after the
introduction of charging will not be available until Autumn 2004. There is neverthelesssome evidence emerging from provisional analysis of traffic counts throughout bothinner and outer London that the declines in traffic seen during 2002 were at least
partly reversed during 2003.
Whatever the wider picture for traffic in London, the daily automatic traffic counts
at the boundary of the charging zone have made it clear that the reductions in traffic
in the charging zone directly coincided with the introduction of charging and were
therefore independent of these longer-term trends.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200437

Traffic patterns

38

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport

4. Public transport
4.1 Introduction
This section summarises key changes to the public transport network incentral London since the introduction of congestion charging.
Congestion charging was expected to result in a net increase in the use of public
transport to and from the charging zone as ex-car users shifted to public transport.
There was also expected to be some transfer from short distance Underground andrail trips to bus as bus services became more attractive as a result of increased
services and reduced congestion.

4.2 Key findings• In the morning three hour peak period in Autumn 2003 a total of 106,000 passengers
were observed entering the charging zone on all TfL buses, an increase of 29,000(38 percent) on 2002;• A total of nearly 3,000 buses were observed entering the zone in the morning peak
period during Autumn 2003, 560 (23 percent) more than 2002;• There has been some increase in the average number of passengers observed oneach bus, although these have generally been accommodated acceptably;• The annual count of bus passengers entering central London at the Central Area
Peak Count (CAPC) cordon shows an increase from 88,000 in Autumn 2002 to
104,000 in Autumn 2003 during the morning peak period, an increase of 18 percent.
The lower rate of increase is explained by the geographical difference between the
count sites;• Within the charging zone there were improvements in both the main indicatorsof bus service reliability: additional waiting time due to service irregularity fellby 30 percent; disruption due to traffic delays fell by 60 percent;• Overall bus speeds within the charging zone improved by 6 percent, consistent
with the improved traffic speeds;• The Underground has seen a reduction in the number of passengers exiting stationsin and around the charging zone. On average, in the morning peak period sincecharging was introduced, there was a reduction in the number of people exiting
stations of 8 percent from 513,000 to 473,000;• There has been no significant change to the number of passengers entering
central London on the National Rail network. In Spring 2003 447,000 passengers
were observed at 22 stations during the morning peak period compared to451,000 in Spring 2002;• On average there has been a 2 percent decrease in the number of passengers
exiting Docklands Light Railway (DLR) stations in the charging zone.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

39

Public transport

4.3 Background trends
Bus patronage across London, increased by over 7 percent between 2001/02 and2002/03. Thus, there was a rising trend prior to the start of congestion charging.
This background increase in passenger numbers was caused by: service enhancements;
improved reliability due to investment in updated schedules; simplified fare levels,
structures and ticketing arrangements; new vehicles; and better information.
There have also been significant disruptions to Underground services, such as theCentral line closure from January to May 2003, and the Northern line disruption in
October 2003. It is possible that some of those who transferred from Undergroundto bus services during these periods have been retained as bus passengers.
In parallel with this there have been events such as the Iraq war, the prolonged threatof terrorism, an economic downturn and unusually warm weather which have affected
the number of visitors to London and hence the patronage of the public transport
network during 2003.
All these influences make it particularly difficult to separate the effects of congestion
charging from other factors.

4.4 Bus patronage
Of all public transport modes the introduction of congestion charging was expected
to have the greatest impact on buses. An increase was projected of up to 15,000
additional bus passengers travelling to the zone during the 3 hour morning peak period,
0700 to 1000. This compares with an expected increase of up to 5,000 additional
passengers in the morning peak on Underground and rail services combined.
A detailed review of the inner London bus network was undertaken by TfL prior
to the introduction of charging. This took into account the forecast increase inpatronage due to charging and increases due to other causes. This resulted infrequency enhancements on 53 routes; bigger buses on 10 routes; 15 services
restructured or extended; and seven new routes.
As part of the monitoring programme the number of passengers on all buses
crossing the boundary of the charging zone were counted during Autumn 2002
and again in Autumn 2003.
Comparing Autumn 2003 with Autumn 2002 there has been an increase of
71,000 passengers (37 percent) observed entering the charging zone during charging
hours, from 193,000 to 264,000. The number of passengers leaving the zone on
buses during the same period increased by 48,000 (29 percent) from 163,000
to 211,000. The difference between the inbound and outbound figures is likely
to be mainly due to passengers leaving central London after charging hours.
During the 3 hour morning peak period there were approximately 29,000 (38 percent)additional bus passengers observed, an increase from 77,000 to 106,000. Thisadditional demand is equivalent to around 14,000 additional passengers to thecharging zone in the peak hour. The peak hour capacity supplied at the cordon
had been increased by 13,500 bus places by February 2003; further enhancements
since then have brought the total increase in peak hour capacity to 14,500.

40

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport
It is estimated that around half of this increase is due to charging and the remainder due
to the factors described on the previous page. The change in bus passengers counted ateach crossing point of the charging zone boundary is shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
Figure 4.1 Charging zone boundary, numbers of bus passengers by location,
inbound, 0700 to 1000
25
Bus passengers (thousands)

Autumn 2002
20

Autumn 2003

15
10
5

El

Gr

ea

tD

o
ep verha St
Ke nt & reetC
Al nnibe ng astlert toEm n R
ba oa
nk d
m
e
Jo M nt
hn illIs ba
Vi lip nk
ct Str
or ee
ia
St t
r
Pi eetcOxf cador illyd
GrSea Bak tret P er etor St
tla ree
Up Eu nd S t
s
t
pe to
r
r W n S eetqob uur arenKi Pla
ng
’s ce
Cr
os
s
An
O ge
ld
l
Bi Str
sh ee
op t
sg
a
Al te
Dr dg
a
ui
d te
St
re
et

0

Bus entry points to charging zone

Figure 4.2 Charging zone boundary, numbers of bus passengers, inbound andoutbound, 0700 to 1830
300
Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

Bus passengers (thousands)

250
200
150
100
50
0
Inbound

OutboundDirection at boundary

The impact of the service enhancements is apparent through the increase in thenumber of buses observed crossing the charging zone boundary. During charging hours
in Autumn 2003 there were 10,500 TfL buses observed entering the zone, an increaseof 2,230 (27 percent). There was a similar increase in buses observed leaving thezone of 2,060 (26 percent) to 9,900.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

41

Public transport
Figure 4.3 shows the change in the number of buses observed at each location during
the morning peak period entering the charging zone between Autumn 2002 andAutumn 2003. There were an extra 560 buses (23 percent) entering the zone
during the morning peak period, bringing the total to nearly 3,000.
Figure 4.3 Buses observed by location, inbound, 0700 to 1000

Number of buses observed

500
450

Autumn 2002

400

Autumn 2003

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

El

Gr

ea

tD

o
ep verha St
Ke nt reeAl nni & C t
be ng asrt to tle
Em n R
ba oa
nk d
m
e
Jo
hn Mil nt
lb
Isl anVi ip S k
ct treoria etStPi reetO cc
xf ad
or illdyGrea Ba Strt P ke eeor r S t
tla treU Eu nd et
pp st Ster on reeW Sq tob uur arenPKing lac
e
’s
Cr
os
s
An
O
ld gel
Bi Str
sh ee
op t
sg
a
Al te
Dr dg
ui at
d
e
St
re
et

0

Bus entry points to charging zone

The number of passengers on buses is another key measure of the performance ofthe bus network. Capacities of different buses vary. In general, the maximum capacity
is 69 to 77 passengers for Routemasters, 85 to 90 passengers for other double-deckbuses, 50 to 60 passengers for standard single-deck buses and approximately
140 for articulated ‘bendy’ buses.
In line with the trend across the whole London bus network, there has been someincrease in average passengers per bus. This results from the increase in bus patronage
being proportionately greater than the increase in service provision. However, in generalthese increases have been acceptably accommodated – see Figure 4.4. There mayneed to be further service enhancements if patronage continues to increase.

42

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport
Figure 4.4 Average number of passengers per bus by location, inbound,
0700 to 1000
70
Autumn 2002
Average number ofpassengers per bus

60

Autumn 2003

50
40
30
20
10

tla
n
Eu d Sts
pe ton reerWS tob qua
re
ur
n
Pl
ac
e

or

hn

ea
Gr

b
Al

Isl

km

Jo

t

er

Em

et lly et etre adi tre tre
t
S
S
S
c
ia Pic rd ker
r
o
o
xf Ba
ct
O
Vi

s
g’

ss

o
Cr

n
Ki

el

g
An

ld

O

et

re
St

o

sh

Bi

e

at

g
ps

te et
ga tred
Al id S
u
Dr

tP

Ro
a

ba

t

M
illb
a
ip nk
St
re
et

en

n

n

C

nn

h

ep

El

&

Ke

at

e
Gr

t
an

to

e

v
Do

ing

rS

le

t
as

d

et

tre

Up

0

Bus entry points to charging zone

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate that during charging hours at a selection of sites there
was a small increase in the average number of passengers observed on buses enteringand leaving the charging zone.
Figure 4.5 Average number of passengers per bus, inbound, at a selection ofsites on the charging zone boundary, charging hours, 2002 and 2003
40
2002 Average
Average passengers per bus

35

2003 Average

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Double decker

Single decker

Articulated

CoachesAll buses

Bus type

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

43

Public transport
Figure 4.6 Average number of passengers per bus, outbound, at a selection ofsites on the charging zone boundary, charging hours, 2002 and 2003
25
2002 Average
Average passengers per bus

2003 Average
20

15

10

5

0
Double decker

Single decker

Articulated

CoachesAll buses

Bus type

Bus occupancy counts were also taken at a selection of sites within the zone.
The results illustrated in Figure 4.7 demonstrate that there has been some increasein the average number of passengers on buses at those sites. Again, these have been
acceptably accommodated on the network and services will continue to be reviewed
to determine if further service enhancements are required.
Figure 4.7 Average number of passengers on buses at selected sites within
the charging zone, charging hours, 2002 and 2003

Average passengers per bus

302002 Average
2003 Average

25
20
15
10
5
0
Double decker

Single decker

Red arrow/articulated

CoachesAll buses

Bus type

44

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport
A separate count of bus passengers entering central London is undertaken by TfL annually.
This is known as the Central Area Peak Count (CAPC). The results, shown in Figure 4.8,
show differences between CAPC and the congestion charging cordon count.
The 2003 count indicates an increase of 16,000 bus passengers (18 percent) acrossthe cordon in the 3 hour morning peak period, 0700 to 1000, from 88,000 to 104,000.
This is substantially less than the increase recorded at the charging zone boundary.
This difference is largely due to the geographical variation between the counts,
particularly the location of several main rail terminals between the two count cordons.
Around a quarter of all bus journeys in Greater London are passengers going toand from rail and Underground stations. It is likely that there has been increased
interchange to bus for rail passengers making the final stage of their journey to thecharging zone or other parts of central London.
Figure 4.8 Bus Passengers, inbound, Central Area Peak Count, 0700 to 1000,
Autumn counts, 1986 to 2003
120

Bus passengers (thousands)

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

0

Year

As mentioned above it is estimated that around half the increase of passengers on
buses entering the zone is due to charging, and the rest to other factors. London Buses
have recently undertaken research to quantify the reasons for the general increase inpatronage on the bus network. Passengers cite the improved quality of the bus service
together with fare levels as the key reasons for using buses more. The number ofpeople who say they never use buses has fallen from 29 percent to 20 percent.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

45

Public transport

4.5 Bus journey time and reliability
In recent years improvements in reliability have been recorded across the London bus
network. This has continued to be the case since the introduction of charging. These
improvements are due to a variety of factors including increased investment in robustschedules, enhanced route supervision and the introduction of Quality Incentive
Contracts. Congestion charging has added a further dimension to improved bus
operations in London. Around a fifth of London bus services operate in or around thezone, and reduced congestion means a significant source of disruption has been lessened.
Compared to the previous year across London there has been an improvementof over 20 percent in Excess Waiting Time (EWT), the additional wait time atbus stops experienced by passengers caused by service irregularity or missing buses.
For passengers in and around the charging zone the improvement is considerably
greater with a reduction in EWT of over 30 percent.
London Buses sets the bus operators performance standards for EWT based on
the characteristics of the route. Figure 4.9 shows decreases in actual EWT relative
to the minimum standards.
Figure 4.9 Bus Excess Waiting Time (Monday to Friday, charging hours)
difference between Excess Waiting Time standards and actual
Excess Waiting Time
Better

0.6

Charging starts

0.4

Minutes

0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
CentralCentral (IRR)
Other Inner
Outer
Network

-0.6

-1.0

-2
9/
03
/0
424
/0
22
5
/0
619
/0
17
7
/0
813
/0
12
9
/1
008
/1
07
1
/1
203
/0
01
1
/0
228
/0
29
2
/0
325
/0
24
4
/0
520
/0
19
6
/0
715
/0
13
8
/0
910
/1
08
0
/1
105
/1
03
2
/0
130
/0
1
27

02

05

/0
3

1/
02

-1.2

/0
10

Worse

-0.8

2002

2003/4Four-week period

As with EWT, in the year since charging was introduced disruption to services
caused by traffic congestion compared to the same periods last year has reduced byaround 40 percent. Routes that operate within the charging zone have seen a greater
improvement with a reduction in congestion related delays of over 60 percent. Routes
serving the Inner Ring Road experienced 50 percent less disruption due to traffic delays.

46

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport
As well as reliability improvements, the local reductions to traffic levels have beenreflected in improvements to overall bus journey speeds in the zone. Journey times
are monitored between selected points across the network, as described in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report. The results include times when buses are stationary,for example at bus stops and junctions or in traffic queues. In the 3 hour morning peak
period within the charging zone there has been an overall reduction in journey times
since charging began of around 6 percent, to an average journey speed of 11.6 km/h,
compared to the same periods the previous year. The sampled sections of routes
within the zone have seen greater improvements compared to other areas inLondon. Improvements on observed sections of radial and orbital roads close to thecharging zone are of 3 and 4 percent respectively. There has been no overall change
observed on the Inner Ring Road where, on average, speeds have remained at 13.3 km/h.

4.6 Underground patronage
The decline due to the Central line closure took some time to recover, with anestimated 2 percent revenue loss for some months after the Central line cameback into service. This is in addition to the estimated 2 percent loss due to betterand faster bus services. There is some indication that the hot summer resulted
in a loss of patronage and also tourist numbers on the Underground were down,
by about 5 percent on the previous year. All these factors would tend to bear
most on passengers travelling to or in the congestion charging zone.
With the partial exception of reduced patronage due to improved bus services,none of these factors are related to congestion charging. Analysis undertaken by
the Underground, conducted very shortly after charging started, indicated arounda 1 percent increase in Underground passenger numbers initially, probably before
transfer to bus took place to any magnitude. The reductions mentioned here would
more than outweigh any small increases in passengers resulting directly fromcongestion charging.
Figure 4.10 shows estimates of passenger usage on the Underground from automatic
ticket barriers as well as ticket sales at stations inside the charging zone, aroundthe charging zone and within the rest of Fare Zone 1. Both data sources are broadly
corroborative (although ticket sales data is more volatile), and patronage throughout
2003 is noticeably down on equivalent months in 2002.
Reductions in morning peak period gate-based estimates of patronage are demonstrated
by the trend-line in Figure 4.10 for stations in and around the charging zone. In the
12 four-week periods since charging started, compared to the same period the previous
year, the reduction in patronage of 8 percent is slightly greater than across the entire
network (6 percent). Prior to charging during this period, an average of 513,000 passengers
exited stations in and around the zone, compared to 473,000 in the year following
the introduction of charging. During charging hours patronage has reduced from1,275,000 passenger exits to 1,181,000 exits, a decrease of 94,000 exits (7 percent).

