Has London's congestion charge worked? - BBC News BBC News Has London's congestion charge worked? By Claire Timms BBC News, London 15 February 2013 Close share panel Image caption The congestion charge has generated a net revenue of over £1bn since 2003 The biggest congestion charge scheme to launch in any city got off to a smooth start on the morning of 17 February 2003, much to the surprise of London's then mayor Ken Livingstone. A decade on he readily admits it was the only thing in his entire political career that "turned out better than I expected". Motorists travelling into central London on that Monday morning faced the new £5 daily charge, and by the afternoon 57,000 had paid it. The RAC reported there was not the anticipated early rush of drivers trying to get across the eight-square mile zone before 7am - the time the charge came in. 'Political cowardice' Mr Livingstone said: "What was amazing was nothing went wrong. "We'd expected we'd have quite a few bits of congestion on the periphery, but we couldn't find a single point where the traffic didn't flow.

"The only real problem we had were the buses were all running so ahead of schedule they had to wait at the bus stop for a couple minutes." At the time officials from 30 other British cities were reported to be considering introducing congestion charges if London's scheme was successful. Image caption No other British cities have adopted congestion schemes since London That never happened and, further afield, the only cities to adopt a similar scheme since are Milan and Stockholm. Mr Livingstone believes there are two reasons: political cowardice and "modern" cities built after the introduction of the car that do not need a congestion charge. He said: "If it wasn't for the Republicans, who control the New York State Assembly, Manhattan island would have one. Mayor Bloomberg really wants to do it but he can't get the votes. "In Manchester the politicians were so nervous they said: 'we'll have a referendum first'. "If I'd had a referendum first, with all the hysteria in the newspapers - I had two and a half years of newspapers saying it would be a disaster - you'd never have got it through. It was all doom and gloom.

"Political cowardice is always going to be a problem: people think they might lose votes if they do it - but very few cities actually need it." Mr Livingstone now sees pollution as London's biggest challenge. Low-emission zone "We've all woken up to the fact that in London over 4,000 people die prematurely every year because of the air quality - that's worse than 9/11," he said. "We're not just talking about a few elderly people dying a few months early. On average they're dying 11 years early. "We've got to tackle it - that's the low-emission zone and Boris [Johnson] should be pressing ahead very rapidly and tightening up on diesel vehicles." Although he scrapped the scheme's western extension zone when he succeeded Mr Livingstone in 2010, Mr Johnson has described the original scheme as a success which had benefited London. On Wednesday he announced his vision to see the world's first "Ultra Low Emission Zone", meaning by 2020 only zero or low-emission cars would be allowed into central London. Time will tell if the argument for what seems a radical change can be won.

And although the congestion charge - which was also seen as a radical step a decade ago - has won over many of the original doubters, there are still those who claim it has not been a success. Media captionTwo firms give their verdicts on how the congestion charge has helped or hindered them According to TfL figures, traffic levels over the past 10 years have gone down by 10.2% but journey times for drivers have remained flat since 2007. Barry Neil, whose east London-based company Ambient Computer Services travels into central London daily delivering computer equipment, claims this is evidence the congestion charge has failed. He said: "We said when it launched it wasn't going to make any difference and unfortunately it hasn't. "If it made it easier to drive through London, then great. But it doesn't. The jams are just as bad and it costs us £5,000 a year." However, Elliot Jacobs, managing director of office supplies firm UOE, disagrees. "Getting deliveries on time is really important and the congestion charge means we have a consistency of traffic flow and a reliability that we know where the traffic's going to be, and that's important.

"It means we can get there on time and that's worth £10 every day." BBC - London - Travel - Where has the money gone? You are in: London > Travel > Congestion Charge > Where has the money gone? The cost to you Where has the money gone? When the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 TFL estimated it would raise £130 million a year and lower sufficient fuel emissions to make London a more pleasant environment. The introduction of the congestion charge was met with mixed reactions. Almost four years on, and with the western extension in site, the debate as to its success to date continues. So how has all the money been spent? And do we really have a cleaner, greener London as a result? Jams According to a published report from Transport For London, congestion levels in the zone are on average 26% lower inside the zone than in 2002 before the scheme was introduced. The national environmental transport body, Transport 2000, claim that during charging hours 65,000 fewer car movements per day are being made into or through the zone.

Michele Dix, director of congestion charging, has said that, "the key of the congestion charge is to reduce levels of traffic coming into central London which is something we continue to see. The capital is the only major city in the world to achieve a shift from private car use to public transport, delivered through a combination of congestion charging and expansion of the bus service." Public Transport More London buses, faster moving traffic All the money raised from congestion charging, by law, must be re-invested back into London's transport system. Last year, TfL claims £122 million was raised. The plan to put most investment (an estimated £84 million a year) into London's bus services was intended to take pressure off the tube. Conservative councillor Phil Taylor challenge's TfL's assertion that congestion charging is generating substantial surpluses. He says: "TfL's own statement of accounts show that the cumulative surplus generated from the start of the scheme until the end of the last financial year was only £189.7 million. "This amount has barely covered the original scheme's set up costs of £161.7 million.

Pretty much all of the £677.4 million collected in the first three and a bit years of operation of the scheme has been spent on out of control set up and running costs." Transport 2000 have estimated 29,000 additional bus passengers are entering the zone on 560 extra bus services in the morning peak period. The increase in buses on the roads along with the cut of congestion has seen a positive effect on commuting by bus. TFL reports the excess waiting time for buses has been cut by 46% within the zone. As well as providing more buses, the new greener hybrid fuelled buses have been introduced. There are currently six single decker hybrid buses operating on the 360 route from Elephant and Castle to Kensington. The buses run on a combination of diesel and electricity, resulting in a 31% drop in carbon dioxide emissions, not to mention a two decibel drop in engine noise. Plans for a double decker hybrid fleet is also on the cards, with Mayor of London Ken Livingstone revealing the first bus of its kind in the World on 2 November 2006.

Green Issues The congestion charge has begun to focus on much more than congestion alone and environmental issues are high on the Mayor's agenda. The latest figures from TFL show that so far there has been a 13% reduction in Nitrogen Oxide and 15% reduction in Particulate Matter vehicle emissions within the zone. Carbon emissions have been reported as being cut by 16%. Transport 2000 have also reported that the congestion charge has led to an increase in alternative modes of greener transport, such as cycling, up by a third inside the zone. Some of the charge's policies, however, have come under fire for not prioritising environmental factors enough. Liberal Democrat London Assembly Transport Spokesperson, Geoff Pope, has labeled the "one size fits all congestion charge" as "outdated and flawed". The £8 charge for the majority of vehicles entering the zone has sparked initiatives from groups such as The Green Party for alternative pricing methods. These include a sliding scale charge depending on individual vehicle's size and emissions and how centrally travel takes place. For drivers of small vehicles, the Green Party suggest the charge could be cut by up to 75%.