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

47

Public transport
The change in revenue taken at stations in and around the zone varied from reductionsof 15 percent to an increase of 5 percent comparing the 12 four-week periods before
and after charging. The effect of the January 2004 fare rises are also visible. On average
since charging started there has been a decrease of 1 percent in gross revenue taken
compared to the same periods the previous year, which is comparable to the network
average reduction (2 percent).
Figure 4.10 Passengers exiting Underground stations in and around thecharging zone during the morning peak period (0700 to 1000)

Total passengers (thousands)

Inside zone
Revenue

Boundary
Revenue

400

Remainder of fare zone 1
Revenue
Charging starts
Trend-line

3

300
2
200
1

100

Fe
2

28

3

M

ar

-3

nJa
6

0
Ap Ma
r
r-2
5
23
M
ay
Ju
n
18 -20
Au
J
g- ul
14
13
Se
p
O
ct
-9
N
8
De ov
c4
Ja
2
n
Fe
b1
30
M
M
ar
ar
2
25
6
Ap
M
ay
r
-2
1
20
Ju Junl14 16 A
Se
ug
p11
O
9
ct
N
ov
-6
4
Ja Dec
n31
Ja
n

0
b

0

Average weekly ticket sales per zone(£million)

4

500

2003

2002
Four-week period

4.7 Underground service supply and reliability
In the year since charging started there have been timetable changes to improve
operations but no increases to the number of peak hour trains in operation.
Year-on-year changes to the performance of the network in terms of reliability isillustrated in Figure 4.11. For the majority of the year the Underground network has
not been performing as reliably as it had the previous year. This may have contributed
to the reduction in passengers and encouraged shorter distance trips to transfer tothe bus network.

48

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport

Change in operated kilometres

Figure 4.11 Underground network, year-on-year change in operated kilometres
as a percentage of scheduled, 2003
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
1
M
ar
M
ar
-2
9
30
M
ar
M
ar
-2
6
27
Ap
Ap
r
r-2
25
4
M
M
ay
ay
-2
1
Ju
22
ne
Ju
n19
20
Ju
Ju
l
l-1
6
17
Au
Au
g
g13
14
Se
p
Se
p11
O
12
ct
O
ct
-8
N
9
ov
N
ov
-6
De
7
c
De
c3
Ja
n

Fe
2

2

Ja
n5

b-

1

Fe

b

-16%

Four-week period

4.8 National RailComprehensive passenger count surveys were undertaken at all 22 central London
stations in Spring 2002 and 2003. They were intended to establish whether
congestion charging was associated with any noticeable increases in rail travel.
In the 3 hour morning peak, 0700 to 1000, the number of passengers arriving by
National Rail at central London stations in 2003 decreased by 1 percent comparedwith 2002, from 451,000 to 447,000. During charging hours there was an increaseof 1 percent, from 564,000 to 573,000 passengers, departing from stations in
the charging zone. These changes are not considered statistically significant.
The distribution of passengers across the day is illustrated in Figure 4.12.
Overall there is no evidence of systematic net changes in National Rail patronage
coinciding with the introduction of congestion charging.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

49

Public transport
Figure 4.12 National Rail passengers arriving at and departing from
central London stations by time of day, Spring 2002 and 2003

Number of passengers (thousands)

70
Arriving 2002
Departing 2002

60

Arriving 2003
Departing 2003

50
40
30
20
10

06
0
06 0
3
07 0
0
07 0
3
08 0
0
08 0
3
09 0
0
09 0
1030
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
30

0

Half-hour beginning

Within the overall net stability of rail patronage across the network there are somegreater variations at individual stations, as can be seen in Figure 4.13. There is no
particular reason to associate this with congestion charging: for instance some of thechanges are explained by partial closure of Vauxhall Station during the 2002 survey
period, also affecting passenger levels at Waterloo. Likewise, increases at Victoria
and London Bridge are counterbalanced by decreases at Charing Cross.
Figure 4.13 National Rail stations – morning peak passenger arrivals
90
Spring 2002

Total passengers (thousands)

80

Spring 2003

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Li

ve Wa
rp te
oo rlolS ot
Lo V reet
nd ic
o to
Ch n B ria
ar ridCa ing ge
Fe nno Cro
nc n ss
hu St
rc reeht
Pa Str
dd ee
in t
gt
o
Ki Eus nng to’s n
Bl Croac ss
kfr
W Moo iars
at rg
er a
lo te
o
Ki
M
ng
ar Ea
y
s
’s
Cr F lebo t
os arr ns T in eg
Ci ha doty me nTh sl
am inkes
Va linkuEl
ep St xha
ha Pa ll
nt nc
& ras
C
O ast
ld le
St
Ba reet
rb
ica
n

0

Stations

50

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport

4.9 Railhead parking
A possible secondary effect of congestion charging was the prospect of a significant
increase in drivers avoiding the charge by diverting to rail stations outside of thecharging zone, and continuing their journey by rail, i.e. ‘railheading’. It was feared bysome that this might result in adverse changes to parking demand, at the stations
themselves and in the surrounding roads, where these were not covered by acontrolled parking zone.
To test for this, surveys at a selection of stations where increased railhead parking
might be feasible were undertaken in the early weeks following the introduction of
charging. The results indicate that there has been little change in railheading following
the introduction of congestion charging.
Of the nine stations surveyed, an overall net decrease of 1 percent in railheading
was observed. Some passengers who were surveyed at these stations, and who
previously drove to the charging zone, stated that they had begun railheading andmentioned congestion charging as a factor. However, these represented only
0.5 percent of passengers.
The changes observed are therefore within the range of what might be expectedin the absence of charging, given the normal background ‘churn’ in people’s daily
travel patterns.

4.10 Docklands Light Railway (DLR)
Congestion charging was not expected to significantly affect patronage on the DLR.
There are two DLR stations in the charging zone, Bank and Tower Gateway.
On average in the year since charging began there was a decrease from 9,900 to 9,700(2 percent) in the number of passengers exiting stations within the zone compared tothe same periods the previous year during the morning peak period. During thecharging day there was an increase from 23,400 to 23,700 (1 percent) in passengers.
These changes are not considered to be significant.
At Tower Gateway in the morning peak there was an 11 percent reduction, but during
charging hours a 3 percent increase. This could be due to passengers transferring tobuses in the morning peak or part of a general shift in travel patterns. This is reflectedin the changes at Bank station where in the morning peak there was no change but
across the day there was an 8 percent reduction.
The year-on-year change in passenger exits from the two DLR stations within the zone
during the morning peak period are shown in Figure 4.14. It illustrates that although
there are no trends noticeable at Bank station there does appear to be a decline inusage at Tower Gateway. Nevertheless, the change in passenger numbers on the
DLR is considered minor in relation to changes noted on the bus and Underground.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

51

Public transport

30%
Bank

20%

Tower Gateway

10%
0%
-10%
-20%

M
ar
Ap
r-2
6
27
Ap
Ap
r
r-2
4
M
25
ay
M
ay
-2
1
Ju
22
n
Ju
n19
20
Ju
l
Ju
l-1
6
Au
18
g
Au
g13
Se
14
p
Se
p11
O
12
ct
O
ct
-8
N
ov
9
N
ov
-6
De
7
c
De
c3
Ja
4
n
Ja
n31
Ja
n

-30%

2

1

M
ar
-3
1

Percentage change in passenger exits

Figure 4.14 Change in average weekday passenger exits within the charging zone
compared to the same period the previous year, 0700 to 1000

2003

2004

Four-week period

4.11 Passenger views
Passengers on London’s public transport network are asked about their views on
elements of their journey as well as their travel habits. Traditionally there is little
variation in the overall results between survey periods. Figure 4.15 illustrates that
there has not been a material change in the overall customer satisfaction rating
across London between 2002 and 2003.
Figure 4.15 Overall customer satisfaction with public transport in London,
2002 to 2003
100

Bus

LUL

DLR

Bus

LUL

DLR

90
Satisfaction score

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
3
O

ct

-D

ec

20
0

3
20
0
ep
l-S
Ju

un
r-J
Ap

n-

M

ar

20
0

3

20
03

2
Ja

O

ct

-D

ec

20
0

2
20
0
ep
l-S
Ju

un
r-J
Ap

Ja

n-

M

ar

20
0

2

20
02

0

Survey period

52

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Public transport
Analysis of bus passengers satisfaction rating can identify views of respondents whose
trips end inside the charging zone compared to those that end elsewhere in London,shown in Table 4.1. In the majority of cases there is a slightly higher satisfaction rate
for those passengers who alight inside the charging zone, although this has been thecase since before charging.
Table 4.1 Overall customer satisfaction with bus services within and outsideof the charging zone, 2002 to 2003
Within charging zone

Outside charging zone

Jan-Mar 2002

77

76

Apr-Jun 2002

78

77

Jul-Sep 2002

76

76

Oct-Dec 2002

77

75

Jan-16 Feb 2003

78

76

17 Feb-Mar 2003

77

76

Apr-Jun 2003

78

77

Jul-Sep 2003

77

77

Oct-Dec 2003

77

76

Although there is little difference in the overall satisfaction of bus users in the zone
compared to outside the zone there are slightly larger differences in views whenidentifying elements of their journey which are more likely to have been affectedby congestion charging, as illustrated in Figure 4.16. However, since the introductionof charging, where there have been marginal changes they have been in the viewsof those passengers both in and outside of the zone.
Figure 4.16 Customer satisfaction with aspects of bus services within andoutside of the charging zone, 2002 to 2003
100
90

Withinzone

Outsidezone

Level ofcrowding on
bus

Time waited
to catch bus

Average pre-charging
Average post-charging

80

Satisfaction score

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Time waited
to catch bus

Journey time

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Journey time

Level ofcrowding onbus

53Public transport

54

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts

5. Social and behavioural impacts
5.1 Introduction
People making changes, whether to their daily travel behaviour or to other aspectsof their lives, lies at the heart of all of the other effects observed in relation tocongestion charging. This chapter looks at preliminary findings from TfL’s social
impacts surveys, alongside other related TfL research, that describes the effectsof congestion charging on Londoner’s travel behaviour and other aspects of
their lives, as well as attitudes of Londoners towards the scheme before andafter charging started.
A full consideration of these surveys, which are still at an early stage of analysis, isbeyond the scope of this report. Nevertheless the preliminary findings described below
begin to assist wider appreciation of what congestion charging means for Londoners.

5.2 Key findings• Of the 65,000 to 70,000 car driver trips no longer crossing into the charging zone
per day, 50 to 60 percent have transferred to public transport. Between 20 and
30 percent have diverted around the charging zone and the remaining 15 to
25 percent have made a variety of other adaptations;• London residents perceive fewer negative effects from the scheme than they
expected in 2002. There is also widespread recognition of the benefits of thescheme in terms of reduced congestion and improved public transport;• Over 40 percent of residents within the charging zone say their area as a place tolive has improved since the scheme was introduced. At least 30 percent say thatcrossing roads, pollution, noise, reliability of public transport, availability of
public transport and congestion are now better in their local area;• Surveys of Londoner’s attitudes towards congestion charging undertaken before andafter the scheme was introduced show an overall shift of opinion towards favouring
the scheme and its effects, with four-fifths of those who expressed an opinion
considering that the scheme had been effective in achieving its primary objectives.

5.3 StructureThis chapter first looks at the evidence for travel behaviour change from across themonitoring programme. Material from the various surveys described here and otherrelated TfL research have been assessed alongside the evidence on aggregate travelchange covered in chapters 3 and 4 and used to arrive at a ‘best current assessment’of the change to people’s travel behaviour in response to the scheme.
It then proceeds to look at some of the effects on individuals, travel behaviourand neighbourhoods. These take each of the three study areas in turn:• Residents within the charging zone;• Residents within inner London;• Residents of outer London, and those living beyond the M25.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200455

Social and behavioural impacts
Finally, as requested by the Mayor, attitudes of Londoners to the scheme have beensurveyed periodically since December 2002 in order to compare changes over time.
Some key findings from these surveys are also summarised in this section.

5.4 Survey framework
Main social impacts surveys
The methodology for the social impacts work programme was described in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report.
Two key surveys of Londoners were put in place. The first involved household-based
surveys of residents of the charging zone and more widely in inner London. This survey
focused on selected electoral wards, giving a strong ‘neighbourhood’ perspective ofeach survey area. The second involved a similar telephone-based interview of residentsof outer London and beyond. Both involved ‘before’ and ‘after’ surveys with the aimof re-visiting the same households and individuals (i.e. a ‘panel’ survey).
In both cases, an attitudinal questionnaire was used to investigate the expected
and revealed effects of the scheme on individual travel behaviour and the local
neighbourhood. In-depth consideration was given to the types of adaptations
made by individuals, and the implications of these.
Results discussed below reflect preliminary analysis of emerging results from the‘after’ phase of both of these surveys compared to equivalent pre-charging surveys
undertaken in 2002. Because of various causes of non-contact the total sample in2003 compared with 2002 has been reduced and additional ‘top-up’ surveys arealso being conducted. Results from these ‘top-ups’ will be analysed alongside
more in-depth consideration of the totality of the results in due course.
Recall survey
Transport for London commissioned a ‘recall’ survey into how trips to the charging
zone had changed several months after the introduction of charging. Over 4,000
telephone interviews were carried out with Londoners who had made a journey intoor around the charging zone since the introduction of the scheme.
This survey provides useful insights to assist with interpretation of the observed
aggregate changes to travel behaviour described elsewhere in this report.
Attitudinal tracker survey
Surveys of Londoner’s attitudes towards congestion charging have been undertaken
by TfL, on behalf of the Mayor. Each consisted of around 1,000 respondents,
weighted so as to be representative of Londoners generally.
The surveys address behavioural change, attitudes to the scheme and knowledgeof its operation. Three surveys were completed before charging started and further
surveys have been conducted following the introduction of charging. Although there
have been some amendments to the questionnaire across the surveys, the majority ofquestions remained the same to allow comparability. Some results of this survey are
shown in section 5.15.

56

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Future surveys
In addition to the analysis described below TfL will be undertaking analyses of the2001 Census and the 2001 London Area Travel Survey in the near future – theresults of which have recently become available – in order to better understandthese background changes. Roadside interviews are being arranged to replicatecomparable surveys prior to charging in 2001 and 2002; and further social surveys
are being undertaken to strengthen the understanding of changes brought about
by congestion charging.
The conclusions presented in this report, and the overview of behavioural changes
set out in this section, are therefore provisional; they will be refined as further
information becomes available.

5.5 Assessing travel behaviour change
Preceding chapters have considered observed changes to the volumes and patterns oftravel by road or public transport to, from, or within and across the charging zone. These
are net aggregate outcomes that reflect millions of individual decisions about how to
optimise travel to enable the conduct of daily life. Of the aggregate changes described,
congestion charging will have been only one of a wide range of contributory factors.
The scale of the changes to travel by car into the charging zone, and its close
correspondence with the introduction of charging, suggest that this effect was very
closely associated with charging. However, these people did not simply disappear.
The majority will have made adaptations, such as using public transport, which
will have provided an alternative to enable most elements of daily life to continue
largely unchanged.
Those transferring to buses will be counted alongside the many others who are using
buses more because of ‘background’ improvements to bus services London-wide.
It is not straightforward to separate those new bus users who have transferred fromcars because of congestion charging, from those more generally attracted to the buses(particularly from the Underground) because buses are now more attractive.
Car occupants transferring to Underground have been more than offset by reduced
overall passenger numbers, resulting from a variety of ‘background’ local, national
and international events during 2003.
In addition, over the course of any one year, a relatively high proportion of Londoners
will have moved house or job, or undergone other life changes that will have altered
their travel needs. Such ‘churn’ is a further complicating factor in any assessment.

5.6 Aggregate changes to car travel to the charging zone
Whilst it is clear that congestion charging has had a profound impact on the choiceof travel to the charging zone, there have also been significant ‘background’ changes intravel to central London, not all of which are yet fully understood. It is neverthelesspossible to construct a provisional assessment of the aggregate changes in car driver
trips to the charging zone, based on traffic counts, surveys of public transport
patronage, and surveys of travel behaviour. Transport for London’s provisional
assessment of the behavioural impact of congestion charging is summarised inTable 5.1, and described more fully below.
Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200457

Social and behavioural impacts
Table 5.1 Estimated reduction in car driver movements coming into thecharging zone
Total reduction in car movements at zone boundary

65,000 to 70,000

Through car movements – diverting around the charging zone, other changes

15,000 to 20,000

Terminating car movements – transfers to bus, underground rail

35,000 to 40,000

Terminating car movements – transfers to cycle, walk, motorcycle, taxi, car share

5,000 to 10,000

Terminating car movements – travelling outside charging hours

Under 5,000

Terminating car movements – travel to other destinations, reduced frequency

Under 5,000

Surveys of traffic entering and leaving the congestion charging zone (Chapter 3) indicatethat the number of car movements into the charging zone during charging hours havefallen from around 195,000 in 2002 to less than 130,000 in 2003 – a reduction of
approximately 65,000 to 70,000 incoming car movements.
Through trips diverting around the charging zone
Some drivers entering the charging zone in 2002 will have been making longer-distancemovements that involve crossing the charging zone, for example from Kensington toDocklands, using the relatively attractive route alongside the Thames using Millbank,
Embankment and Thames Street. Other ‘through’ movements will have been relatively
shorter, for example Baker Street to Bayswater Road, simply ‘cutting through’ a small
section of the charging zone in the north west corner.
Although these cars were recorded as entering the future charging zone in 2002,
they were not stopping at destinations within the zone – and in many cases it would
have been straightforward for drivers making these trips to divert to other routes
around the zone.
Prior to charging around 20-25 percent of car movements into the charging zone during
charging hours were estimated to be ‘through movements’. From surveys of drivers’
stated intentions it was expected that 40-60 percent of these movements would
divert, suggesting a possible diversion of between 15,000 and 30,000 car movements.
From surveys conducted after charging and observed changes in flows of cars on theroad network, TfL consider that the level of net diversion of incoming car movements
to the zone during charging hours is in the range 15,000 to 20,000.
This estimate of diverted incoming car movements indicates that car driver movements
to destinations within the charging zone (referred to as ‘terminating’ car driver
movements) have reduced by some 50,000 from a pre-charging total in 2002 of around
150,000 – a reduction of about a third.
Terminating car movements – transfers to bus, underground and rail
The biggest change prompted by congestion charging is the transfer of car users
to another mode of transport. Surveys indicate that for 40,000 to 45,000 terminating
car movements, the drivers have transferred to another mode of transport –some 60 to 70 percent of those car movements that no longer enter or travel
across the charging zone.

58

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
The recall survey suggests that 35 to 40 percent of these car drivers have transferred
to bus; 45 to 50 percent have transferred to Underground or rail; and 10 to 20 percent
have transferred to walk, cycle, motor cycle, taxi or minicab.
Transport for London considers that this survey understates the proportion that havetransferred to bus, but nevertheless yields a reasonable estimate of the aggregate
mode shift of car drivers. For public transport – bus, underground and rail – thissuggests a transfer of 35,000 to 40,000 car driver movements, some 40,000 to
45,000 car occupants.
Terminating car trips – change to pedal cycle, motor cycle, walk, taxi,
mini-cab, car share
The observed increase in incoming pedal cycle and motor cycles at the boundaryof the charging zone amounts to about 6,000 movements during charging hours.
While taxi movements into or across the zone have increased, the indications arethat the numbers of taxi and mini-cab passengers to the zone have not changed
significantly, probably by less than 1,000 car driver movements. These compare withan estimate of 4,000 to 8,000 additional pedal cycle, taxi, mini-cab, motor cycle andwalk trips by ex-car drivers derived from the recall survey.
The occupancy of cars coming through the charging zone has increased. There are two
effects here: it is likely that cars with lower occupancies have changed behaviour morethan those with higher occupancies; and that some increase in car sharing has takenplace in response to the charge. The data suggests that the predominant effect is areduction in lower-occupancy cars. Surveys indicate that only small additional amountsof car sharing are taking place, perhaps equivalent to 1,000 fewer car driver movements.
Transport for London concludes that the net effect of the change to pedal cycle,
motor cycle, walking, taxi, mini-cab and car share is a reduction of 5,000 to
10,000 car driver movements during charging hours.
Terminating car trips – change to travel outside of charging hours
Surveys indicate that around 10 percent of car drivers have responded to charging
by changing the timing of their journey so that it is made outside charging hours.
This response is more likely to apply to less-frequent trips so that the actual effecton car movements would be smaller. Assuming that 5 to 10 percent of terminating car
driver movements that have changed have adapted in this way would mean 2,500 to
5,000 fewer car driver movements entering the charging zone during charging hours.
This can be indirectly confirmed by the observed increase of about 4,000 car driver
movements entering the charging zone in the periods immediately before and after
charging: 0600 to 0700 and 1830 to 2000. Transport for London conclude that the
net switching of terminating car driver movements to outside charging hours is lessthan 5,000 movements per day.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200459

Social and behavioural impacts
Terminating car trips – change of destination; trips no longer madeChange of destination to locations outside the charging zone is the stated responseof around 5 percent of car drivers who have changed their travel arrangements in
response to the charge. This change is more likely to apply to less frequent trips
and, assuming a figure of 3 percent of the reduced terminating car driver trips diverting
to a destination outside the charging zone, yields a reduction of up to 1,500 fewer
terminating car driver movements entering the zone.
Surveys suggest that the equivalent of up to 10 percent of car drivers to the zone
prior to charging who have altered their travel arrangements in response to congestion
charging are also making fewer journeys to the zone. Assuming that these are making
only half of their previous trips yields a reduction equivalent to 5 percent in terminating
car driver trips, up to 2,500 per charging day.
The combined effect of these two adaptations – diverting to destinations outsideof the charging zone, or making fewer trips to destinations in the charging zone –is less than 4,000 fewer car driver movements terminating in the charging zone.
This combined figure represents car drivers who no longer travel to the charging zone
during charging hours on a typical charging day as a result of congestion charging.
With car passengers it is equivalent to up to 5,000 fewer people coming into thezone. This assessment corresponds to the estimate of up to 4,000 people no longer
travelling to the zone given previously in Six Months On.
Summary of changes in car movements
To summarise the conclusions of this provisional assessment:• Diverted car trips account for 15,000 to 20,000 fewer incoming car movements,
20 to 30 percent of the overall reduction across the charging zone boundary during
charging hours;• Transfers to public transport, i.e. bus, Underground and rail, account for 35,000 to
40,000 fewer incoming car movements, 50 to 60 percent of the overall reduction
across the charging zone boundary during charging hours;• Other adaptations account for around 15 to 25 percent of the reduction;• Within the last category, less than 5,000 car driver movements represent trips
to the charging zone that, as a result of charging, are made to other destinations
or no longer made at all.
Further results from the recall survey
Figure 5.1 shows – for residents of inner London – changes to the share of all personal
trips by residents for various purposes to the charging zone that are made as a car
driver. It is seen, for example, that before charging around 10 percent of commuter
trips to the charging zone during weekday charging hours were by car drivers. Following
the introduction of charging, this reduced to 7 percent. The reductions in car use canbe seen for the other main trip purposes.

60

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Figure 5.1 Proportion of trips to the charging zone as a car driver, by trip
purpose, before and after the introduction of congestion charging,
June/July 2003. Inner London residents
25%
Before charging
After charging

Percentage of trips

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
CommutingBusiness

Education

Other

Figure 5.2, for residents of outer London, shows a similar picture, with reductions
across all trip purposes in the proportion of trips that are made as car driver.
Figure 5.2 Proportion of trips to the charging zone as a car driver, by trip
purpose, before and after the introduction of congestion charging,
June/July 2003. Outer London residents
25%

Before charging
After charging

Percentage of trips

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
CommutingBusiness

Education

Other

Further evidence of individual behavioural change is also available from the main social
impacts surveys, this is described on the following pages.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200461

Social and behavioural impacts

5.7 Individual behavioural change: charging zone residents
The majority of charging zone residents have not changed their method of travel intoor within the zone since the charging scheme was introduced. Figure 5.3 illustrates
changes in travel behaviour for those charging zone residents who continue to drive in
the area during charging hours, compared with charging zone residents as a whole.
Of those who continue to drive in the zone, 18 percent are doing so less often.
Among all charging zone residents who took part in the survey in 2003, on balance
more are using buses (32 percent against 11 percent who claim to use them less),
and are also walking and cycling more often.
Figure 5.3 Changed travel behaviour by charging zone residents.
Travel to, from or within the charging zone: Autumn 2003
Less often

Same as before

Percentage of residents
who drive in the zone,
0700 to 1830

More often
Percentage of all charging
zone residents

Car Driver
(117)

18

68

14

Car Driver
(185)

25

60

14

Car
passenger
(63)

11

78

11

Car
passenger
(185)

15

75

10

Bus
(86)

16

63

21

Bus
(288)

11

Underground
11
(63)

78

11

Train
(57)

16

77

Taxi
(44)

9

84

Motorbike(1)*0

Bicycle
(11)*

0

Walk
(108)

100

36

64

12

64

24

57

32

Underground
18
(222)

68

13

7

Train
(185)

17

77

6

7

Taxi
(160)

16

76

8

Motorbike
(4)*

27

63

10

Bicycle
(32)

9

62

28

Walk
(309)

9

66

25

NB: Sample sizes include responses that didn’t use that method of travel
before and continue not to within the ‘same as before’ category
Base: All respondents who gave an answer* CAUTION: Very small base62

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
For changes by mode of travel for personal trips in London as a whole, Figure 5.4
compares the prior expectations of charging zone residents, as expressed in the2002 survey with actual changes in travel behaviour as reported in the 2003 survey.
For example, whereas 18 percent of charging zone residents in 2002 expected tomake more use of buses in London as a whole, 25 percent report actually doing so
in 2003.
Figure 5.4 Expectations and revealed changes in travel behaviour.
Charging zone residents, all trips in London as a whole,
Autumn 2002 and Autumn 2003
Less often

Same as before

Percentage of charging
zone residents in 2002 (expected)

More often
Percentage of charging
zone residents in 2003 (revealed)

Car Driver
(369)

9

89

2

Car Driver
(355)

12

79

8

Car
passenger
(369)

6

92

2

Car
passenger
(349)

7

86

6

Bus
(369)

3

Bus
(361)

9

Underground
5
(369)

79

18

87

65

25

8

Underground
13
(350)

79

7

Train
(369)

2

95

3

Train
(353)

10

85

4

Taxi
(369)

3

95

2

Taxi
(339)

8

87

4

Motorcycle 0
(369)

99

1

Motorcycle
(339)

1

97

1

Bicycle
(369)

1

94

5

Bicycle
(339)

1

95

3

Walk
(369)

2

86

12

Walk
(347)

6

70

23

NB: Sample sizes include responses that didn’t use that method of travel
before and continue not to within the ‘same as before’ category
Base: All respondents who gave an answer

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200463

Social and behavioural impacts

5.8 Individual behavioural change: inner London residents
The pattern of change in travel modes is noticeably different for inner London
residents. Figure 5.5 illustrates travel behaviour for inner London residents who
continue to drive in the zone during charging hours, against all inner London residents
who took part in the survey in 2003. Among those who are still driving in the zone,
half say they now drive less often into or within this area. In contrast, a significant
proportion of these drivers are using buses and the Underground more often(39 percent and 32 percent respectively). Among inner London residents as a whole(i.e. including those who continue to drive in the zone), a smaller proportion areclaiming to use public transport more often. This implies that drivers are making morechanges to their public transport usage than current public transport users.
Figure 5.5 Changed travel behaviour by inner London residents.
Travel to, from or within charging zone: Autumn 2003
Less often

Same as before

Percentage of residents
who drive in the zone,
0700 to 1830
Car Driver
(112)
Car
passenger
(64)
Bus
(85)

Percentage of all
inner London residents

42

50

31

More often

67

8

Car Driver
(304)

2

Car
passenger
(273)

51

37

59

7

54

39

Bus
(399)

Underground 11
(79)

57

32

Underground 15
(334)

65

10

5

44

4

29

62

20

Train
(61)

13

65

21

Train
(245)

12

75

12

Taxi
(58)

5

76

19

Taxi
(206)

8

76

16

Motorbike(5)*0Motorbike
(18)*

17

66

17

Bicycle(21)*

5

Bicycle
(68)

3

Walk
(99)

13

Walk
(383)

11

40

60

67

29

68

19

77

21

77

12

NB: Sample sizes include responses that didn’t use that method of travel
before and continue not to within the ‘same as before’ category
Base: All respondents who gave an answer* CAUTION: Very small base64

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
As can be seen in Figure 5.6 and in terms of travel behaviour change, respondents ininner London have generally reacted to the congestion charge as they expected to in 2002.
Figure 5.6 Expectations and revealed changes in travel behaviour.
Residents of inner London, all trips in London as a whole,
Autumn 2002 and Autumn 2003
Less often

Same as before

Percentage of inner London
residents in 2002 (expected)

More often
Percentage of inner London
residents in 2003 (revealed)

Car Driver
(554)

16

79

5

Car Driver
(522)

18

77

5

Car
passenger
(554)

14

82

4

Car
passenger
(500)

9

87

4

Bus
(554)

6

Bus
(528)

5

26

68

Underground 11
(554)

75

14

Train
(554)

9

84

Taxi
(554)

8

Motorcycle
(554)

68

27

Underground 7
(506)

81

12

7

Train
(490)

4

89

7

87

5

Taxi
(449)

4

88

8

4

94

2

Motorcycle
(434)

1

98

1

Bicycle
(554)

4

92

4

Bicycle
(438)

2

92

5

Walk
(554)

3

84

Walk
(476)

3

82

14

14

NB: Sample sizes include responses that didn’t use that method of travel
before and continue not to within the ‘same as before’ category
Base: All respondents who gave an answer

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200465

Social and behavioural impacts

5.9 Individual behavioural change: outer London residents
Figure 5.7 illustrates changes in travel behaviour for those outer London residents who
continue to drive in the charging zone during charging hours, compared with outer London
residents as a whole. The pattern is fairly similar to inner London whereby a considerable,
if smaller, proportion of those who are still driving into or within the zone claim to be
doing so less often (33 percent). In addition, they are using the Underground, buses
and trains more often (28 percent, 25 percent and 21 percent respectively).
Figure 5.7 Changed travel behaviour by outer London residents.
Travel to, from or within the charging zone: Autumn 2003
Less often

Same as before

Percentage of residents
who drive in the zone,
0700 to 1830
Car Driver
(212)

33

Car
passenger(84)

Percentage of all outer
London residents

58

31

More often

8

Car Driver
(326)

36

4

Car
passenger
(219)

29

61

56

5

65

14

Bus
(67)

18

55

25

Bus
(265)

13

63

24

Underground
(143)

14

57

28

Underground
(422)

15

64

21

Train
(119)

13

66

21

Train
(394)

10

73

15

Taxi
(65)

15

71

14

Taxi
(204)

14

75

11

12

Motorbike
(22)*

32

27

32

Motorbike(42)

Bicycle
(12)*

25

50

25

Bicycle
(40)

Walk
(49)

12

67

20

Walk
(172)

25

12

55

26

53

23

72

16

NB: Sample sizes include responses that didn’t use that method of travel
before and continue not to within the ‘same as before’ category
Base: All respondents who gave an answer* CAUTION: Very small base66

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts

5.10 Impacts on individuals, households and neighbourhoods
This section summarises how respondents living in each of the survey areas consider
that aspects of their daily lives have changed since the implementation of congestion
charging. Aspects considered here include: perceived accessibility to the charging zone,
effects on local neighbourhoods, and changes to the travel experience. These are a
sub-set of the information potentially available from the social impacts surveys,
a full description of which is beyond the scope of the current report.