Green Party member of the London Assembly and Deputy Mayor, Jenny Jones, accepts that, congestion charging on its own is not enough to curb London's congestion and environmental issues. A TFL consultation on the introduction of a low emission zone, which would charge greater tolls to drivers causing heaviest pollution, has now begun. As things are the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy already states his aim to accelerate the uptake of cleaner vehicles and TFL have proposed to raise a £25 million Climate Change fund for clean, green initiatives. Low emission buses are one of the first steps towards meeting these emission reduction targets. Find out more about the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy in the links in the right-hand column of this page. Safety Putting money into the buses themselves is not where the buck stops in improving the entire transport system for the public. The investment into safety has increased from £18 million, in 2000, to £42 million. As well as TFL's work with the police and London boroughs, the increase of new CCTV cameras has gone to assist continued safety on the streets.

Cameras, traffic calming and safety campaigns have led to an over all reduction of those killed or seriously injured by 40% in the last year alone and since the congestion charge was introduced TFL report that personal accidents have gone down between 40% and 70%. Deputy Mayor and safety ambassador Jenny Jones has said, "What London has successfully shown is that road safety works, especially when you increase the budget and you are very determined to do what is necessary to stop death and injury on our roads." Future Plans On 19 February 2007 the congestion charge extended west to cover Chelsea, Kensington and Bayswater. The extension has met with a degree of criticism. The FPB (Fighting For Private Business) reports that following a public consultation the substantial majority of respondents did not want the zone extended, but Mayor Livingstone considered the consultation "was not representative" and gave the extension the go-ahead. Fears for small businesses are high on the list of concerns. The FPB conducted a survey of 500 small to medium-sized firms in London in November last year and found that 58% had seen profits drop since the congestion charge was introduced.

Meanwhile, a third had thought of relocating, and two thirds reported a drop in footfall of clients and customers. Where larger businesses are concerned, however, the Commission for Integrated Transport suggests that most managers report differently. They point out that potential benefits flowing from improved transport speeds and reliability should reduce the cost of operating in Central London. This would counter balance to some degree the charge itself. Transport For London has reported no identifiable effect on businesses starting up or closing down within the zone compared to the rest of London. Find out all you need to know about the western extension. Western extension > It is hoped instead that the extension will benefit the new area by cutting congestion by 15 - 20%. TFL predict there will be 10 - 15% less traffic in the zone during charging times, resulting in journeys into the extended zone being sped up by an average of five minutes. Do you agree with TfL's findings? Has the congestion charge worked for you? Email us at yourlondon@bbc.co.uk last updated: 01/07/08SEE ALSO Central London Congestion Charging, England - Road Traffic Technology ANPR cameras can operate in low light using IR technology.

Central London Congestion Charging, England, United Kingdom The introduction of the Central London Congestion Charging scheme has always been controversial, since it was first introduced in February 2003 to discourage traffic congestion in the city centre and push people towards public transport. Several commentators have doubted its effectiveness but its keenest proponent, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, promoted it as a success, as he did in an article in The Guardian newspaper in February 2007 where he commented: "Each day in 2006 there were almost 70,000 fewer vehicles entering the charging zone compared to the number that had been entering each day before charging began. "The amount of traffic entering central London during charging hours has been cut by around 20%... It has contributed to the growth of cycling, with more people than ever before travelling by bike - there has been a 72% increase in the number of cyclists on the capital's major roads since 2000." How the congestion charge scheme worked at first The congestion charge was enforced within a definite road traffic boundary in the City of London.

When initially introduced in February 2003, motorists were charged £5 a day to drive through London between the hours of 7am and 6.30pm. The charge is enforced by a network of cameras situated at entry and exit points to the charging zone and at key locations within the zone itself. Cameras record images of traffic and send them to a central processor to have their number plates read and checked against the list of vehicles that have been paid for. Unless a pass had been purchased in advance or was bought before midnight on the day of travel, the vehicle's registered owner was forced to pay a fine. The charge could be paid via internet, a paypoint at a designated retail outlet, call centre or by mobile phone. A novel second chance for drivers who forgot to pay by midnight of the day they travel into London was the Pay Next Day scheme. The charge was increased to £10 but the driver has until midnight of the next day to call the Transport for London call centre to pay and avoid a penalty charge notice. Increased London congestion charges after initial introduction In February 2007 the congestion charge was increased to £8 a day and the hours were reduced by half an hour to 6pm.

The hours were reduced to stimulate the theatre, restaurant and bar trade in the city, which according to Ken Livingstone had not been affected by the earlier introduction of the congestion charge. In May 2006, in a live TV debate, Livingstone supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008. An increase in charges was calculated according to the carbon dioxide emissions of the vehicle, with four wheel drives (4X4s) and larger sports utility vehicles expected to pay £25 a day. In January 2011 the congestion charges were revised again. If one paid in advance or on the day of travel, then the charge was £10. If paid on the next day of travel, one would pay £12 and if one paid through the congestion charging auto-pay system then the charge was just £9. The discounts and exemptions remained unchanged. Exemptions to the charges There are several groups of users and vehicles which were exempt from the Central London Congestion Charging scheme. These included disabled drivers, licensed taxis, minicabs and public service vehicles, motorbikes, mopeds and scooters and emergency service vehicles.

Also, residents in the congestion charging zone paid only ten percent of the charge (£4 a week instead of £8 a day) and cars that are diverted into the zone are not be charged so long as they do not deviate from the diversion. In addition to this, 'green' cars using alternative fuels (gas, electric, fuel cells and bi/dual fuel vehicles) are exempt from the charge. When the congestion charge becomes based on emissions, owners of larger polluting vehicles living in London receive no discount and would have to pay the full £25 a day, while the list of vehicles with exemption because of low emissions was extended. Aims of the capital city's traffic scheme The congestion charging scheme aimed to reduce traffic in central London by ten to 15% and time spent in delays by 20-30%. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, 40,000 vehicles an hour entered the congestion charging zone between 7am and 10am; between 7am and 6.30pm, approximately 250,000 vehicles made 400,000 movements in the zone.

Accordingly the scheme has had a positive impact, as each day in 2006 there were almost 70,000 fewer vehicles entering the charging zone compared to the number which had been entering each day before charging began. The amount of traffic entering central London during charging hours was cut by around 20%. Congestion charging also raises £130-150m a year in revenue (an estimated one third of this in fines), which is used to improve public transport in London. Central London congestion charging zone The original congestion charging zone was enclosed within a boundary formed by the Inner Ring Road which consists of: Marylebone Road, Euston Road, Pentonville Road, City Road, Great Eastern Street, Commercial Street, Tower Bridge Road, New Kent Road, Kennington Lane, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane and Edgware Road. This gave the congestion charging zone an area of eight square miles (21 square kilometres) - 1.3% of the total area of Greater London. There were 203 entry and exit points to the charging zone.

Extension of the congestion charging zone "In 2008 TfL introduced its new London Low Emission Zone (LLEZ) for lorries entering London. The LLEZ was introduced to reduce the emissions from polluting diesel engines contributing to the poor air quality in the Greater London area." The western extension of the congestion charging zone was introduced on 19 February 2007, effectively doubling the original area, but it was withdrawn from the congestion zone from 4 January 2011. The boundary of the enlarged zone started at the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge and (travelling in a clockwise direction) headed along the northern bank of the River Thames as Grosvenor Road, the Chelsea Embankment and Cheyne Walk. From here, it headed north, along the eastern edges of the Kensington and Earl's Court one-way systems (classified as part of the A3220), encompassing Edith Grove, Redcliffe Gardens, Earl's Court Road, Pembroke Road, Warwick Gardens and part of the Addison Road, before continuing to the A40 Westway as the Holland Road and the West Cross Route.

The boundary then included parts of North Kensington, but the actual boundary was defined by the West London Line railway track, which runs between Latimer Road (inside the zone) and Wood Lane (outside the zone), until Scrubs Lane, before turning east, following the GWR line out of Paddington towards Ladbroke Grove. Here, the boundary followed the Grand Union Canal and rejoined the existing zone at Edgware Road after skirting Paddington, by way of the Bishop's Bridge Road, Eastbourne Terrace, Praed Street and Sussex Gardens. Transport for London (TfL) defined some free through routes, where drivers do not have to pay the charge. The main route was defined by the western boundary of the original zone Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane and Edgware Road, with some additions around Victoria. The Westway was the other exempt route. Extensions to the north, east and south of the city centre were also considered but were not taken forward since their traffic problems were not considered as severe as the west, and in the east and south, public transport provision is not yet considered to be good enough to support congestion charging. For the western extension significant increases in bus service capacity were introduced.

Effect of London's congestion charge zone extension Preliminary results of traffic surveys showed that two weeks after the expansion traffic in the extended part of the zone decreased by 13%, which was well within the Transport for London (TfL) predictions of a ten to 15% reduction. This represents approximately 33,000 fewer vehicles entering the expanded area of the zone. So far the predicted two percent increase in traffic in the original section of the charging zone has not come to pass. This was expected because with 78,000 households in the new part of the zone being eligible for a 90% discount on the daily charge it was thought some people would decide to drive instead of taking public transport. Presumably, parking charges in central London have acted as enough of a deterrent to using the car. X-wave CCTV cameras being used to enforce charges There are two types of analogue cameras within the central congestion charging zone: colour and monochrome. The former are used to give an image of the vehicle in the context of its surroundings while the latter are used solely to provide images for reading number plates.

Both cameras operate via a chip, a charged couple device (CCD) and X-wave technology which enables the cameras to see far better in limited light conditions. Initial Electronic Security Systems (IESS) supplied the cameras in a deal worth £8m over five years, which also covered installation and maintenance. There are 400 camera positions throughout the congestion charging zone, of which approx. 180 are on the inner ring road. Up to seven cameras are mounted at each position on eight metre poles to enable them to read number plates in bumper-to-bumper traffic. In addition to this, there are mobile patrols within the zone. TfL quotes a 90% success rate for accurately capturing each and every number plate, a figure that rises as the vehicle passes more camera positions. Professional support service provider, Capita, secured the contract with TfL until 2009 to implement and manage the scheme, worth £280m over this period. Capita are responsible for processing payments and fines and employ subcontractors including Mastek, based in Mumbai, India, who are responsible for much of the IT infrastructure.

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology and involvement of Colt and BT All images are then sent to the ANPR via a telecommunications system designed and supplied by Colt Telecommunications and BT RedCARE Vision. This system is based on dedicated DWDM (dense wave division multiplexing) technology which links the central data hub with each of the network cameras over analogue video circuits. By using this system, multiple wavelengths can be transmitted over a single optical fibre, allowing large amounts of data that are collected to be sent simultaneously to the image processing centre. ANPR creates a data block for each recognised number plate, showing the time and date that the images were taken. These are then checked against a database to verify payment or eligibility for discounts and exemptions. Around one million images are collected each day, and distilled down to around 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles for which there is no record of payment. These then go on for manual check and then around 5,500 penalty notices are issued every day.

New cameras for western extension of the congestion charge zone As part of the western extension enforcement infrastructure PIPS Technology was awarded a contract in August 2006 to supply ANPR cameras to Siemens, as part of an infrastructure installation contract awarded by TfL. The contract was worth more than $9m to PIPS for the proven Spike+ cameras. Spike+ is an integrated ANPR camera and processor combining a dual lens camera (colour and infrared) with a compact processor unit capable of operating 24 hours a day in almost any weather conditions. The system is fully web-enabled and has a variety of data communications options including wireless. The Siemens system uses digital technology, not analogue. Tag and Beacon technology: a cheaper alternative to ANPR A much cheaper alternative to ANPR is 'Tag and Beacon' technology. Tag and Beacon involves cars having an electronic tag on the windscreen, which emits radio signals when it passes a roadside beacon, automatically paying the congestion charge. From February to August 2006 TfL tested this on a small part of the congestion charge system. The six-month trial involved 500 buses, vans and council vehicles with tags.

It also required the installation of 19 gantries in South London between Southwark Bridge and Tower Bridge. The gantries contained the beacons which detect the tags and also cameras to catch those who failed to pay. Results indicated the technology worked well and TfL hoped to introduce it across central London in 2009, when it renewed the contract for running the congestion charge. Controversially the cost of running the ANPR system was thought to be many times more than that of a similar sized Tag and Beacon system. Gordon Taylor, Chairman of the West London Residents Association (WLRA) (who is highly critical of the congestion charge) commented that: "The cost of running the camera system (in London) is nearly 50 times that of the tag and beacon system in Singapore, which is dealing with more or less the same number of vehicles." The ANPR camera system was expected to be out of date by 2009 and would have wasted, according to several politicians such as Hammersmith and Fulham MP Greg Hands and London Assembly Conservative member Angie Bray, more than £166m of London tax payer money. Tag and Beacon's introduction required a complete reinstallation (wiring) of the system.

Another moot fact is the Tag and Beacon system would significantly cut the number of fines levied for non-payment, as payments are carried out automatically - the majority of fines are levied on those who forget to pay. This would mean a reduction in the revenue stream. Storing the data: PES and WORM drive A Permanent Evidence Store repository (PES), provided by TOWER Technology, holds the number plate images collected from vehicles that have driven inside the Central London Congestion Charging zone during charging hours. All images that match the information held on the database are discarded. For those who have not paid the charge, images are sent to the Worm drive (Write Once Read Many). Each image is encrypted and digitally signed at the first point of capture to prevent any modification to the original image. Images of number plates belonging to those who have not paid to register by midnight are then manually checked against DVLA databases for a penalty notice to be issued. The system stores vast amounts of data (up to several terabytes) comprised mainly of number plate images. Of course those who have paid the charge and not entered London for one reason or another are not reimbursed.

New contract for IBM and NCP Services In October 2007 TfL announced it was awarding a new contract for the management of the Congestion Charge and the new Low Emission Zone schemes to IBM in a consortium partnership with NCP Services. The contract with Capita expired in 2009, when the IBM consortium took over the project. IBM handles the technology and NCP Services takes care of the enforcement of charges. The contract is initially for five years with an option to extend for a further five years if amenable to both parties. IBM was the lowest bidder for the services and was also able to help TfL in the change over to a Tag and Beacon system (for automatic payments). London Low Emission Zone scheme (LLEZ) targeting lorries On 4 February 2008 TfL introduced its new London Low Emission Zone (LLEZ) for lorries entering London. The LLEZ was introduced to reduce the emissions from polluting diesel engines contributing to the poor air quality in the Greater London area. "The amount of traffic entering central London during charging hours was cut by around 20%.