5.11 Charging zone residents
Accessibility
Respondents in the zone were asked in 2003 how they thought their sense ofaccessibility and mobility compared to conditions in 2002, before the scheme wasintroduced. With regard to access to shops, facilities, services and places to visit in
the local area, three-quarters say that this is the same. Of those who report change,
more residents in the zone believe access is better (19 percent) than worse (5 percent).
On the subject of visiting family and friends, twice as many residents expected thisto be more difficult (26 percent) once the scheme was introduced rather than easier(13 percent). While the same proportion agrees that this is now easier, the proportion
who feel it is more difficult is now only 12 percent. However those who felt it is now
easier for family and friends to visit them within the zone is much smaller (2 percent).
When asked about how their day has changed since charging, a significant proportion
say they are spending less time with family and friends directly as a result of thescheme, possibly related to the fact that some people are finding it more difficult
to visit them in the zone.
Local area
Over 40 percent of residents living within the charging zone say their area as a place
to live has improved since the scheme was introduced, as shown in Figure 5.8.
At least 30 percent say that crossing roads, pollution, noise, reliability of public
transport, availability of public transport and congestion are now better in theirlocal area.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200467

Social and behavioural impacts
Figure 5.8 Perceived changes to local area.
Charging zone residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

About the same

BetterDon’t know/
Can’t sayWithin charging zone (369)
Percentage of residents
2Congestion

10

Pollution

8

49

33

10

Noise

8

53

36

3

Availability of parking

21

51

Sense of safety

969

Availability of public transport

8

Reliability of public transport

12

Crossing roads

11

33

55

34
37
53

14

14
5

17
47

11

38

13
33

3

Base: All respondents

Travel experience
In 2002, around a third of residents within the zone expected it to be easier travellingwithin the zone once charging was introduced. A further third expected that it would
be the same. Since charging was introduced only 5 percent of residents say travellingwithin the zone is actually more difficult, while the overwhelming majority have either
not noticed any difference (49 percent), or say that it is easier (44 percent).
When asked about the length of time required for a specimen journey, most
respondents expected that the scheme would affect the duration (34 percent thought
it would take more time, 42 percent less time). In fact, for most respondents, thejourney still takes around the same amount of time (62 percent). Of those who havenoticed a change, 23 percent say the journey is taking less time compared to
12 percent who said it took longer. The saving claimed is generally between
5 and 10 minutes per journey.

68

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Only 6 percent of respondents within the zone now make fewer journeys than they
did before charging. Of those around 40 percent spontaneously say that it is due tothe scheme and 10 percent because they have changed their working pattern.
Almost two-thirds of residents believe the scheme has been effective in reducing
traffic congestion. As shown in Figure 5.9 the majority of charging zone residents
believe the quality of various elements of their journey is comparable to or better thanconditions before the scheme was introduced.
Figure 5.9 Perceived changes to journey experience.
Charging zone residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

Same as before

Better

Partly better/
Partly worse

Don’t know/
Can’t say

Percentage of charging
zone residents
Predictability
(323)

10

Crowding(322)

16

Hassle, stress,
fatigue
(322)

57

29

13

54

26

12

12

60

25

12

Safety
(322)

10

69

16

23

Comfort
(243)

12

63

22

12

Time spent
waiting(243)

14Ease ofplanning
(243)

10

62

24

3

Ease oftravel
(243)

13

56

29

12

47

33

2 4

Base: All respondents who have travelled to or within the zone
since the scheme has been introduced

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200469

Social and behavioural impacts

5.12 Inner London residents
Accessibility
Of the respondents living in inner London, 60 percent feel that access to shops,
facilities, services and places in London as a whole is the same as it was before
charging in 2002. Of those who say access has changed, 14 percent feel it is betterand 18 percent feel it is worse. This compares with expectations before charging when
38 percent thought that access would be the same, 27 percent better and 26 percent
thought access would be worse.
Local area
Sixty percent of inner London respondents say their area as a place to live has
stayed the same since charging was introduced. Twenty-two percent say thatit has deteriorated, with only 12 percent saying it has improved. From a given list,
respondents were asked whether certain elements of the local home environment
had improved or deteriorated since the introduction of charging, as illustrated
in Figure 5.10.
Inner London residents were most positive about the improvement in the reliability
and availability of public transport in their local area. Fewer people reported negative
effects compared to expectations before charging was introduced, particularly in
relation to local congestion, availability of parking, sense of safety, trade for local
business, employment, pollution and noise.
Figure 5.10 Perceived Impact on local area.
Inner London residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

About the same

Don’t know/
Can’t sayBetterInner London (533)Percentage of residents
Congestion

33

53

13 1

Pollution

23

64

7 6

Noise

23

67

7 2

39

Availability of parking
Sense of safety

19

Availability of public transport

9

Reliability of public transport

12

Crossing roads

19

10

42

6 3

72
45
49
67

9

39

7

30

9
11 3

Base: All respondents

70

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Travel experience
Regarding travel to the zone over a third of inner London residents expected it to beeasier, and just over a quarter expected it to be harder before charging was introduced.
The perceived reality of the scheme is somewhat different, as 19 percent now say
it is easier and another 19 percent now say it is harder. The softening of opinion inboth directions has resulted in half of residents claiming access is the same as before,
compared to just over a quarter who expected it to be the same. Encouragingly,
41 percent of inner London residents say it is now easier to travel within the zone,
with a further 35 percent say that it is the same as before (Figure 5.11).
Nearly 30 percent of inner London residents travel into the zone less than they
did before charging. When asked why, two thirds spontaneously say it has something
to do with congestion charging and 10 percent say it has to do with change of work.
This is partly counterbalanced by other residents making more trips.
Figure 5.11 Perceived changes to journey experience.
Inner London residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

Same as before

Better

Partly better/
Partly worse

Don’t know/
Can’t say

Percentage of inner London residents
Predictability
(323)

15

56

Crowding on public transport
(322)

26

Hassle, stress, fatigue
(322)

27

54

27

2

18

12

56

17

Safety
(322)

18

67

12 2

Comfort
(243)

20

62

16

Time spent waitingfor public transport
(243)

19

52

27

11

Ease of planning
(243)

12

68

18

2

Ease of travel
(243)

19

59

21

1

Base: All respondents who have travelled to or within the zone
since the scheme has been introduced

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200471

Social and behavioural impacts

5.13 Outer London residents
Accessibility
Overall, nearly half of respondents in outer London feel that the zone is a better place
to visit since the introduction of congestion charging, with only 9 percent feeling it hasdeteriorated and a third saying that there has been no change. The scheme is widely
acknowledged (87 percent) to be a significant factor contributing to this improvement,with 66 percent feeling that traffic congestion is better, and 23 percent acknowledging
an improvement in public transport.
Local area
When asked to consider their local environment, around two-thirds believe there tohave been no change compared to a year ago, as illustrated in Figure 5.12. However,
37 percent of those living in outer London feel that local congestion has got worse,and 36 percent have more difficulty in parking locally. There has been some improvementin the perception of both the availability of public transport.
Figure 5.12 Perceived impact on local area.
Outer London residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

Same as before

BetterDon’t know/
Can’t sayOuter London (551)Percentage of residents
Congestion

37

Pollution

23

67

3 7

Noise

19

76

32

Availability of parking

36

Sense of safety

15

Availability of public transport

10

Reliability of public transport

20

42

58

53

56

80

66

58

41

16

8

12

10

Base: All respondents

72

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Travel experience
The majority of outer London residents (60 percent) find travelling to the zone nodifferent than before the scheme was introduced, 19 percent find it more difficultand 20 percent easier. A third feel that journeys to and from the zone are quicker.
Opinions of drivers are slightly more polarised, with a quarter stating that it is either
easier or more difficult. Nearly half think that travelling within the zone itself is easier,with only 7 percent believing it to be more difficult. In particular, two thirds feel thatcongestion has eased and 23 percent that public transport has improved.
The majority (77 percent) make the same number of journeys to the zone as before thescheme, with 17 percent making fewer trips. Of those making fewer trips, 45 percent
claim to have done so to avoid paying the congestion charge, whilst 40 percent of
those making fewer trips no longer work in the charging zone. The most noticed
benefit of the scheme is reduction in traffic congestion (34 percent), more thanthose expecting this outcome a year ago (23 percent).
Considering different aspects of their journeys, residents of outer London have seen
the most benefit in terms of the general ease of travel and predictability of theirjourney time as shown in Figure 5.13.
Figure 5.13 Perceived changes to journey experience.
Outer London residents, Autumn 2003
Worse

Same as before

Better

Partly better/
Partly worse

Don’t know/
Can’t say

Percentage of outer London residents 2003
Predictability
(525)

24

Crowding on public transport
(525)

34

Safety(525)

20

Comfort(525)

33

Time spent waitingfor public transport
(525)

27

Ease of travel
(525)

50

21

11

15

13

21

11 3

66

10 11

55

40

68

12

7 1

31

46

Hassle, stress, fatigue(525)

Ease of planning
(525)

20

53

50

18

1 14

17

27

12

21

Base: All respondents who have travelled to or within the zone
since the scheme has been introduced

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200473

Social and behavioural impacts

5.14 Residents living beyond the M25
Accessibility
Around 60 percent of interviewed residents living beyond the M25 believe thattravelling into the zone is the same as before, with 18 percent finding it either easieror more difficult. Travelling within the zone itself is thought to be easier by aroundhalf of respondents, with 72 percent feeling that congestion has eased and 24 percent
that public transport has improved. This is in line with what respondents expectedprior to the introduction of the scheme in 2002. Just over half felt that the zone is abetter place to visit since the introduction of congestion charging, with only 6 percent
feeling it has deteriorated and a third that there has been no change.
Local area
When asked to consider elements of their local environment, fewer residents living
beyond the M25 felt that their area has deteriorated over the past year in comparison
with those who live in outer London. As shown in Figure 5.14, around 30 percent ofresidents feel that congestion and parking has worsened in their area. The greatest
improvements were seen in relation to public transport, but not to the same extent
as in outer London. Experiences of those travelling into the zone from outside theM25 mirror those living in outer London, with non-drivers more likely to say it has
improved (55 percent).
Figure 5.14 Perceived impact on local area.
Residents living beyond the M25, Autumn 2003
Worse

About the same

Don’t know/
Can’t sayBetterBeyond M25 (226)
Percentage of residents
62

31Congestion

51

Pollution

16

74

5 5

Noise

16

77

5 3

29

Availability of parking

Sense of safety

7

Availability of public transport

14

Reliability of public transport

19

6 4

61

86

68

63

42

12

6

8

9

Base: All respondents

74

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Social and behavioural impacts
Travel experience
Three-quarters of respondents, from beyond the M25, are making the same numberof journeys into the zone as before the scheme was introduced, with 20 percent
making fewer trips. Of those making fewer trips, 52 percent claim to have done so
to avoid paying the congestion charge, with 24 percent no longer working in the zone.
Figure 5.15 shows similar patterns of charging perceptions of elements of the journey
experience to residents of outer London. Whereas residents living beyond the M25 see
an improvement in ease of travel and predictability they have also seen a worsening inlevels of crowding on public transport.
Figure 5.15 Perceived changes to journey experience.
Residents living beyond the M25, Autumn 2003
Worse

Same as before

Better

Partly better/
Partly worse

Don’t know/
Can’t say

Percentage of beyond M25 residents 2003
Predictability
(209)

19

Crowding on
public transport
(209)

44

Hassle, stress,
fatigue(209)
Safety(209)

Time spent waitingfor public transport
(209)

19

Ease ofplanning(209)

10Ease oftravel(209)

17

10 1 3

73

26

12

15

57

13

Comfort
(209)

62

35

27

11

23

56

59

49

11

22

71

48

10

17

32

21

11

11

Base: All respondents who have travelled to or within the zone
since the scheme has been introduced

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200475

Social and behavioural impacts

5.15 Attitudes of Londoners to congestion charging
This section considers attitudes towards the central London congestion charge schemeby Londoners. Seven surveys have been completed at the request of the Mayor to
track changes in views before and after charging. Each survey consisted of around
one thousand telephone interviews of respondents selected so as to be representativeof Londoners generally.
Table 5.2 shows the results of several of the questions. Overall, it is noticeable that
where questions were asked before and after charging there is a shift in opinions after
charging was introduced towards favouring the scheme and its effects.
Table 5.2 Selected results from the attitudinal tracker survey,
December 2002 to October 2003
Before charging
Dec 02 Jan 03

After charging

Feb 03Mar 03 Apr 03

Jul 03

Oct 03

Importance ofImportantreducing
Neithercongestion
Unimportant
further incentral London?***

85
7
8

81
7
10

78
6
14

81
6
11

48
13
35

57
13
27

50
11
36

Support or oppose Support
congestion
Neithercharging scheme? Oppose

40
19
40

38
16
43

39
18
41

57
26
27

50
18
31

59
15
24

48
21
28

Will/has thescheme affected
you personally?

Yes
No

69
30

71
28

62
35

59
40

58
42

60
39

53
46

Will/has charging
been effective?*

Effective
Not at alleffective

75

73

72

76

79

83

81

18

17

18

5

5

4

6

Awareness of
methods of
payment?

Shop/Garage
Internet
Telephone
Text message

16
6
10
0

21
8
13
1

37
26
20
16

57
42
37
34

52
39
35
26

57
40
34
21

59
35
29
14

Congestion
charging will/is
reducing traffic!

Agree
Neither
Disagree

54
7
36

54
9
34

50
8
36

75
6
16

73
6
15

77
7
11

71
8
17

Will put up withAgreecharging as long
Neither
as public transport Disagree
improves!

n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a

85
3
11

85
3
10

87
3
8

81
6
12

Will put up withcharging as longas car journeys
improve!**

n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a

63
11
21

63
9
20

67
13
16

55
16
22

Agree
Neither
Disagree* Results do not include ‘don’t knows’.
** Drivers only.
*** From April 2003 question prefaced with ‘The central London congestion charging scheme
has reduced traffic congestion in central London.’76

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts

6. Business and economic impacts
6.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the impacts of congestion charging on business activities in andaround the charging zone and the wider economy of London. Information is presented
from Transport for London’s (TfL’s) own surveys of businesses in central London; andthis is assessed in the context of the larger body of evidence that has accumulated
following the introduction of congestion charging.
It has been difficult to achieve consensus on the impact of charging on economic
activity in London, particularly in view of the range of other exceptional local, national
and international factors that have operated throughout 2003.
This chapter first reviews key findings from TfL’s own surveys of businesses and otherorganisations in and immediately around the charging zone, conducted in Autumn 2003.
It then focuses on the retail sector, where various commentators have suggested thatcharging has been directly responsible for the downturn in activity during 2003.
It is concluded that charging has had a relatively minor effect on the London economy,albeit that there are some sectors and activities that experience negative effects. It isfurther concluded that the negative trends reported by certain business sectors during
2003 are largely due to wider economic factors.