Congestion charging also raises £130m-150m a year in revenue." The scheme meant that diesel lorries of more than 12t capacity face a daily charge of £200 if they do not meet strict emissions standards. The LLEZ is the largest in the world, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, covering an area of 1,577 square kilometres. The scheme, which has cost TfL around £49m, is implemented by cameras, which check number plates against the DVLA database. The DVLA database has full details of all vehicle emissions statuses and tells TfL which vehicles do not meet emission standards. This allows a fine of £1,000 to be levied to the vehicle's operator if they fail to pay the daily charge, although this is reduced to £500 if paid within two weeks. The daily charge has been set to be more than just an inconvenience, more as a powerful incentive to upgrade fleets to meet the standards. Foreign lorries already meeting standards have to be registered with TfL or will face an automatic fine. The scheme has been extended to cover buses, coaches, large vans and minibuses.

Emissions standards were also been made more stringent from 3 January 2012. The vehicles must meet Euro IV emission standards. Ken Livingstone, the former London Mayor, commented that thousands of Londoners suffer ill-health from pollution released by traffic fumes, which necessitated them to launch the London-wide Low Emission Zone. He added that it would improve Londoners' quality of life and clean up London's air, which is currently among the most polluted in Europe. He also added that the zone does not apply to cars or motorcycles, but instead targets the most polluting diesel-engined lorries, coaches and buses, with the positive effects of the zone being felt across the capital. The information campaign (press, posters, road shows) publicizing the LLEZ and its effects have been ongoing since June 2007. The scheme has also been publicised in Europe for the benefit of foreign operators. The LLEZ does not include the M25 where there are warning signs that can allow a lorry to plan a new route to avoid them. There are detailed maps available, setting out exactly where the zones start and finish. Share Congestion charge Congestion charge Congestion charge What is the congestion charge?

The congestion charge is a daily levy imposed on drivers choosing to drive within central London. It applies between 07:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. The congestion charge zone covers a large portion of central London. The boundaries of the congestion charge zone link points in central London such as Euston Road in the north, Commercial Street in the east, Vauxhall and Chelsea Embankment in the south and Harrow Road and Earls Court in the west. The scheme is monitored by cameras on roads across the congestion charge zone, which read car number plates and cross-references them against a register of cars that have paid the charge. Drivers can pay the charge in advance or on the day of travel, but if they forget they can pay up until midnight the following day, but will incur a £2 surcharge, taking the total charge to £12. There are several methods of payment, including telephone, text message, post, online or in a shop. Failure to pay risks a penalty charge notice of £120.

Groups exempt from paying the congestion charge and those eligible for discounts include people with disabilities, residents living within the congestion zone, emergency services and breakdown recovery vehicles, taxis, and drivers of alternative fuel vehicles. Background The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, introduced the congestion charge at £5 a day in February 2003 with the aim of reducing traffic congestion in and around the charging zone. It was increased to £8 a day from July 2005 and to £10 from January 2011. Among other aims, the congestion charge is meant to reduce the length of journeys within the congestion zone, improve bus services and encourage motorists to use public transport instead of their cars. The charge also attempts to collect net revenues to improve public transport facilities in London, as, by law, the proceeds raised by the congestion charge must be added to expenditure on public transport in London. Controversies The congestion charge has faced a barrage of criticism since its inception. Opponents have challenged its regressive nature, whereby poorer motorists are charged the same levy as richer car owners, and some have described the congestion charge as a 'tax on the poor'.

The decision to impose the levy on key workers, who are not exempt from the congestion charge, was similarly criticised. The impact of the congestion charge on businesses within the capital has been a major source of contention. Businesses affected by the charge have been vocal critics of the mayor's scheme, because of both the new costs imposed by the congestion charge and concerns that visitors to central London would be deterred by the daily charge. A study of 334 firms by the London Chamber of Commerce in November 2003 found 79 per cent of shops reported a fall in takings and 42 per cent said the congestion charge was to blame. By January 2005 the same survey found 84 per cent of shops reported a fall in takings, with 62 per cent attributing this to the charge. There was also controversy about the congestion charge operators, Capita RAS. In October 2003, the firm was fined £1 million for its poor performance dealing with both drivers and equipment. The company was given an extra £31 million by the mayor of London in June 2003 to help administer the charge.

The mayor later admitted that he came close to sacking Capita soon after the charge was introduced because of its customer service failings. But the congestion charge was welcomed by environmentalists as a way of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging people to use public transport, and town planners across the UK have begun looking into the scheme as a way of cutting congestion. However, the decision to extend the congestion charge zone to the west from February 19th 2007 reignited the debate in London. A Transport for London consultation found 70 per cent of the public and 80 per cent of businesses in the capital were against the extension, which is bounded by Harrow Road, the West Cross Route, the inner southbound arm of the Earls Court one way system and Chelsea embankment. There were particular concerns about the impact it would have on small shops in west London. To appease his critics, Mr Livingstone announced that, from February 2007, the congestion charge across London would end at 18:00, rather than 18:30, and motorists would be able to pay the following day, for a surcharge of £2. The charge would also be suspended between Christmas and the New Year.

A number of embassies in London refuse to pay the congestion charge as they believe they are exempt under the Vienna Convention, which grants ambassadorial staff immunity from local taxes. Ken Livingstone also proposed raising the central congestion zone charge for the most polluting vehicles to £25 and this highly controversial charge was due to take effect from October 27th 2008. Defending the move the mayor said: "There will be losers but overall we will all gain." However, the scheme was dropped by Mr Livingstone's successor, Boris Johnson, who was elected Mayor in May 2008. The congestion charge scheme received a further boost at the beginning of 2008 when researchers from King's College, London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine suggested there could be unexpected health benefits from the reduction of exposure to nitrogen dioxide. According to the researchers: "The results showed that there was little change in pollutant levels in London as a whole. But there were more substantial falls in the charging zone.

Levels of NO2 fell the most." The report added: "Policies affecting a larger geographical area and residential population, and which directly aim to reduce vehicle emissions, are likely to have larger public health impacts." Following his election as Mayor, Boris Johnson published a new Transport Strategy which included proposals relating to the congestion charge, including the removal, subject to consultation, of the controversial western extension to the charging zone. Subsequently consultations were undertaken by Transport for London on: Removal of the western extension of the congestion charging zone. Introduction of automated payment account system, provisionally entitled CC Auto Pay. Increase of the daily charge to £9 for CC Auto Pay customers. Increase of the daily charge to £10 for customers who do not take up CC Auto Pay and continue to pay through existing payment channels. Removal of the £1 fleet discount so that fleet operators will pay the same per vehicle as customers using CC Auto Pay. The consultations closed on 2nd August 2010 and the changes took effect from 4 January 2011. Statistics The Western Extension was removed from the charging zone on 4 January 2011.