6.2 Key findings• London’s economy has been subject to a variety of specific and longer-term
local, national and international factors during 2003. Collectively, these have
had a much greater impact on economic performance than congestion charging.
They have also made more difficult the task of identifying and quantifying
congestion charging related impacts;• The TfL business surveys have shown that a number of factors are at work ingenerating responses to the congestion charge from the business community.
Overall, the response to the charge has been neutral, with businesses in thezone or close to the boundary remaining generally supportive;• Attitudes towards the charge vary when viewed at the business sector level.
The finance and business services sector is enthusiastic about the charge, citing
reduced journey times and an increased ease of movement within the zone;• Retail and leisure suffered through the first half of 2003 for a number of reasons
unrelated to congestion charging. Extracting the individual influences from theoverall picture is difficult, particularly at a quantitative level;• The magnitudes of the factors affecting retail are such that congestion charging
can only have had very minor effects on sales over the first half of 2003.
Furthermore, the resurgence of the retail market at the end of 2003/early 2004
indicates the influencing factors have not had a long-term effect on the sector.
Structural changes to the retail market and much broader economic and politicalfactors have been the prime drivers of retail performance during 2003.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

77

Business and economic impacts

6.3 Transport for London’s business surveys
Transport for London undertook interview surveys with over 700 businesses acrossthe congestion charging zone and the immediate area surrounding it (defined as within
500 metres of the boundary) in Autumn 2003. These can be compared with similar
surveys carried out in 2002.
Despite the largely qualitative nature of these surveys, the TfL surveys have anumber of attributes that distinguish them from other surveys carried out overthe last 12 months:• A comparatively large survey sample;• A sample structure that reflects the make up of central London’s economy;• Fieldwork timed to capture a view of the effects of congestion charging after
8 months of operation;• Response rates of approximately 40 percent for the initial contact phase of all
surveys and a successful re-contact rate of nearly 80 percent for the in-depth
interview survey.
It is, however, important to consider the wealth of information published by otherorganisations regarding the effect of congestion charging on businesses and theLondon economy. For instance, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
the Freight Transport Association, London First and the Chartered Institute ofManagement Accountants are amongst those organisations that have publishedsurveys on various aspects of congestion charging. In general these surveys do notpossess the same advantages as the TfL business surveys (outlined above).
To allow analysis of the differential effects of factors such as tourism trends andcongestion charging on different businesses, the respondents to the TfL surveys weresplit into the following six sectors:• Services – essentially offices, mainly involved in financial and business services;• Retail – shops and other high street sites such as travel agents, estate agents or
hairdressers;• Leisure – restaurants, cafes, hotels, pubs, cinemas etc.;• Distribution – a small but highly relevant sector;• Production – since there is almost no manufacturing activity inside central London,
this is mainly the media industry plus some workshop-based activity;• Public Sector – all non-commercial activities such as government offices,
also includes charities.

78

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts
Figure 6.1 shows central London employment by business sector. The relative
importance of the various business sectors to the central London economy is reflectedin the sample structure of TfL’s business surveys carried out in 2002 and 2003.
Figure 6.1 Central London employment by business sector, 2003
Public sector
16%

Production
10%
Distribution
5%

Retail17%Services
42%

Leisure10%

The following sections present some results from the 2003 surveys, with comparison
to the 2002 surveys where relevant.
Business performance
Figure 6.2 Overall business performance as measured by change in sales

Percentage of respondents

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
over 15% 11-15%
increase increase

6-10%
1-5%
increase increaseNochange1-5%6-10% 11-15% over 15%
decrease decrease decrease decrease

Note: 14 percent of respondents replied ‘don’t know’ or refused to answer the question.

Figure 6.2 shows that the majority of respondents reported little or no change tooverall business performance in the first half of 2003 when compared to the same
period in 2002. Marginally more respondents saw a decrease in performance thansaw growth, indicative of a relatively weak economic performance overall during theperiod in question.
Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

79

Business and economic impacts
Viewing the average change in sales by sector Figure 6.3 reveals the difference
between the services sector, which grew by an average of 1 percent, and the retail,leisure and distribution sectors, which reported a decline of up to 3 percent (retail)in the same period.
Figure 6.3 Average business performance during the first half of 2003
by business sector
Total
Public sector
Production
Distribution
LeisureRetailServices
-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

Average percentage changeThis is consistent with the broader economic picture across the UK in 2003, a
relatively poor year for certain sectors balanced by a resurgent financial services
industry. The magnitudes of the reported changes however are relatively small.
When asked what had influenced business performance over the period in question,
a number of key factors were identified. General economic factors were cited in
46 percent of responses, with tourism trends representing a further 10 percent,seasonal factors 15 percent and the congestion charge receiving a mention in
12 percent of responses.

80

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts
Comparing the responses to the question across the six sectors once again reveals
a significant difference in perception across sectors. Figure 6.4 below illustrates thedifferences when comparing retail responses to those in the services sector.
Figure 6.4 Perceived influences on business performance in the retail sector
Seasonal factors
11%
Congestion charge
18%Company factors
9%Central line
4%
Tourism factors
12%

Other
5%

Economic factors
41%

Figure 6.5 Perceived influences on business performance in the service sector
Company factors
10%

Seasonal factors
15%

Tourism factors
12%Congestion charge
6%
Central line
2%
Other
5%

Economic factors
50%

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

81

Business and economic impacts
Given the relative performances of the sectors in question, Figures 6.4 and 6.5 reveala different attitude towards congestion charging. Most influences are viewed
consistently across the two sectors, the only real differences being congestion
charging and economic factors. Eighteen percent of retailers regarded congestion
charging as an influence on their businesses that have, on average, declined by
3 percent over the period concerned.
With services, 6 percent of respondents cite the congestion charge as an influenceon their business while the sector has, on average, experienced growth over theperiod in question. In contrast, economic factors were cited by 41 percent of retailers,compared to 50 percent of service firms.
In contrast to some external indicators, the business surveys suggest that the overall
performance of the London economy has been similar to that of the UK as a whole.
Roughly equal proportions of respondents reported London performing better andworse than the rest of the UK (13 percent and 15 percent respectively, see Figure 6.6.)
Figure 6.6 Central London business performance compared to other UK locations
Total
Public sector
Production
Distribution
LeisureRetailServices
0%10%Central London worse

20%

30%

No difference

40%

50%

60%

Central London better

70%

80%

90%

100%

Don’t know/Not applicable

Once again the difference in performance between the retail/leisure sectors and theservices sector is apparent, though it is more prevalent in the leisure sector. Since theretail sector reports performance both better and worse than the UK as a whole, itwould suggest that retail performance over the early part of 2003 did not conform to acoherent pattern. This has implications for analysis of the effect of congestion charging
on the retail sector as consensus and clarity will be harder to achieve.

82

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts
Effects of congestion charging on company policy
Businesses experiencing significant changes as a result of the congestion charge arelikely to introduce or refine policies to cope with the new situation. Nevertheless,
it is clear from the Figure 6.7 that in almost all cases, only a very small percentageof respondents have felt it necessary to make changes to the way they operate.
Businesses were asked whether they had ‘changed or started the process of changing
its policy or practices in any of the following areas in the last six months’. While notspecifically linked to the congestion charge, the question would draw out changes
influenced by the introduction of congestion charging.
Logically, the area having seen the highest degree of change is the timing of deliveries,
either to avoid the congestion charge or to take advantage of the reduced congestion
within the zone. This is particularly prevalent in the retail and distribution sectors, as
would be expected.
Of equal interest are the very small numbers of respondents considering an office orsite change. Only production and services exceed a 5 percent positive response,
despite the concerns expressed elsewhere that the charge would drive businesses outof the charging zone.
Figure 6.7 Policy changes in response to congestion charging
Total
Public sector
Production
Distribution
LeisureRetailServices

Use of public transportCompany car policy
Working/operating/opening
hours
Home working andteleworking
Timing of deliveries
Logistical operations
Office/site location
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Additional questioning regarding how long the respondent had been established intheir current site indicates that the sample has a ‘churn’ rate of around 10 percent;that is 10 percent of businesses will leave the area they are currently located eachyear, to be replaced by a new business in most cases. This suggests the levels of
location change implied by the policy change question are within the naturally
occurring levels of business churn.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

83

Business and economic impacts
Figure 6.8 Effect of congestion charging on the cost of running the site/office
Total
Public sector
Production
Distribution
LeisureRetailServices
0%

20%
+ 10%
- 1 or 2%40%+ 5-10%- 3-5%

60%+ 3-5%- 5-10%80%+ 1 or 2%- over 10%

100%

No impact
Don’t know

Figure 6.8 shows the majority of respondents view the congestion charge as having
little or no effect on the cost of running their office/site.
Figure 6.9 indicates the change in overall attitudes towards the charge.
Overall, and based on the premise that congestion charging is accompaniedby continued investment in public transport, support for the congestion charge has
increased from 54 percent to 58 percent.
Figure 6.9 Support for congestion charging before and after the introduction of
the scheme

After

Before

0%

84

20%
40%
Do not support the scheme

60%
Neither/not sure80%
Support the scheme

100%

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts

6.4 Retail in the congestion charging zone
Figure 6.10 Percentage change in year-on-year retail sales value, 2002 to 2004
10
Central London like-for-like sales
8

Percentage change

6

UK like-for-like sales
Trend (central London like-for-like sales)

4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
02
03

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
04

Source: LRC London Retail Sales Monitor, February 2003

It is evident from Figure 6.10 that:• trends in central London were different to those of the UK as a whole, whichshowed a stable, if relatively sluggish growth trend• the decline in central London retail sales growth appears to have started inquarter 4 2002, before the introduction of charging• data for recent months suggests that retail growth in central London has now
re-converged with the UK as a whole, despite the continued operation ofcongestion charging.
A relative under-performance in retail sales in central London is consistent with theoverall economic performance of London during the period under consideration.
As Figure 6.11 shows, total economic growth in London fell below the UK averagein early 2002 and remained there through 2003. Annual percentage change in
Gross Value Add (GVA) is approximately half a percent for much of 2003, well
below the UK value of nearly 2 percent.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

85

Business and economic impacts
Figure 6.11 UK and London GVA growth 2000-2003

Year-on-year percentage change

7
London

6

UK

5
4
3
2
1
0

q2

q3

3

3
20
0

q1
3

20
0

q4
2

20
0

q3
2

20
0

q2
2

20
0

q1
2

20
0

q4
1

20
0

q3
1

20
0

q2
1

20
0

q1
1

20
0

q4
0

20
0

q3
0

20
0

q2
0

20
0

q1

20
0

20
0

0

-1

Source: Experian Business Strategies

According to the SPSL Retail Traffic Index for the charging zone (see Figure 6.12),
retail performance within the charging zone was well below that of the rest of theUK from before the introduction of charging and for much of 2003. The latter halfof the year however saw the charging zone outperforming the rest of the UK andreturning to a pattern of year-on-year growth. Indeed, the SPSL index indicatesthat retail activity has reached the levels previously seen in 2002.
Figure 6.12 SPSL Retail Trade Index – charging zone against rest of UK
15%
Year-on-year percentage change

Charging zone

UK

10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
Jan
03

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan
04

Feb

Source: SPSL Retail Trade Index. The index remains provisional until confirmation of sample representation

86

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts
In contrast, the Footfall index for the congestion charging zone1 shows 2003 retail
activity to be below that seen in 2002 for almost the entire year and does not show thesame growth during the last quarter of 2003 as exhibited by the RSM or SPSL indices.
Footfall data can be further broken down to illustrate the relative performance of thecongestion charging zone during the week and at weekends. Figure 6.13 below shows
separate indices for weekday and weekend performance for the zone. As can be seen,
both indices exhibit the same general behaviour over an extended period of time andfrom well before the introduction of congestion charging.
Figure 6.13 Footfall London congestion charging zone index,
weekends and weekdays
200
180

Charging zone weekend
Charging zone weekday

Footfall retail index

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
07/
01
04/ /02
02
04/ /02
03
01/ /02
04
29/ /02
04/
27/ 0205
24/ /0206
22/ /0207/
19/ 0208
16/ /0209
14/ /0210
11/ /0211
09/ /0212
06/ /02
01/
03/ 0302
03/ /03
03
31/ /03
03/
28/ 0304
26/ /0305
23/ /0306/
21/ 0307
18/ /0308/
15/ 0309
13/ /0310
10/ /0311/
08/ 0312
05/ /03
01
02/ /04
02/
01/ 0403
29/ /04
03/
04

0

Source: Footfall London Congestion Charging Zone Index, April 2003

The comparable performance of the two indices suggests that factors affecting theretail performance of the congestion charging zone apply equally to weekdays andweekends. Since the congestion charge does not apply at the weekend, the Footfall
indices appear to demonstrate that congestion charging has had minimal effect onretail performance and that other factors apart from charging are primarily responsible.
In addition, Chapter 3 reveals no significant changes to traffic patterns at weekends
that might be attributable to congestion charging, again suggesting that retail
performance and road traffic levels in central London are not strongly interrelated.
Further information on shoppers is available from a TfL survey undertaken at thestart of 2004. This looked at the characteristics of shoppers in the Oxford Street andRegent Street area of central London, as well as locations outside of the charging zone.
The survey focused on the nature of shopping in the context of people’s other daily
activities, such as work.
1 Source: London Congestion Zone Footfall Index 26/01/04

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

87

Business and economic impacts
Insights from this survey again confirm that congestion charging is unlikely to have
had a significant adverse effect on retail in central London. For example:• Around one-half of the people in Oxford Street and Regent Street are visitors,
i.e. non London residents. Up to one-third are UK or overseas tourists, illustrating
the importance of visitors to retail performance in these locations;• Only 40 percent of people in Oxford Street and Regent Street are there primarily
for shopping. About 45 percent are there for shopping as a secondary purpose,for example in conjunction with work (about one-quarter of all people);• Public transport dominated access to central London. Only three percent of people(Oxford Street) or 8 percent (Regent Street) used car as their main mode of access.
Around one-fifth of people in both locations walked all the way from their previous
activity (e.g. work);• The average shopping spend by car users in central London was only around20 percent higher than those who used other modes. In addition, if car-borne
shoppers were less likely to shop in central London, this would be expected toprimarily affect those intending to spend less.
Assessment
The weak performance of the retail sector in the first half of 2003 can be attributed
to a number of factors, notably the Central line closure, the Iraq war and theassociated increase in the threat of terrorism, the most noticeable effect of which
was a reduction in overseas tourists.
Visit Britain estimates that up to 26 percent of total spending by overseas visitors to
the UK is retail expenditure. Office of National Statistics data reports that overseas
visitors’ spending was down by £100 million in the second quarter of 2003 compared
to 2002. When coupled with the likely deterrence of domestic tourists due to similar
concerns, it is apparent that a significant value of retail expenditure, perhaps 5 percent
of sales over this period, was absent from central London during quarter two, 2003.
The nature of this effect can be illustrated by overlaying the central London retail datawith UK wide tourist information (Figure 6.14). While the relationship is not directly
causal, much of UK tourism activity is focused on central London and central London
retailers rely heavily on tourism expenditure. Other data shows that higher-spending
North American visitors dipped substantially further than overall visitor numbers andhave taken longer to recover.