The daily Congestion Charge rose on 4 January to: £10 if paid in advance or on the day of travel £12 if paid by midnight the charging day after travel £9 if registered for Congestion Charging Auto Pay Residents registered for the 90 per cent discount: If registered for CC Auto Pay 90p daily charge If paying by other methods: £5 weekly (5 consecutive charging days) £20 monthly (20 consecutive charging days) £252 annual (252 consecutive charging days) Fleet operators: The minimum number of vehicles a fleet can register for Fleet Auto Pay has been reduced from 10 to six. If registered for Fleet Auto Pay: £9 daily charge If paying by other methods: £10 daily charge Greener Vehicle 100 per cent Discount: The GVD will allow a 100 per cent discount from the Congestion Charge for cars that emit 100g/km or less of CO2 and that meet the Euro 5 standard for air quality. Owners must register for the discount and pay an annual £10 fee per vehicle.

Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 100 per cent discount: Plug in electric hybrid vehicles are now eligible for the electric vehicle 100 per cent discount. Owners must register for the discount and pay an annual £10 fee per vehicle. 9+ seat 100 per cent discount In order to receive the 100 per cent discount, owners of vehicles with nine or more seats must now make an annual £10 payment per vehicle. Source: Transport for London - 2012 Quotes "The amount in unpaid Congestion Charges and Penalty Charge Notices owed by embassies is now so large that it could pay for more than 260 new buses on London’s streets, or fund the significant expansion of the cycle hire scheme, or alternatively reduce fare rises. "It is disgraceful that £50 million is now being denied to Londoners by embassies that dodge paying the Congestion Charge.

The small minority of embassies that think it is acceptable to evade paying the Congestion Charge are insulting each and every Londoner." Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group - 2011 April 2013 Changes made the scheme in 2013 followed a 12-week consultation of Londoners, and businesses and key stakeholders. These changes included: The introduction of a new Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED) to replace the Greener Vehicle Discount (GVD) and Electric Vehicle Discount (EVD) Removing the option to pay the charge in shops and petrol stations Increasing the penalty charge from £120 to £130 The Ultra Low Emission Discount The ULED was introduced on 1 July 2013 and provides a single 100% discount on the Congestion Charge for all electric vehicles and for ultra low emission cars and vans. To qualify for the new ULED, vehicles will have to be either electric or be cars and vans that emit 75g/km or less of CO2 and meet the Euro 5 emission standard for air quality.

Plug-in hybrid cars and vans have additional electric range and top speed criteria and TfL will publish a list of eligible vehicles. Eligible vehicles Qualifying criteria Pure electric vehicles Electric cars, vans, lorries or quadricycles that run solely on batteries. Eligible vehicles will have the fuel type recorded as 'electric' on the V5C car registration document issued by the DVLA or be exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty because they are electrically propelled vehicles. Ultra low emission cars Passenger cars that emit less than 75g/km of CO2, as recorded on the V5C car registration document, and meet the Euro 5 emissions standard. Ultra low emission vans Vans (light goods vehicles not exceeding 3.5 tonnes) that emit 75g/km or less of CO2 and meet the Euro 5 emissions standard. The ULED replaced the GVD and EVD. The GVD closed because the increasing number of cars qualifying for the discount eroded the congestion and emissions benefits of the Congestion Charge scheme. Vehicles registered for the EVD were automatically transferred to the ULED on 1 July 2013.

The GVD closed to new discount registrations with Transport for London on 28 June 2013. Cars registered for the GVD did not meet the tighter CO2 criteria for the ULED. However, in recognition that drivers invested in low emission cars, the owners of cars registered for the GVD before the introduction of the ULED continue to receive a full discount for that vehicle for a further three years until 24 June 2016. This 'sunset period' for the GVD was extended from the original two year period in response to comments received in the consultation. The ULED incentivises use of the cleanest vehicles available. Currently only electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles meet the ULED criteria but in the future any hybrid, petrol, diesel or hydrogen car or van that became available that emitted 75g/km or less of CO2 would qualify. Read more about the ULED in our page on discounts and exemptions . Paying the charge at shops and petrol stations The option to pay the Congestion Charge in shops and petrol stations was removed from 26 July 2013 as a result of fewer people paying using this method. Drivers are no longer able to pay cash for the Congestion Charge.

Just 6% of payments of the Congestion Charge were made in shops or petrol stations as the vast majority of customers pay through the automatic payment method, Congestion Charge Auto Pay . Congestion Charge Auto Pay account holders pay £10.50 per day (rather than £11.50) and are protected from receiving Penalty Charge Notices. Drivers will still be able to pay the Congestion Charge using a wide range of other means including online, by phone, by text message or by Auto Pay. Drivers can also pay the charge in advance by post using cheque or postal order. Removing the retail payment channel reduces the cost of operating the Congestion Charge scheme. Any increase in our net revenue as a result of the change continues to be reinvested in improvements to transport in London. Penalty charge increase The penalty charge for the Congestion Charge increased from £120 to £130 on 20 May 2013 (reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days and increased to £195 if not paid within 28 days).

This is only the third increase in the penalty charge since the Congestion Charge was introduced in 2003 and brings the penalty charge in line with other moving traffic, bus lane and parking penalty charges within London. Change to the scheme London congestion charge | AA London congestion charge What it means for you When the scheme operates, who's affected and how to pay Transport for London (TfL) impose a charge per weekday on most vehicles, being used in Central London. You pay for the charge for the day and can drive within the charging zone as often as you want within the day. How does it work? If your journey takes you into the charging zone you can either pay in advance, pay before midnight that day, or, for a small surcharge, pay before midnight the following charging day. Latest From 16 June 2014, the daily Congestion Charge will go up from £10 to £11.50 (or £10.50 if paid using CC Auto Pay or £14 if paid the next charging day). A network of cameras reads vehicle number plates as you enter, drive around and leave the zone.

Once the car number plate has been matched against the database of those who have paid the charge or who do not have to pay as their vehicle is exempt or registered for a 100% discount, the photographic images of the vehicle are automatically wiped off the database. Any vehicle recorded as having been in the zone during charging hours but where no daily charge has been paid by midnight the following charging day must pay a penalty charge. Scheme started: 17 February 2003 Zone operates: 7am to 6:00pm weekdays excluding bank and public holidays Pay by phone: 0343 222 2222 What does it cost? The daily charge is £10 if you pay in advance or on the day, but increases to £12 if payment is made by midnight on the following charging day. You can reduce the daily charge to £9 by registering with Congestion Charging Auto Pay - up to five vehicles can be registered. Fleets with six or more vehicles can save by applying for Congestion Charging Fleet Auto Pay .

Online - up to 90 days in advance, on the day or by midnight the next day SMS - register an account online first Auto Pay - register a credit or debit card for automated payment and save every day Phone - 0343 222 2222, in advance, on the day or up to midnight the next day Post - in advance, at least 10 days before travel Note: you can pay on the following charging day by telephone and online only Who pays? Those responsible for cars, vans and lorries using the zone. There are some exemptions and discounts for example, disabled people who have a blue badge and motorcycles. Some of those eligible for discounts and exemptions must pre-register even though they pay nothing. Discounts for greener vehicles Cars that emit 75g/km or less CO2 and that meet the Euro 5 exhaust emissions standard will qualify for the 100 per cent Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED) introduced on 1 July 2013. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) will qualify alongside pure electric vehicles for the Ultra Low Emission Discount. Vehicles must be registered and an annual fee is payable.

Have the cameras recorded your plate? If you've driven into the Congestion Charging zone there's no way to find out if your vehicle's number plate was recorded or not, other than wait to see if you get a letter/fine through the post. What if you get a penalty? If you don't pay the Congestion Charge within the time limit (before midnight the following charging day) you will receive a penalty charge notice of £130, reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days. Congestion charging penalties are civil matters and are in effect debts. If you consider yourself not guilty or a mistake has been made: Write immediately to the address given on your penalty, quoting the penalty charge number. Explain in detail why you shouldn't pay. If your explanation is not accepted you can appeal to an independent adjudicator. Urban road charging schemes London isn't the only European city operating a wide-area road charging scheme. Similar schemes are in place in towns and cities in Malta, Norway and Sweden with more likely to follow in the future. Some urban road charging schemes apply to foreign registered vehicles while others do not.

Bergen - applies to all vehicles Durham - applies to all vehicles Gothenburg - only applies to vehicles registered in Sweden London - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles Milan - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles. Minimum emissions standards apply too. Norway - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles Oslo - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles Stockholm - only applies to vehicles registered in Sweden Trondheim - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles Valletta - applies to all vehicles including foreign-registered vehicles Read the latest information on operating hours, entry conditions and methods of payment. Changes announced in April 2013 Following a three month consultation which closed on 8 February 2013, the Mayor of London confirmed the following changes to the Congestion Charge scheme. Ultra Low Emission Discount A new Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED) replaces the Greener Vehicle and Electric Vehicle discounts. The ULED was introduced on 1 July 2013 and provides a single 100 per cent discount for electric vehicles and ultra low emission cars and vans.

Qualifying vehicles will have to be pure electric vehicles, or cars/vans emitting 75g/km or less of CO2 and meeting the Euro 5 emission standard. Vehicles registered for the Electric Vehicle Discount were automatically transferred to the new ULED on 1 July 2013. Vehicles previously registered for the Greener Vehicle Discount will not meet the criteria for the new ULED but will continue to receive a full discount for a ‘sunset period’ of three years, ending on 24 June 2016. Penalty Charge The penalty charge increased from £120 to £130 on 20 May 2013, bringing it in line with other moving traffic, bus lane and parking penalty charges within London. Payment Options The option to pay the Congestion Charge in shops was withdrawn on 26 July 2013. Changes announced in May 2014 Following a 10 week consulation which closed in March 2014 the following changes to the London congestion charging scheme were confirmed on 28 May 2014.

With effect from 16 June 2014, the daily Congestion Charge will be increased from £10 to £11.50 (or £10.50 if paid using CC Auto Pay or £14 if paid the next charging day). Further changes will be introduced in late 2015, when Capita takes over Congestion Charge services, including: TCC Auto Pay users will be able to pay by Direct Debit (currently only credit or debit cards can be used) Customers eligible for discounts, including blue badge holders, will be able to apply for these online Everyone eligible under the NHS Reimbursement Scheme will be able to be reimbursed whether they pay by CC Auto Pay or other methods Customers who have paid the Congestion Charge in advance, but can no longer travel on the pre-paid date, will be able to amend the date for a small administration fee of £2.50. (29 May 2014) Road Pricing: 10 years of London's congestion charge - a success or disappointment? News and commentary about road pricing across the globe. Tolls, congestion charging, distance based charging, road user charging. Public policy, economics, technology and more.

If Google brought you here, look down the right sidebar for references. Sunday, 17 February 2013 10 years of London's congestion charge - a success or disappointment? I, along with thousands of other policy, economics, consultancy and transport planning professionals watched the news from London closely today 10 years ago. That was because, although Singapore had pioneered fully electronic congestion pricing five years beforehand, this was London. Singapore's stunning success was seen, perhaps a little unfairly by some, as reflecting more a culture of obedience towards officialdom, and a democracy that has been unafraid of being authoritarian when it was thought of as being in the national interest. So London was seen as the acid test. If that old-world major city could introduce a congestion charge, it would mean it would be possible for others. What happened, of course, is now well known. It worked. It cost a lot of money, it reduced the numbers of charged vehicles entering the charged zone by around 20%, and raised a little money. It's become a political non-issue, with there being little dispute that retention of the charge makes sense.

Since then it was extended to the west for four years, and that extension was abolished , because of local opposition (including genuine concern about effects on businesses in more suburban areas). The price has doubled in nominal terms, but the system has evolved from being entirely declaration based (all users having to pay, in advance, whether or not they drove in the charging area during charging times) to offering a detection based account (whereby for an annual charge, you get an account billed automatically for driving within the charging zone). The system costs have dropped significantly, partly due to technology (a shift from using live video to digitised images, and improved accuracy of ANPR) and partly due to a change in contractor (as the initial contractor Capita understandably charged a lot to ensure that the system would be working in a tight time frame). However, after ten years some key questions should be asked. Has the congestion charge reduced congestion, sustainably? Has the congestion charge made a lot of money for Transport for London? Has the congestion charge positively or negatively affected business in London? Did the success of London make it easier for other cities to introduce congestion charging? What next? Has the congestion charge done the job that was intended?

Critics of the congestion charge say that while it had an initial impact, congestion today is about the same as it was in 2003. I wrote about the success of the charge in August 2012 , and made the wider point that London has developed around a dense network of rail and underground public transport corridors, so has not had the challenges of many other cities. By 2007 there was a 18% reduction in charged vehicle trips (12% reduction in total vehicle trips given buses and taxis). However TfL admits that this congestion reduction has been significantly reversed by "road space reallocation to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and the urban realm". In other words, lanes were surrendered for buses and bikes, footpaths widened at intersections, reducing road capacity. The charge was used to reduce demand, and enable the network to be altered to promote modal shift. Whether this has further supported reducing congestion through modeshift or exacerbated conditions for those with little choice (e.g. freight) is debatable.

Bear in mind that only 30% of vehicles in central London are even liable for the full charge, as you can remove buses, taxis, disabled people, residents (with a 90% discount) and "environmentally friendly" vehicles. Bear in mind also that the modeshare for car trips into central London in the AM peak was only 9.8% in 2002 and was 6.6% in 2007. In other words, the affected number of vehicles is remarkably small. The most important mode for commuting into central London is rail (not underground) with 44.1% mode share in 2007 (a rise of 42.2% in 2002). The latest report on "Travel in London" states that car driver trips in London dropped by 13% between 2001 and 2011, whilst the population increased by 13%, and total trips increased by 13%.

By contrast, the number of cycling trips increased 66.6%, bus by 59.7% and rail (not underground) by 41.9% (and car passenger trips by 3.9% suggesting an increase in vehicle occupancy). That parallels a significant increase in cycle lanes and promotion for cycling, a major increase in bus subsidies after 2000 (recently reduced by a third). In other words, total trips increased, while car driver trips decreased. London has achieved a significant modal shift in the past decade. Indeed, when looking across all of London it looks the same, as the mode share for cars have dropped (as main mode in a trip) from 46% to 38% from 2002-2011. Public transport grew from 29% to 36%. Bus trips increased 54% between 2001 and 2011, attributable in part due to massive increased in bus services, but also new concessions for free travel by those under 16 and those over 60 (so that as much as one third of bus trips are "free"). Yet how much of this can be attributed to the congestion charge?