88

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts
Figure 6.14 Retail sales in central London against tourist visits and tourist
spending in the UK
Year-on-year percentage change

40%
UK Tourist Visits
UK Tourist Spending
Central London Retail Sales

30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%

te

m

gu
Se
p

Au

b
O er
ct
ob
er
N
ov
em
be
r

st

y

e

Ju
l

M

ce

2002

Ju
n

ay

be
Ja r
nu
ar
y
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
Ap
ril

m

be
De

em
N
ov

O
ct

ob

er

r

-20%

2003

Source: ONS, LRC Retail Sales Monitor

Travel behaviour through 2003 has been discussed extensively elsewhere in this report,
but Figure 6.15 below is revealing in demonstrating the clearer nature of the relationshipbetween the decline in Underground travel and the performance of the retail sector.
Figure 6.15 Underground journeys against central London retail sales

Year-on-year percentage change

8%
Underground Journeys
Central London Retail Sales

6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%

2002

c
De

ov
N

ct
O

st
Se
pt

gu
Au

ly
Ju

ne
Ju

ay
M

ril
Ap

ch
ar
M

Fe
b

n
Ja

c
De

ov
N

O

ct

-10%

2003

Source: TfL Revenue Report, LRC London Retail Sales Monitor

This chart superimposes the Retail Sales Monitor sales index over year-on-year networkwide patronage growth. The large decline in Underground travel through the Spring of 2003
(including the Central line closure) coincides with the period of negative sales growth.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200489

Business and economic impacts
This is not a direct relationship since a number of factors are at play; some of the
reduction in travel will be due to the reduction in tourism identified earlier, otherjourneys will have been transferred to alternative means of transport (including buses)
and will still be made.
While it remains impossible to precisely quantify the effect of congestion charging
on retailers within the charging zone it is clear that the influences outlined above
are likely key factors for recent retail trends in central London and they are – for allpractical purposes – independent of congestion charging.
External influences
On the domestic front, retailers faced other pressures throughout 2003. An unusuallywarm Summer kept shoppers of all kinds from the stores, while an exceedingly wet
November may be, in part, to blame for the poor performance that month.
The retail sector also faces a number of structural changes, the effects of whichhave become increasingly apparent over the last 12 months. The continued riseof out-of-town shopping venues, such as Bluewater to the south east of London,
has impacted high street retailers across the UK. Furthermore, new prestige
locations outside London have enhanced the appeal of regional shopping centres
in comparison to London.
Also increasing in importance is ‘e-tailing’ or internet shopping. Expenditure via
these non-traditional outlets has increased in recent years as the market matures.
The Interactive Media In Retailing Group quote an annual growth rate of 70 percent
across 80 retailers surveyed and a monthly spend of around £1.3 billion nationally(December 2003), representing about 7 percent of all retail sales. While the proportionof retail expenditure via these channels is still small, the impact on traditional retailers
is not insignificant, particularly where longer journeys might previously have been madeto source items not available locally.
2003 was undoubtedly a tough year for retailers nationally and in central London
but external factors independent of the introduction of congestion charging werepredominant in driving retail performance through this period within the charging zone.

6.5 Congestion charging and economic impacts: A TfL assessment
Previous chapters of this report have assessed the behavioural change caused by
the introduction of congestion charging and the net effect on travel into thecharging zone. Of some 65,000 to 70,000 daily car trips that are no longer being made,it has been estimated that only 5,000 individuals are no longer visiting the charging
zone as a result of congestion charging, with the majority of ex-car trips having beenswitched to public transport.
A reduction of 5,000 individuals in the central London daily population of morethan 1.5 million people is negligible.

90

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Business and economic impacts

6.6 Cost-benefit analysis of congestion charging in central London
Reduced traffic delays, improved journey time reliability, reduced waiting time atbus stops, lower fuel consumption, less pollution and accidents and a more pleasantenvironment all have an economic value. These, and other, benefits need to be set
against the costs of operating and complying with the scheme, to arrive at anassessment of the overall costs and benefits of congestion charging.
In Congestion Charging: Six Months On, TfL presented the following preliminary
assessment of costs and benefits of congestion charging. This yields an annual
net benefit of around £50 million.
Table 6.1 Preliminary estimates of quantifiable costs and benefitsof the central London congestion charging scheme(£ million per year, rounded)
Annual Costs
TfL administrative and other costs
Scheme operation
Additional bus costs
Chargepayer compliance costs (telephone calls etc.)
Total

5
90
20
15
130

Annual Benefits
Time savings to car and taxi occupants, business use
Time savings to car and taxi occupants, private use
Time savings to commercial vehicle occupantsTime savings to bus passengers
Reliability benefits to car, taxi and commercial vehicle occupants
Reliability benefits to bus passengers
Vehicle fuel and operating savings
Accident savings
Disbenefit to car occupants transferring to public transport, etc.
Total
Net annual benefit

75
40
20
20
10
10
10
15
-20
180
50

The payment of charges is not included in this analysis, as in cost-benefit terms these
are a ‘transfer payment’.
Transport for London and GLA Economics will update this assessment in due course
as more data becomes available.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 200491

Business and economic impacts

92

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7. Accidents, amenity and the environment
7.1 Introduction
This section first considers recent trends in road traffic accidents since theintroduction of charging. It then looks at some key results from the on-street public
space surveys describing how Londoners and others perceive the general amenity andenvironment of central London. Finally it examines the impacts of congestion charging
on air quality and ambient noise.
The expected environmental impacts of congestion charging were outlined in theFirst Annual Monitoring Report. It was considered that the effects on air quality
and noise arising directly from congestion charging would be relatively small.
Methodologies for tracking these effects were described, potential difficulties
explained, and conditions applying before charging summarised.

7.2 Key findings• The recent trend of overall year-on-year decreases in road traffic accidents seen
across London is to be continuing. There is no evidence of disproportionatechanges to the numbers of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles, and there
is some evidence of an accelerated decline in accidents inside the charging zone;• Surveys of Londoners ‘on-street’ in and around the charging zone suggest that thebeneficial effects of congestion charging and other initiatives on environmental
quality are being recognised. However, the relationships between these ‘perceptual’indicators and the more ‘scientific’ evidence is not clear-cut;• By reducing the overall volumes of traffic within the charging zone, and increasing
the efficiency with which it circulates, congestion charging has been directly
responsible for reductions of approximately 12 percent in emissions of NOx
and PM10 from road traffic within the zone (24-hour annual average day);• Traffic changes on the Inner Ring Road are estimated to have resulted in very smallchanges to emissions of NOx and PM10 from road traffic, of less than plus/minus
2 percent respectively. Both here and in the charging zone, beneficial changes tothe emissions performance of the vehicle fleet between 2002 and 2003 provide
additional ‘background’ benefits;• Measurements of actual air quality across London strongly reflect the statisticallyunusual weather patterns that prevailed for much of 2003, overwhelming any
smaller-scale effects that might have been caused by congestion charging. It istherefore not possible to identify ‘congestion charging’ effects in the available
dataset, either for the charging zone or the Inner Ring Road;

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

93

Accidents, amenity and the environment• Traffic changes resulting from charging are estimated to have led to savings of
19 percent in traffic-related emissions of CO2 and 20 percent in fuel consumed
by road transport within the charging zone (24-hour annual average day);• There is no evidence from sample noise measurements in and around the zoneof significant changes in the ambient noise climate.

7.3 Accidents
It was estimated that congestion charging would result in between 150 and 250 fewer
reported accidents, involving injury, per year within Greater London. As the scheme
was implemented in February 2003 the lag in receiving finalised data means that afull analysis of a year’s data will not be possible until around Autumn 2004.
Currently TfL has data up to October 2003 that can be used to identify changes forthe 8 month period March to October in and around the charging zone as well as in
the rest of Greater London.
Accidents involving personal injury
Table 7.1 indicates that, in the majority of time periods across London, theyear-on-year decrease in injury accidents reported to the Police has continued
in the months since charging was introduced. Within the charging zone during
charging hours the decrease is proportionally greater than elsewhere in London.
Table 7.1 Total reported personal injury road traffic accidents between
March and October, 2001 to 2003

Mar-Oct 01

Mar-Oct 02

Mar-Oct 03

Charging
Zone

Inner
Ring Road

Rest of
London

Total

1,137

376

12,49014,003

Weekdays 0000-0700;1900-2400

310

142

4,173

4,625

Weekends all day

340

132

5,489

5,961

Total

1,787

650

22,152

24,589Weekdays 0700-1900

1,020

305

11,632

12,957

Weekdays 0000-0700;1900-2400

280

119

4,059

4,458

Weekends all day

293

136

5,131

5,560

Total

1,593

560

20,822

22,975

Weekdays 0700-1900

854

308

11,106

12,268

Weekdays 0000-0700;1900-2400

258

110

3,515

3,883

Weekends all day

275

123

4,641

5,039

1,387

541

19,262

21,190

Weekdays 0700-1900

Total

94

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Severity of injuries
Table 7.2 shows that in the 8 months since charging was introduced there were threefatal accidents within the zone during charging hours. This is less than during the sametime period the two previous years. The reduction in serious and slight injuries throughaccidents since charging is again greater than the previous year.
Table 7.2 Reported personal injury road traffic accidents within the charging
zone between March and October, 0700 to 1900, 2001 to 2003
Fatal

Serious

SlightMar-Oct 01

5

139

993

Mar-Oct 02

5

137

878

Mar-Oct 03

3

116

735

Pedestrian and non-pedestrian involvement
Table 7.3 suggests that charging has had no impact on the relative proportions ofpedestrians or vehicles in accidents involving injury. Although the number of accidents
has generally been decreasing there is no material change to the proportions ofpedestrians injured.
Table 7.3 Accidents involving personal injury between March and October,
0700 to 1900, 2001 to 2003.
Charging Zone

Inner Ring Road

Rest of London

Pedestrian Non-pedestrian Pedestrian Non-pedestrian Pedestrian Non-pedestrian
Mar-Oct 01

351 (31%)786 (69%)

77 (20%)299 (80%)2683 (21%)

9807 (79%)

Mar-Oct 02

319 (31%)701 (69%)

51 (17%)254 (83%)2536 (22%)

9096 (78%)

Mar-Oct 03

271 (32%)583 (68%)

63 (20%)245 (80%)

2338 (21%)

8768 (79%)

Accident involvement
The types of vehicles involved in accidents reported to the Police is illustrated in
Figure 7.1. This is not the same as the number of incidents, as duplication occurs
where more than category of road user are involved. As might have been expectedwith the reduction in the number of cars within the zone there has been a reductionin the number of cars involved in accidents. However, there is also a decrease in thenumber of two-wheelers involved in accidents despite the increase in their movements
within the zone.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

95

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Figure 7.1 Accident involvement by vehicle type within the charging zone,
0700 to 1900, March to October, 2001 to 2003
600
Vehicles involved in accidents

2001

2002

2003

500
400
300
200
100
0
Pedestrian

Pedal
cycle

Poweredtwo-wheeler

Car

Taxi

Bus orcoach

Goodsvehicles

Other

Mode

Although it is too early to fully understand the impact of charging on accidents
in London, the data that are available show a continuing decrease within the zone
and in London overall.
It is worth noting that despite concerns that there could be increases in the
involvement of powered two-wheelers due to greater numbers of these vehicles,
this has not materialised. Neither has an increase in fatalities or serious injuries due
to increased average network traffic speeds.

7.4 Quality of the central London environment
By reducing the amount of traffic in and around the charging zone, congestion
charging was expected to contribute to improving the general environmental amenity
in the zone. This cannot be measured objectively, but perceptual surveys of individual
Londoners ‘on the street’ can provide a range of feedback through which these effects
can be assessed.
This section looks at some results from two large-scale interview surveys of Londoners
conducted at various shopping, tourist, leisure and business locations in and aroundthe charging zone (see First Annual Monitoring Report). Surveys were conducted during
the Autumn of 2002 and 2003 and included a variety of questions, several of which
relate to perceived environmental amenity. Other areas covered by these surveys
included:• Indicative measures of pedestrian activity;• Access to location;• Activity at location (e.g. spend);• Quality of transport;• Perceived effects of congestion charging.

96

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7.5 Perceived environmental quality
Part of the on street survey asked respondents to ‘score’, on a scale of 1 (very poor)
to 5 (very good), a range of attributes relating to transport and the quality of the local
environment at the survey location. Figure 7.2 shows an example of the results fromthis comparison, showing in this case small but consistent improvement in meanscores for a range of transport and environmental indicators aggregated across all
survey locations.
Figure 7.2 Mean ratings for a range of transport and environmental indicatorsfor sites inside the charging zone. Autumn 2002 compared toAutumn 2003
Traffic congestion

Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

Car speed
Car reliability
Public transport provision
Bus speed
Bus reliability
Underground speed
Underground reliability
Pleasantness of area
Air quality
Noise
1

Very
Poor

2

3

4

Very 5Good

7.6 Perceptions of air quality and noise
Respondents were also asked to rate a number of specific environmental attributes
in relation to the location at which they were surveyed. Alongside attributes such as
public transport provision and amount of traffic, specific scores of 1 (very poor) to
5 (very good) were sought for air quality and noise. These are summarised in
Figures 7.3 and 7.4. These figures show that for all locations the mean ratings forthe perception of air quality and noise in the area improved after the introductionof congestion charging, although this was not mentioned to respondents beforehand
as a possible factor.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

97

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Figure 7.3 Mean ratings of air quality by type of site.
Autumn 2002 compared to Autumn 2003
Areas at the edge and justoutside of the CCZ

Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

Business areas
Places with a high concentrationof restaurants
Theatre/Cinema areas

Major tourist attractions
Places with a concentrationof retailing
1 Very
Poor

2

3

4

Very
Good

5

Figure 7.4 Mean ratings of noise by type of site.
Autumn 2002 compared to Autumn 2003
Areas at the edge and justoutside of the CCZ

Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

Business areas
Places with a high concentrationof restaurants
Theatre/Cinema areas

Major tourist attractions
Places with a concentrationof retailing
1

Very
Poor

2

3

4

Very 5Good

The evidence from direct measurements of air quality and noise described below
do not, at first sight, accord very closely with these findings. This is interesting, but
not entirely unexpected. For example, people’s perception of air quality may be based
more on numbers of slow-moving vehicles in their immediate vicinity than, for example,
actual prevailing particulate levels. For noise, it is possible that smoother traffic flow
alters the noise climate by reducing the incidence of (more annoying) peaks, such as
from braking and accelerating, associated with congested stop-start traffic conditions.

98

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7.7 Impact of congestion charging on the locality
In the interview prior to the introduction of charging respondents across the survey
locations were invited to comment on the ways in which they expected congestion
charging to affect the area (responses were unprompted). In the Autumn 2003 survey
following the introduction of charging, respondents were asked how they thought
congestion charging had affected the area they were in. Responses (an average of two
items per respondent) were coded against a range of possible effects.
Figure 7.5 shows the comparison between how respondents perceived congestion
charging would affect the area and how respondents think it has affected the area.
Note that this was not a ‘panel’ survey, and groups of different, but statisticallyequivalent individuals were interviewed in each survey.
Figure 7.5 Expected impact of congestion charging on area compared withperceived impact of charging. Autumn 2002 compared to Autumn 2003
Percentage of respondents
010Good effect on public transport
Dirtier air

20

30

40

50

Autumn 2002
Autumn 2003

More people will come here
Less parking available
Less traffic/less congestion
People will travel earlier/later
Car parking in surrounding areas
More congestion
More trafficMore congestion in surrounding areas
Fewer people will go in area
More pedestrian friendly
Cleaner air
Adverse effect on business
Speed up buses
Reduce congestion
No effect at all
Not a lot of effectLess traffic
Other
Don’t know

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

99

Accidents, amenity and the environment
As might be expected, these results show a fairly mixed picture. One generalisationthat can be made is that the percentage of respondents reporting ‘negative’ effects
was less in the 2003 surveys compared with those who expected potentially negative
effects in 2002, before charging.

7.8 Air quality
Congestion charging has changed the volumes and patterns of traffic in and around thecharging zone. The main changes have been described in Chapter 3. The key effects
during weekday charging hours can be summarised:• Reduced volumes of traffic within the charging zone moving faster andmore efficiently;• Relatively small traffic impacts on the Inner Ring Road and more widely outsideof the charging zone;• Changes to the composition of traffic, with fewer cars, vans and lorries and morebuses, taxis and two-wheelers.
These changes may be expected to affect air quality in the following ways:• Reduced volume of traffic means that less fuel will be consumed and lesspolluting emissions produced;• Faster vehicle speeds and reduced congestion means that the (reduced) volumesof traffic is moving around more efficiently, generating less emissions per unit
distance travelled;• Different vehicle types produce different levels of emissions per unit distance travelled.
This means that the impact of changes to cars will be smaller, in relative terms, ascompared to equivalent changes in heavier vehicles such as buses and lorries.
As well as these direct effects, changes brought about by charging happen against
a backdrop of changes to all other factors affecting air quality. Key examples are:
• Improvements to vehicle technologies and emission/fuel standards that impact
as the vehicle fleet is progressively renewed over time; this particularly affects
the bus fleet;• The weather, which can significantly affect the way in which primary emissions
from road traffic are ‘translated’ into air pollution that is measured at air quality
monitoring sites;• Changes to emissions from other sources, for example domestic and commercial
heating, both within London and further afield.