A clue may be seen in looking at the figures more closely. By 2011, the overall vehicle kms in central London (wider than the charging zone) was 21.1% lower than in 2000, whereas in outer London the figure had dropped by 8.4%, yet TfL admits that the reduction in outer London largely occurred from 2007, suggesting the impacts of both higher fuel prices and the recession are significant. The congestion charge impacts on the central zone are clear, but had much less impact on the traffic levels in greater London overall. It is also notable by comparing UK wide kms driven to London, that UK wide road traffic declined between 2007 and 2011 by around 3%, whereas in greater London it was nearly 7%. (13% in central zone). It seems to suggest that there was already a trend of reducing traffic, and a trend of modeshift, that the charge supported and increased, but which in itself did not contribute much outside the area that was serviced by the charge. So the congestion charge has supported reductions in overall road traffic and increases in use of other modes, yet the evidence on congestion per se is far less clear.

The figure I choose to use to compare this is average traffic speeds, as this will reflect both the charge effects (and other impacts) on demand, and the changes in road capacity. Note in the figure below, offpeak means the interpeak weekday period, during which the congestion charge operates. London traffic speeds since congestion charge introduction The central zone saw speeds increase immediately after the charge was introduced, but speeds are now lower than they were before the charge was introduced. Given overall traffic figures are down, it suggests that road capacity has been reduced significantly, although much of that has been temporary, as much work has been undertaken on London's Victorian water and drainage network, and more recently on the vast tunnelling project Crossrail - which will see a quantum increase in east-west public transport capacity. Another factor is the price of parking, which is hard to average, but has meant a reduction in on street parking (coinciding with reallocation of roadspace for pedestrians and cycles) and local authorities increasing parking charges, both of which have simply made it more inconvenient to drive. Speeds outside the central zone have been more stable, in part because there have been far smaller losses of highway capacity due to reallocation of road space and less roadworks.

It is notable that speed increased after 2007 in the inner and outer areas, but central London speeds decreased, indicating that the recession and higher fuel prices were not enough to offset reductions in network capacity in central London during this time. Bear in mind the real price of the charge has increased 60% since 2003. This suggests that the elasticity of demand for the remaining users is low, probably because those who can afford to park in central London during weekdays and who do not tolerate public transport despite its intensity of service, are relatively wealthy (except freight users who simply absorb it as a cost of doing business). The abolition of the Western extension has had little effect on congestion in that area . Traffic speeds have dropped by about 3%, indicating that the charge was effective in reducing traffic, but not by much. Air quality impact conclusions are mixed. One report in 2008 said the impacts were negligible. 25% of the benefits would have occurred anyway as the vehicle fleet got cleaner, according to one study , which noted a 16% reduction in overall emissions.

The Londonist notes the Mayor's recent talk of an ultra low emission zone in central London from 2020, effectively making the congestion charging zone banned to cars that are not electric or plug-in hybrids. On emissions the overall impact is very small, and dwarfed by the larger trend towards less overall road traffic, but even more dwarfed by changes in the vehicle fleet. On its own it hasn't had much effect on air quality, but more of an effect on CO2 emissions. So my conclusion is two-fold. Yes, the congestion charge reduced congestion in central London, but this congestion reduction has been overriden by the removal of road capacity, both permanently and temporarily, meaning that congestion is no better than it was before in central London. Of course had the road capacity been removed without the charge, the situation would now be worse. The charge, combined with the improvements to other modes, has helped reduce overall car trips in greater London. However, the impact outside central London has been small. Far more significant has been the recession and increases in fuel prices (which was, until 2010, supported by annual above inflation increases in fuel taxes).

So for motorists, paying the congestion charge (particularly the freight sector), they would be right to claim that they don't get much for what they pay for, as service standards are no better today than they were before, and because 90% of the net revenues earned have not been spent on road improvements. Yet, more broadly it is fair to say that the charge contributed towards a broader shift in mode in London. However, I'd argue that this would not have happened without large improvements in public transport, and promotion of cycling, and a London transport policy to support this. It's worth noting that bus fares in London are amongst the lowest in the UK (with single flat fares regardless of journey length). More interesting will be to see what the result of changes in policy since 2008 will mean, particularly as Mayor Boris Johnson has been changing priorities towards improving traffic management (through more intelligent traffic signals), modest investments in upgrading intersections and focusing more on cycling and less on buses. The other dimension is that it has barely been two years since the Western extension of the congestion charge was closed. It is too soon to fully assess the impacts of this. Has the congestion charge made a lot of money for London?

The media has reported £1.2 billion of revenue since it was introduced (with gross revenue of £2.6 billion). This suggests costs of 54% of revenue. The 2012 annual report noted £226.7 million in gross revenue from the congestion charge, with £81.2 million in "toll facilities and traffic management" costs and another £8.7 million in "administration, support services and depreciation", leaving net revenues of £136.8 million. A cost factor of around 40%. This suggests that had London wanted a new source of revenue, this wasn't an efficient way of delivering it. Certainly costs were significantly reduced from when it was introduced, but it suggests there is a long way to go. Bear in mind also that the nominal charge has increased from an average £5 to £9.50 (given half of current users pay £9 and the others £10). Yet, the "costs" line in the accounts suggests that more than the mere costs of running the scheme are included, given "traffic management" is included. Total gross revenues of the congestion charge are small, representing only slightly more than 5% of total revenues for Transport for London.

So talk about it being about money would seem to be misleading, but there would appear to be some scope to get costs down further. Has the congestion charge been positive or negative for business? The last full impact assessment of the congestion charge was published in 2008, and it indicated that there was a neutral impact. Businesses that are transport dependent saw a small cost increase, offset by small improvements in travel times, but with such a small proportion of car commuters being by car it is not surprising. There was a bigger impact with the Western extension, because some small retail premises in west London had a catchment of customers from outside the charging area, which could choose alternative shops. However, with that zone gone, the net effect on business is now largely seen as neutral. It has had little effect on businesses, in terms of impacts on commuters. It has had little effect on retail, as most retail trips are undertaken using public transport. It has had a deadweight impact on freight, as it costs lorries and delivery vans to drive into central London, but the £10 cost is low. Perhaps the most disappointing factor is the lack of improvement of congestion overall, which would mean a more positive result.

However, given the overall increase of trips in London, albeit not by car, it is fair to say that business, overall has barely noticed the presence of the charge. Did the success of London make it easier for other cities to introduce a congestion charge? Yes, but not by much. Multiple UK cities looked at a charge, but only Edinburgh and Manchester went as far as developing complete projects, and foolishly asked the public what they thought. In both cases, the public by enormous margins said "No". Quite simply, voters didn't think London's example was applicable. In part because neither city has public transport networks or service frequencies remotely akin to London, in part because car commuting is far more important in those cities than in London, and finally because they didn't trust politicians to spend the net revenues wisely. Outside London, Stockholm has been a notable success. London no doubt helped pave the way. Yet, no other major European city has followed. Talk of congestion charges for Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Dublin, Budapest and Helsinki, have all come to nothing so far. Italian and German cities have introduced inner city access controls for environmental reasons. The two major cities that have introduced types of congestion charge schemes similar to London are Dubai and Tehran .