100

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
The relationship between traffic changes and air quality is therefore not a direct one.
It is quite possible, for example, for beneficial changes in emissions to be ‘masked’
by weather patterns that are particularly conducive to the build-up of pollution or‘importing’ pollution from elsewhere, creating temporary ‘episodes’ or longer-term
elevated levels. The problem of detection is further compounded by the fact thatcongestion charging operates for only about one-third of the hours in the one year.
Therefore, the attributable impact of congestion charging on air quality objectives thatare framed in terms of running annual means or ‘exceedence days’ will be further diluted.
To deal with this complexity, a three-stage approach has been adopted.
The first stage is to calculate the impact of charging on vehicle emissions. Thistakes the observed traffic changes in and around the charging zone, and calculates
the changes to emissions in terms of the changing volumes of the main vehicle types
and the changing speed profile of the traffic. These calculations take account of
aggregate changes to vehicle technologies over the comparison period. Alongside
this, parallel calculations look at changes to other quantifiable sources of local
emissions, resulting in maps describing changes to emissions that can be disaggregatedat various geographic scales. It is therefore possible to quantify aggregate changes toemissions, and to attribute components of the aggregate change to specific causes.
This then provides input data for air quality computer models, which simulate
the dispersion and chemical transformation of emissions in the atmosphere.
These provide, as output, and according to assumptions about meteorology,‘contour maps’ describing pollutant concentrations in terms of the relevant air quality
objectives (e.g. annual average concentrations). These can be compared against actual
measurements obtained from air quality monitoring sites across London. In this way,progress towards meeting national air quality objectives can be assessed.
Finally, the monitored data itself provides a continuous record of ‘actual’ air quality
experienced by individuals in different locations. For this reason it is often used as
the first point of reference for air quality impacts. However, the aggregate change
at these sites reflects a combination of many factors, and will not necessarily be agood indicator of changes brought about by any one intervention such as congestion
charging. Nor does it readily characterise the overall pollution experienced by anindividual who lives in, say, inner London and who works in central London.
The following sections summarise some provisional results from two of thesethree strands of work in relation to the two pollutants of most interest in London,
fine particulate matter (PM10 ) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) with its precursor NOx(oxides of nitrogen). The present analysis is confined to the charging zone andInner Ring Road, as the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory has not yet
been updated in respect of changes to emissions in inner and outer London.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

101

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7.9 Emissions
This preliminary assessment of emissions changes is based on observed changes
to traffic following the introduction of congestion charging in the charging zone andboundary route (Inner Ring Road). The updating cycle for the London Atmospheric
Emissions Inventory (on which this analysis is based) is not yet complete in respectof emissions from non-traffic sources, and for areas outside the charging zone.
An incremental approach has been used to identify changes separately attributableto each of the three main influences: changes to traffic flow, changes to speeds andchanges to the vehicle stock (reflecting ‘turnover’ in the vehicle fleet and concomitant
improvements to the emissions performance of vehicles). The following four scenarios
have therefore been generated (Table 7.4):
Table 7.4 Emissions scenarios
Case

Flows

Speeds

Vehicle stock

Pre-charging

2002

2002

2002

Intermediate 1

2003

2002

2002

Intermediate 2

2003

2003

2002

Post-charging

2003

2003

2003

*Between 2002 (pre-charging) and 2003 (post-charging), total primary emissions of
nitrogen oxides in the charging zone from road traffic fell from 810 to 680 tonnes/annum,a total reduction of 16 percent (24-hour annual average day). The equivalent figures
for PM10 were 47 and 40 tonnes/annum, also a reduction of 16 percent.
*On the Inner Ring Road between 2002 and 2003, total primary emissions of
nitrogen oxides from road traffic fell by 4 percent (from 400 to 383 tonnes).
For PM10 the equivalent figure was a 7 percent decrease (from 22.4 to 20.8 tonnes).
These changes are net effects. It is estimated that traffic changes brought about by
charging are responsible for about 75 percent of the reductions in the charging zone
for both NOx and PM10. The remaining 25 percent arises from changes to the vehicle
technology mix between 2002 and 2003; the extent to which these are ‘relevant’ tothe charging zone of course being affected by the differential effects of charging on
the various vehicle types.
On the Inner Ring Road the effect of vehicle technology changes is more pervasive.
Removing these effects from the calculations shows that the traffic and speed
changes between 2002 and 2003 results in a small overall increase in emissionsof NOx of 1.5 percent, and a small decrease in emissions of PM10 of 1.4 percent.

*Note the absolute emissions values have been revised from the previous version(corrected 28 July 2004). Percentage changes remain unaffected.

102

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Table 7.5 uses each of the scenarios described in Table 7.4, and ‘steps through’the main effects, quantifying their contribution to the overall change.
Table 7.5 Principal changes to traffic and their effect on total primarytraffic emissions of NOx and PM10
Percentage change in relation topre-charging base (100%)

Charging
zone
NOx

Charging
zone
PM10

Inner
Ring Road
NOx

Inner
Ring Road
PM10

Volume change – motorcycles

0

+1

0

+1

Volume change – taxis

+1

+3

0

0

Volume change – car

-6

-4

+1

+1

Volume change – bus and coach

+4

0

+3

0

Volume change – light goods

-1

-2

+1

+2

Volume change – rigid goods

-2

-1

+1

0

Volume change – articulated heavy goods

0

0

0

0

Speed changes (all vehicles)

-8

-9

-4

-5

Percentage change due to trafficand speed changes

-12

-12

+2

-1

Emissions factors(fleet turnover and technology mix)

-4

-4

-6

-5

Overall traffic emissions change

-16

-16

-4

-7

These changes are generally intuitive, bearing in mind that they reflect annual average
conditions, rather than charging hours specifically. In addition, it is the case that increased
emissions from increased numbers of some vehicle types are counterbalanced bydecreases in emissions per vehicle because of the speed changes (within the speed
ranges being considered, vehicles perform more efficiently at higher speeds).
This is particularly so for taxis and buses, although it is likely that limitations
associated with the calculations have over-represented this effect for buses, as theextent to which they can ‘gain’ from increases in overall traffic speed is limited byscheduling considerations.
Gains arising from changes to vehicle technology and fleet renewal are to be expected,
given the various statutory and voluntary initiatives that have been put in place as partof the Air Quality Strategy for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and also the
Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy Cleaning London’s Air. These are reflected in updated
emissions factors and the overall effect is to reduce total emissions of both NOx
and PM10 by about 4-5 percent, in the absence of any changes to vehicle numbers
or speeds.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

103

Accidents, amenity and the environment

7.10 Air quality models
These emission calculations relating to traffic changes in and around the charging zone
will be incorporated in a wider update to the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory,
as part of the cycle outlined in the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy. This will be used indue course as a basis for model forecasts of air quality across London, in relation to
the prevailing National Air Quality Objectives. As part of this process, this modelling
will be made available to the London Boroughs to assist with their air quality
management responsibilities.

7.11 Measured air quality
Data for the majority of air quality monitoring sites in London are available through theLondon Air Quality Network (LAQN). The First Annual Monitoring Report set out thosesites that would be used for congestion charging purposes (the majority of which havea lengthy time-series of data describing pre-charging conditions), and presented trend
data up to September 2002. Importantly, sites are grouped to reflect congestion
charging geography (‘indicator sites’), and sites well outside of the charging zone areincluded as ‘control sites’. This is to allow the effect of changes to ‘background’concentrations (e.g. secondary ‘imported’ pollution) to be assessed.
This section updates these trends with measured data spanning the introductionof charging up to September 2003 (note there is a relatively prolonged validation
period for these data).
Figure 7.6 Recent trends in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) concentrationsat selected air quality monitoring sites

Running annual mean (µg/m3)

450Suburban London control
Roadside approaching zone

Background surrounding zone
Kerbside on boundary

Background within zone
Roadside within zone
Provisional
Data

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50

03

03

Se
p

ay

02

03
M

n
Ja

p

02

Se

ay

02
M

n
Ja

01
p

01

Se

ay

00

01
M

n
Ja

p

00

Se

ay

99

00
M

n
Ja

p

99

Se

ay

99
M

n
Ja

Se

p

98

0

Figure 7.6 shows running annual mean NOx concentrations for a selection ofrepresentative air quality monitoring sites. Up to the end of 2002, all site classes(background, roadside and kerbside) show reductions of between 20 and 40 percent
over the review period. This prolonged, steady reduction suggests a significant
reduction in primary emissions, most probably reflecting transport emissions
abatement e.g. through catalytic converters.

104

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
The overall picture since March 2003 (the first running annual mean to include afull month of post-charging data) is interesting in several respects. Relatively stableconcentrations have been observed at the three ‘background’ site classes and,as this trend has been observed throughout London, it is reasonable to attributeit to ‘background’ meteorological effects, as described below.
Concentrations at inner London sites and the within charging zone roadside site
(Shaftesbury Avenue) have continued their downward trend, overriding this slightincrease in background levels. Indeed, the rate of reduction at Shaftesbury Avenue
appears to have accelerated, which may be evidence of decreased NOx concentrations
close to busy roads within the charging zone due to congestion charging-related trafficchanges. However, the lack of other available sites means that this cannot be
confirmed or generalised across the charging zone at this stage.
The Inner Ring Road site was affected by the introduction of bus lanes in late 2001.
The picture here has been of stable or slightly increasing NOx concentrations
throughout 2003.
Figure 7.7 Recent trends in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations atselected air quality monitoring sites.

Running annual mean (µg/m3)

Suburban outer London
Inner London - Roadside120

Inner London - Background
Inner Ring Road - Roadside

Within charging zone - Background
Within charging zone - Roadside
Provisional
Data

100
80
60
40
20

2005 air quality objective level (40µg/m 3 )Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

03

03

Se
p

ay

02

03
M

n
Ja

02

Se
p

ay

02
M

n
Ja

p

01

01

Se

ay

00

01
M

n
Ja

p

00

Se

ay

00
M

n
Ja

99
p

99

Se

ay

99
M

n
Ja

Se

p

98

0

105

Accidents, amenity and the environment
NO2 is largely a secondary pollutant formed by the oxidation of NO by ozone (O3).
As such, emissions are not estimated directly. The degree of oxidation is limited byavailable ozone, one consequence of which is that the variability of observed
concentrations is less than for NOx. Nevertheless, consistent ratios between NOx andNO2 concentrations have been observed. On this basis and in terms of trends shownin Figure 7.7, the general trend of increasing concentrations across London since thestart of 2003 is unexpected. There are four observations to make at this stage.
• The hot summer of 2003 and the unusually high proportion of easterly winds(see below) imported record levels of ozone from continental Europe, thus
‘facilitating’ greater production of NO2;
• The ‘roadside’ site within the charging zone is the only one of the indicator classes
to show a reduction in NO2. This is consistent with the observations for NOx,and may well be attributable to reduced traffic levels within the zone overriding
increased ‘background’ NO2;
• The annual average NOx /NO2 ratio for the Marylebone Road site has fallen sharply
from 2001 to 2003. This is mainly due to falling concentrations of NO, but may
also indicate increased emissions of primary NO2. It may have a number of possible
causes, which are currently being investigated;• The emissions estimates described above do not suggest that traffic volume/speed
changes at this point are a significant contributory factor. Observed traffic volume
changes at this point are similar to the overall average for the Inner Ring Road
described in Section 3.

Suburban London control
Roadside approaching zone

106

Background surrounding zone
Kerbside on boundary

Background within zone
Roadside within zone

180
160
140
120

Provisional
Data

100
80

2005 air quality objective level(35 days)

60 2010 air quality objective
level (10 days)
40
20

03
p

03

Se

M

ay

03
n

Ja

02
p

02

M

Se

02
n

ay

01

Ja

p

01

M

Se

01
n

ay

00

Ja

p

00

M

Se

00
n

ay

99

Ja

p

99

M

Se

99
n

ay

98

Ja

p

0
Se

Number of days where daily mean >50µg/m 3(running annual mean concentration)

Figure 7.8 Recent trends in fine particulate matter (PM10) exceedence days
selected air quality monitoring sites

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
2003 was a remarkable year for PM10 episodes. Prolonged and widespread PM10
episodes occurred during February, March, April and August and caused sharp increases
in the number of days that measured levels exceeded the air quality Objective acrossall indicator site classes. This is reflected in the running annual mean trends ofexceedence days in Figure 7.8, which show a sharp upwards profile from the startof 2003. There is no evidence of any differential effect for the charging zone or
Inner Ring Road indicator sites, suggesting that congestion charging is not a significant
factor in explaining these trends.
It is known that a large proportion of PM10 in London originates from distant regionalsources (‘secondary’ PM10). At times, this can dwarf the locally-emitted component,
to the point that it is likely that each of the major episodes observed in London during
2003 would have occurred to some extent even in the absence of all road traffic.
Emissions changes arising from congestion charging can only affect the locally-emitted
component during charging hours, and isolating these (relatively small) changes against
such a volatile backdrop is not straightforward.
Established analytical techniques have been applied to these data and the following
preliminary observations are made:• The elevated levels of PM10 during 2003 are largely due to climatic conditions,these being particularly conducive to high levels of secondary PM10;• It is not, at present, possible to detect a ‘congestion charging’ effect (either positiveor negative) from these data at any of the indicator site classes;• Although the emissions calculations above suggest a small positive effect within
the zone, this is overwhelmingly obscured in terms of measured air quality by themagnitude of non-charging-related influences.

7.12 Weather during 2003
The trends described above need to be understood in the wider context of thestatistically-unusual weather patterns that prevailed for much of 2003, together
with the changes to primary emissions described above.
Figure 7.9 is a wind-rose displaying the proportion of time that winds originated fromthe different points of the compass. The data comes from a continuous monitoringsite in the London Borough of Bexley and covers the period March to November for
2001, 2002 and 2003. During 2003, the proportion of time that winds originatedfrom the east was approximately double that of 2001 and 2002 – a statisticallyunusual occurrence.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

107

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Figure 7.9 Comparative wind rose for 2001, 2002 and 2003 (March-November)
340
330
320
310
300
290

0

350

3000

10 20

2500
2000

Wind direction histogram(count of readings in each 10 degree bin)

30

40

1000

50
60
70

280

500

80

270

0

90

1500

260

100

250

110
120
130
140
150
160

240
230
220
210
200

190 180 170

March to November 2001
March to November 2002
March to November 2003

Such conditions imply dry, slow-moving and stable air that is particularly conduciveto the build-up of pollution episodes. Furthermore, such air usually originates overcontinental Europe, and thus already carries a substantial pollution load (particularlyozone and PM10) compared to, for example, northerly or westerly winds originatingover the Atlantic.

7.13 Fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2)
A by-product of the emissions calculations described above are estimates of change tofuel use and carbon dioxide, an important ‘greenhouse gas’. The relevant estimates are
given in Table 7.6, showing reductions in fuel consumed and greenhouse gases emitted –valuable contributions to the objectives of the Mayor’s Air Quality and Energy Strategies.
Table 7.6 Estimated percentage changes in fuel use and carbon dioxide
emissions, 24-hour annual average day 2002 to 2003
SectorTotal change in fuel use

Total change in CO2 emissions

Charging zone

-20

-19

Inner Ring Road

no change

no change

7.14 Noise
This section presents some indicative results from sample surveys of ambient noise
undertaken in and around the charging zone during late 2003. These can be comparedagainst equivalent surveys undertaken before charging during late 2002.
Projections of likely traffic changes arising from congestion charging suggested thatchanges, either positive or negative, in ambient noise in and around the charging zone
were unlikely to be significant. One-day measurements at the small sample of sites
described below would not be expected to provide a robust statistical indication ofnoise levels across the charging zone. Changes at any one site may, of course, be
affected by changes in sources of noise other than traffic, and changes between asurvey day in any one year and in the next may be affected by factors such asatmospheric conditions, for which it is not possible to fully adjust.
108

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Accidents, amenity and the environment
Table 7.7 updates a similar table in the First Annual Monitoring Report to include datafrom surveys undertaken in late 2003/4. Lden values for all three years have been
added, these incorporating differential weightings for evening and night-time noise, toreflect greater noise sensitivity at these times.
The changes shown are inconclusive. None of the observed differences would beconsidered to be statistically significant, or within the conscious perceptual range ofmost people under most circumstances. Certainly, there is no evidence from thesedata of detrimental change.
Table 7.7 Sample noise measurements dB(A)(1). Congestion charging monitoringsites, winter 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 compared
Site number

Index

2001/2

2002/3

2003/4

DifferencedB(A) 2003
vs. average
2001/2 and2002/3Site 5LAeq, 16 hour Day

73.0

74.4

73.8

+0.1

LAeq, 8 hour Night

71.1

72.9

71.1

-0.9

Site 6Site 7Site 16Site 19

Lden, normalised

80.4

82.0

81.1

-0.1

Lden, free-field

77.9

79.5

78.6

-0.1

LAeq, 16 hour Day

70.2

69.6

69.1

-0.8

LAeq, 8 hour Night

66.9

65.2

66.7

+0.7

Lden, normalised

76.3

74.9

75.9

+0.3

Lden, free-field

76.3

74.9

75.9

+0.3

LAeq, 16 hour Day

57.4

61.0

58.7

-0.5

LAeq, 8 hour Night

50.9

52.2

51.1

-0.5

Lden, normalised

65.1

67.4

65.9

-0.4

Lden, free-field

62.6

64.9

63.4

-0.4

LAeq, 16 hour Day

71.7

72.5

72.5

+0.4

LAeq, 8 hour Night

72.3

71.5

71.5

-0.4

Lden, normalised

79.1

79.2

79.2

0.0

Lden, free-field

79.1

79.2

78.8

-0.4

LAeq, 16 hour Day

62.6

63.4

62.2

-0.8

LAeq, 8 hour Night

57.6

59.1

57.2

-1.2

Lden, normalised

71.1

72.4

70.8

-1.0

Lden, free-field

68.6

69.9

68.3

-1.0

(1) The LAeq values quoted in Table 7.7 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)

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

109

Accidents, amenity and the environment

110

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Scheme operation and enforcement

8. Scheme operation and enforcement
8.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the operation and enforcement of thecongestion charging scheme through the first year of the scheme. The effectof the Supplemental Agreement with Capita is also examined.

8.2 Key findings• Congestion charging launched successfully under world-wide scrutiny and without
the operational or technology problems predicted by many commentators;• Chargepayer preferences for different payment methods were establishedwithin the first few weeks of operation and have shown only slow changes since.
Use of text messaging (SMS) is increasing at the expense of the retail and call centre
payment channels;• During the first few months of the scheme TfL became aware that the qualityof service provided by the main contractor was below the required standard.
The Supplemental Agreement with Capita defined an extensive programme of
improvements across IT, management, processes and staffing. Along with a tougher
quality performance management regime this has resulted in a significant increasein performance across a number of areas, particularly in relation to performanceof the call centre, the number and quality of penalty charges being issued and theend to end enforcement process;• The proportion of recoverable Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) has increased
substantially in line with requirements set out in the Supplemental Agreement;• Representations against PCNs have reduced as the accuracy of issued PCNs has
increased. Chargepayer and Capita errors in entering the correct vehicle, customer
and date of entry details have fallen and the effectiveness and quality of theenforcement process has increased;• Since June 2003 TfL has been increasingly pursuing outstanding debts andpersistent evaders. Several hundred vehicles have been immobilised or removed
and debt recovery is being pursued for all unpaid PCNs through bailiff action.

8.3 Service provision
Congestion charging launched on 17 February 2003 with no major operationalor technology difficulties. During the first few months of the scheme however,TfL became aware that the quality of service provided by the main contractor was
below the required standard. For example: callers were not always able to getthrough to the call centre in a reasonable period of time or were frequently receivinga message stating that the service was busy and to try again later; the number of
PCNs being issued did not fully reflect the number of vehicles for which no payment
had been received and there were deficiencies in the provision of evidence to appeals.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

111

Scheme operation and enforcement
A Supplemental Agreement was agreed with Capita in August 2003 which, alongwith an ongoing programme of continuous improvement, sought to address these
problems. A phased programme of IT, process, management, training and staffing
improvements were agreed. All three phases of the agreed measures were deliveredas planned in October 2003, January 2004, and March 2004.
The changes made as a result of the Supplemental Agreement have improved thequality of service provision and enforcement although it will not be until at least
summer of 2004 that the full effects will be experienced, given the lengthy enforcement
process. TfL will continue to monitor the standard of service provision and take steps
as required to ensure performance and quality remain at the necessary level.
Congestion charge payments
Charge payments average in the region of 550,000 payments per week.
Figure 8.1 Weekly congestion charge payments

Number of payments per week

600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000

Fleet (no data prior to 22 June 2003)
Resident
Non-Resident

23

/0
2
16 /03/0
306 /03/0
4
27 /03/0
4
18 /03/0
508 /03/0
6
29 /03/0
6
20 /03/0
7
10 /03/0
8
31 /03/0
8
21 /03/0
9
12 /03/1
0
02 /03/1
1
23 /03/1
1
14 /03/1
2
04 /03/0
1
25 /04/0
1
15 /04/0
207 / 0 4
/0
3/
04

0

In a typical week, payments comprise around 400,000 non-residential payments,
90,000 residential payments and 60,000 fleet payments.
Seasonal effects are clearly identifiable in Figure 8.1; no charges apply on
Public Holidays and the effects of these are also readily apparent.

112

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Scheme operation and enforcement
The split of payments across the various channels available has remained relatively
consistent at the levels seen once the initial few weeks of the scheme had passed.
The increasing usage of text messages at the expense of retail and call centre channels
is apparent, as is a slow resurgence in web-based payments after an initially highdemand for this service. This may reflect an increased level of performance throughthis channel. Postal payments remain negligible. Figure 8.2 shows the payment
channel breakdown for the first quarter of 2004.
Figure 8.2 Congestion charge payment channel breakdown quarter one 2004
IVR
6%

Email
>1%

Call Centre
13%

Retail
35%

Text
20%

Web
26%

Call centre
The call centre currently handles around 66,000 calls per week through customer
service representatives, of which approximately 65 percent relate to payments and35 percent to enquiries. Around 35,000 calls a week are handled automatically throughInteractive Voice Response (IVR).
Average call time remains close to three minutes as reported in the February update.
The number of call attempts where a customer is unable to get through to thecall centre has remained close to zero since January 2004. The average queue timeover the first quarter of 2004 is approximately 25 seconds.
Overall quality of service has been improved through more staff, better training andmonitoring, improved VRM and data checks and more effective complaint handlingand escalation delivered as part of the Supplemental Agreement.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004113

Scheme operation and enforcement
Registrations
The number of payment registrations to the end of February 2004 is shown below:
Table 8.1 Payment registrations
Automated fleet accounts
Notification fleet accounts
Text messaging (SMS)
Fast track (excluding SMS)

900
800
255,400
394,600 (includes certain discounts)

The total number of registered fleet vehicles has declined by around 3,000 vehicles
over the last few months and at the end of February stood at approximately 122,000.
Registered chargepayer transactions which include those by text messaging (SMS),
interactive voice response and those by call centre, web and post where a ‘customer
number’ has been provided, account for 40 percent of payment transactions.
Non registered transactions where no ‘customer number’ is used account for theremaining 60 percent.
Registration for discounts
Cumulative registration totals up to the week ending 7 March are as follows:
Table 8.2 Discount registrations
Blue Badge holders
Residents of the zone
Alternative fuel vehicles
Vehicles with 9+ seats
Other discounts

119,600
29,2005,900
11,5001,300

On a typical daily basis, the use of these discounts by vehicles in the congestion
charging zone is as follows:
Table 8.3 Typical daily discount usage
Residents of the zone
18,000Blue Badge holders
8,000
All other discounted vehicles
2,500
Exempt vehicles
7,300
Since most applications for discounts were made between December 2002 and
Go-Live, renewals of annual discounts have been staggered across a three-month
period in 2004 to ensure quality of service can be maintained. In addition, improved
fraud prevention and management has been built in for the future.

114

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Scheme operation and enforcement

8.4 Enforcement operations
There are no tollbooths or barriers around the congestion charging zone and nophysical tickets or licences. Instead, drivers or vehicle operators pay to register theirvehicle registration number on a database for journeys within the charging zone.
Receipts (or receipt numbers) are available through all payment channels as proofof charge payment.
Fixed and mobile cameras capture images of vehicles entering, driving within or leaving
the congestion charging zone, and the registration number plates are interpreted by
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) computer systems.
Once a registration number captured by the cameras has been matched, showingthat the appropriate charge for the vehicle has been paid or the vehicle is exempt or
100 percent discounted, the images of the vehicle and related details are automaticallydeleted from the database in line with data protection legislation. The day following
capture, all images of vehicles where no charge has been paid are manually checkedagainst the vehicle make and model details returned by the DVLA before any Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN) is issued.
Failure to pay the congestion charge results in a PCN of £80 being issued to theregistered keeper of the vehicle. This is reduced to £40 for prompt payment within
14 days. Failure to pay the penalty charge within 28 days results in a charge certificate
being issued and the penalty being increased to £120.
Enforcement improvements
Part of the Supplemental Agreement with the service provider, Capita, concerned an
extensive programme of phased improvements to the enforcement service, the final
element of which was completed on time at the end of March 2004.
Better enforcement processes, additional staff and system improvements were
designed to ensure that as many PCNs as possible are issued to those not paying
the charge. The enhancements were also designed to improve efficiency and quality
in the processing of representations and appeals and to improve compliance.
The revised performance regime of Quality Performance Indicators (QPIs) further
links payments and penalties to contractual performance with increased focus
on the quality of service provided.
Penalty charge payments
As shown in Figure 8.3, the number of PCNs issued per week has increased overthe course of the first twelve months of congestion charging, in line with therequirements of the Supplemental Agreement. In the first quarter of 2004,
around 35,000 PCNs have been issued each week.
The overall percentage of PCNs paid has improved in line with the delivery of
improvements from the Supplemental Agreement. Some 63 percent of all PCNs
issued have been paid; from a ‘low’ of around 35 percent payment of PCNs issued
in February and March 2003, to a current ‘high’ of around 70 percent payment in
September 2003.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

115

Scheme operation and enforcement
It should be noted that due to the ‘life cycle’ of a PCN there are various stages
at which a penalty can be paid before recovery action is required or instigated.
The recovery rate of penalties issued in the first two months of 2004 is currently(March 2004) running at 61 percent although it is expected that in future months thiswill match, if not exceed the 70 percent recovery rate reached in September 2003.
Figure 8.3 Weekly Penalty Charge Notices issued and paid
45,000PCN issued

40,000PCN paid

Number of PCNs

35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000

04
/0

3/

04
09

/0

2/

04
09

/0

1/

03
09

/1

2/

03
09

/1

1/

03
09

/1

0/

03
09

/0

9/

03
09

/0

8/

03
09

/0

7/

03
09

/0

6/

03
09

/0

5/

03
09

4/
/0
09

09

/0

3/

03

0

Current figures show that of the PCNs paid, around 88 percent are paid within the
discount period at £40. This would appear to indicate a high acceptance that thecontravention was committed. The average payment for all PCNs paid to date iscurrently around £47.40 but is closer to £50 for those issued in the first six monthsof operation.
Representations
Representations made against individual PCNs have been reducing month on monthsince the beginning of congestion charging, from an early level of more than 60 percent
of PCNs issued, to a recent level of around 20 percent. This is a direct result of
resolution of early registration, VRM, date and other processing errors by Capita;
increased familiarity of chargepayers with the system (especially payment of thecharge for the correct date of travel and vehicle registration); and improvementsin the visual checking process before PCN issue.

116

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

Scheme operation and enforcement
The majority of representations being received in the first quarter of 2004 are fromthose who have received PCNs but who have recently sold or purchased a vehicle
which has subsequently or previously incurred a congestion charging penalty. Such
representations are not uncommon with parking and bus lane enforcement and arenormally as a result of failure by the vendor of a vehicle to update DVLA with the
new keeper details in accordance with legal requirements. Assuming the new orprevious keeper details are available and the details are updated the representationis accepted and the penalty charge notice is re-issued.
Another major cause of representations is from vehicle hire companies. Legislation
provides for circumstances under which vehicle hire companies can transfer liability
for charges for vehicles hired on agreements under six months in length to theperson hiring the vehicle at the time of the charge. Proposed changes to the relevant
regulations are expected to allow the transfer of liability to lease companies whocurrently are unable to transfer liability in this way. If this were introduced it would
allow a further increase in the number of PCNs being reissued to transfer liability
to the lessee of the vehicle.
In the early months of operation the key reasons for representations were mainly
chargepayer and Capita errors in the processing of payment or discount registrations.
Representations made and accepted, where there has been an error by Capita with
the issue of a PCN, now account for less than 2 percent of all representations.
Work continues to further reduce these and chargepayer errors.
Appeals
Any vehicle keeper who has received a penalty and has had a representation rejectedby TfL has the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. To date, less than
20 percent of those who have had a representation rejected have taken up thisfacility. The total number of congestion charge related appeals registered with theParking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) at the end of February 2004 was 39,000,
amounting to about 2 percent of all PCNs issued.
To date, TfL has processed some 35,500 appeals received from PATAS. In the earlymonths many of these were not contested by TfL. However, over 8,000 appeals havenow been heard by the adjudicators, of which 57 percent have been found in favourof TfL. Increased staff, training, monitoring and performance management, together
with improvements to systems and representations processing are expected tocontinue to reduce the proportion of PCNs that reach appeal.

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

117

Scheme operation and enforcement
Debt collection
Where PCNs remain unpaid and where no successful representation or appeal is madethey become classed as outstanding. TfL then register the debt at County Court andpass the case to bailiffs for recovery action. This does not result in a County Court
Judgement against the debtor.
As at March 2004 approximately 67,000 warrants of execution had been issued tobailiffs since mid-June 2003. This represents some 26 percent of cases where a debt
has been registered with the County Court. So far around 8 percent of warrants issued
have resulted in payment. This figure is expected to increase over the rest of 2004.
Persistent evasion
Transport for London has powers to remove or immobilise vehicles of persistentevaders, defined as drivers who have failed to pay three or more outstanding PCNs,
with no representation or appeal pending. This is additional enforcement aimed at
improving compliance that functions in conjunction with the debt recovery processdescribed above.
In order to allow the scheme to settle down, TfL delayed exercising the full powers
to clamp and/or remove and impound vehicles for a number of months. However,between September 2003 and the February 2004, over 350 persistent evaders have
had their vehicle clamped or removed.

118

Impacts monitoring – Second Annual Report: April 2004

© Transport for London 2004
All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted for research, private study and internal circulation
within an organisation. Extracts may be reproduced provided the source is acknowledged.
Disclaimer
This publication is intended to provide accurate information. However, Transport for London
and the authors accept no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any
damage or loss arising from use of the information provided.