Across the Atlantic, New York was inspired , but the State legislature thwarted the desires of the City. In China, it is being considered Of course had London been a disaster technically or in terms of results, it would have put back congestion pricing by some years. So no doubt London's success has been helpful, but hardly decisive. A step forward, but London's rather unique geography and intensive rail based public transport network has meant few cities have seen it as being their parallel. The obvious other city with some parallels - Paris - has barely even entertained the idea. What next? I wrote before that the congestion charge has gone from being a decisive issue in the 2000 and 2004 Mayoral elections to being an issue of the Western extension alone in 2008, and in 2012 no issue at all . Yet there is little immediate likelihood of any major changes. Recent proposals have focused on reducing operating costs and reducing the scope of the environmental discount. Parallel to the congestion charge has been the London wide Low Emission Zone for commercial vehicles, which has been largely uncontroversial.

The Western extension reduced traffic in the zone that it covered, but was politically unacceptable and the way it was introduced meant that it increased traffic in the central zone (as residents of the Western zone got the 90% residents' discount for trips into the central zone) and particularly affected some small businesses (because it applied from 7am-6pm rather than just the peaks when congestion was at its worst in the zone). In short, it was too blunt. So congestion charging in London will have to be far more clever. For me, there are two main options. One is to divide London into zones, like Italian cities, and charge for crossing between the zones, but only at peak times. Yet this will create an inevitable problem, as London does not have natural boundaries that easily divide the suburbs, meaning a lot of uncongested roads would be charged, and whilst it would charge more by distance, it would mean some very short trips would cost a lot. The decisions as to where to draw such lines would inevitably mean winners and losers.

The further you go out of inner London, the more likely it is that this will seem unfair, because whilst London's public transport is great for radial trips, and a few orbital trips (i.e if your origin and destination happens to match stations on the Overground), the car is dominant for outer London to outer London trips. The other option is the rosetta stone of congestion charge - distance, time and place based charging. Given that London is covered in narrow streets that are frequently used by taxis and drivers in the know "rat-running" to avoid jams or simply to find direct routes in the absence of decent major highways, it would make sense to charge by distance. It obviously makes sense to target congested roads at congested times. However, there are several big issues: 1. The need for most vehicles to be equipped to charge by distance, place and time. 2. The need to have a secondary system for out of town vehicles to pay, which means having an expensive flat access charge. 3. The sheer costs and logistics of implementation. 4. What to do with the money?

The Green Party has proposed a similar idea, but apparently wants to price cars off the road punitively and spend all of the net revenue on more public transport subsidies. An alternative approach would be to price roads at levels to optimise throughput (which makes it cheap at off peak times) and use the money to offset other taxes, or on road improvements. However, that is all besides the point. The politics in London for expanding the congestion charge are, in my view, negative. Such a large expansion would be perceived by many as being punitive and intrusive, and without it offering a sufficiently good deal in say reducing council tax or serious improvements in roads, it simply couldn't be sold. Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of London First (a business lobby group aiming to improve London's competitiveness) in City AM has suggested the sort of transformation I envisage. If the congestion charge was expanded, Singapore like (but using GPS based technologies) it could seriously address congestion, but the revenue raised could be spent in ways that improve traffic flow by making more traffic signals dynamic and responsive to traffic conditions, by upgrading intersections and (this is serious money) being bold about new road tunnels to bypass bottlenecks.

Talk of new road capacity, in the context of road pricing may seem counterintuitive, but it is what much of the Stockholm congestion tax revenue is being spent on, and the congestion charge can ensure new capacity is sustainable and can support the movement of freight and buses where rail based options simply aren't viable. There may be discussions about going further in about ten years, but not in the near future. London's congestion charge will evolve a little in the near future, but is unlikely to expand. Conclusions London's congestion charge was a bold step forward and then Mayor Ken Livingstone deserves credit for the initiative. It delivered a reduction in traffic, although he chose to reallocate the freed up capacity away from those paying the charge to other modes. So the effect has been that congestion is now really no better than it was before it was introduced, despite a 60% increase in price in real terms. It works, it costs a lot of money to run, and raises a little money, but it has not resolved London's congestion problems, and is only widely accepted because it affects so few road users. Most London car trips don't go near the charging zone during charging periods. Most trips to central London during charging periods are not by car.

It is an achievement for it to be so widely accepted, but the Western Extension was a mistake, as it was bluntly introduced in a way that did not target congestion. If it is to have a future beyond the current geography of operation, it will have to be radically different, it will need to target congestion by time and place, and at least some of the money collected recycled into reductions in other taxes or noticeable improvements to roads. Charles Komanoff on Streetsblog has a great article about the charge. He makes a key point about costs, which he attributes to technology and the number of charging points. The latter is also a function of the former, as it is an area charge, so there are charging points at many points within the charging zone as well as on the boundary. The former had been considered and ruled out in London, although I think there could be merits in using DSRC technology for exempt/discounted vehicles. However, while I share his positive outlook about the charge, I think that the key policy purpose - congestion relief- has been negatively effected by reallocating road space - so that, unfortunately, those who pay it don't really notice that congestion is improved, because, quite simply, it isn't. A success?

Yes, but also a disappointment. It will take much more than this small charging zone to make a major change to traffic congestion in London. The good news is that the increase in public transport and cycling network capacities are such, that any further steps to modestly improve road capacity are likely to have more success in reducing congestion, rather than inducing mode shift back. A more radical expansion on a grand scale could transform London, but the politics of doing so make this unlikely for some years. Perhaps the only way it could be done would be if it involved a countervailing reduction in other taxes (council tax, vehicle excise duty or fuel duty), and that money raised was directed more substantially towards improving roads (and also importantly, privacy concerns are appropriately addressed). It's not the technology stopping this, but the political will and the technocratic expertise to structure a radical reform of the governance and pricing of roads in London. Maybe peak charging on the Blackwall Tunnel, helping to pay for the new Silvertown Tunnel , will be the toe in the water for such a change. Postscript Finally some simple mistakes people make about the congestion charge: 1. London was not the first city in the UK to introduce a congestion charge.

That was Durham (although that system is a tiny historic central city area). 2. London's congestion charge is not just a cordon charge, but an area charge. A vehicle already within the charging area will be liable if it drive within it, not just crossing the boundary. 3. Most London residents have never used the congestion charge. Only 60% of London households have private cars, and only 7% of commuter trips into central London are by car drivers and passengers. Oh and if TfL (and Westminster Council) wonder where congestion charge money can be spent to improve conditions for pedestrians and to stop motorists frustratingly near missing them, how about Great Cumberland Place having a signalled pedestrian crossing? This busy intersection sees pedestrians unable to ever cross this street in one go without having to give way to traffic on green traffic lights coming either out of the street itself or turning into it. It is metres away from the Marble Arch underground station. It is utterly atrocious that pedestrians in this area should have to dodge traffic to make this simple crossing across a side street. Great Cumberland Place, where pedestrians (green) have no signal or formal crossing against traffic signals that alternate between giving traffic turning into or from the street priority. Posted by

Question: In what year were congestion charges introduced into London?
Answer: 2003