London congestion charge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ephebi (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 11 January 2008 (→‎Future proposals: Blackwall tunnel charging). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Old-street-rdabt-large.jpg
At Old Street, street markings and a sign (inset) with the white-on-red C alert drivers to the charge.

The London congestion charge is a fee for some motorists travelling within those parts of London designated as the Congestion Charge Zone. Its aims are to discourage the use of private cars, to reduce congestion, and to raise funds for investment in public transport. The zone came into operation in parts of Central London on 17 February 2003 and it was extended into parts of West London on 19 February 2007. Although not the first scheme of its kind in the United Kingdom, it was the largest when it was introduced, and it remains one of the largest in the world. Worldwide, several cities have referenced the London scheme when considering their own possible schemes. A payment of £8 is required for each day a chargeable vehicle enters or travels within the zone between 7 am and 6 pm; a fine is imposed for non-payment.

The organisation responsible for the charge is Transport for London (TfL); Capita Group operates the scheme under contract. The system is run on a generally automatic basis using CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition.

The congestion charge has been controversial, with reported effects not only on traffic levels but on business activity and the local environment. The revenue raised from the charge has not matched the amounts predicted. The subject of political debate, the charge has been an issue during London mayoral elections.

Operation

Payment and exemptions

Closed-circuit cameras and vans police the zone, capturing live video. Vans can be identified by a sticker on the back door (inset).

The congestion charge came into force on 17 February 2003.[1] Initially set at £5, then raised on 4 July 2005 to £8,[2] the daily charge must be paid by the registered keeper of a vehicle that is on a public road in the Congestion Charge Zone between 7 am and 6 pm[3] (previously 6.30 pm), Monday to Friday,[4] excluding public holidays in England and a period over Christmas.[5] Drivers may pay the charge on the World Wide Web, by SMS text message, in shops equipped with a PayPoint, or by phone.[6] The charge may be paid the day after at an increased cost of £10.

Some vehicles such as buses, minibuses (over a certain size), taxis, ambulances, fire engines and police vehicles, motorcycles, very small three-wheelers, alternative fuel vehicles and bicycles are exempt from the charge, although some of the exemptions are 100% discounts that still require registration.[7][8] In the case of hybrid vehicles, the registration fee of £10 exceeds the congestion charge for one day.[9] Residents of the zone are eligible for a 90% discount if they pay the charge for a week or more at once, although there are administration charges – presently a minimum of £10 – for claiming the discount.[10] Some residents who live close to the West London extension are also entitled to the resident's discount.[11][12][13]

TfL can and does suspend the congestion charge either in a small local area to cope with incidents and if directed so by a police officer.[14] The congestion charge was suspended on 7 July and 8 July 2005, in response to the terrorist attacks on London Transport.[15]

While private drivers are obliged to pay the charge either the day before, on the day or on the following day, whether they are seen to enter the zone or not, the same does not apply to fleets of business vehicles. A business can register a group of cars with TfL, and is charged £7 per visit for all vehicles in the fleet detected by the cameras. In May 2005, businessman Miguel Camacho set up fivepounds.co.uk, whose sole function was to sign up private drivers to their "fleet", thus offering the convenience of not having to pay the charge pro-actively, avoiding fines in the case of a forgotten journey and also potentially getting a "free journey" if undetected by the cameras. TfL, which obtains nearly half of its net revenue from fines, moved quickly to quash the loophole, by demanding that fleet operators provide V5 log books for each vehicle in their fleet. Fivepounds went out of business on 26 February 2006.[16]

Penalties and avoidance

Failure to pay results in a fine of £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days, but increased to £150 if unpaid after 28 days.[17] Although avoidance has become more sophisticated, compliance with the scheme and terms of payment has improved over the last few years, as is evidenced by the income from penalties dropping by approximately a quarter between 2005 and 2007. However, even after charges were increased, enforcement charges still make up a significant proportion of the net revenues.[18][19] Several newspapers have reported that copied number plates are being used to avoid the congestion charge, resulting in vehicle owners receiving penalty notices for failure to pay when their vehicles have not been inside the zone. TfL has stated it is keeping a database of these numbers and that they will trigger an alert.[20][21][22]

In 2007, TfL was informed by the website Clean Green Cars that owners of luxury cars were registering their vehicles as minicabs in order to use the exemption for these vehicles. TfL responded that it carried out regular checks to confirm that cars were being used for the purposes they were registered for. It is not known how many vehicles have been registered in this way.[23]

Drivers of foreign-registered vehicles are not exempt from the charge but the current lack of an international legal framework for the assessment and collection of traffic fines makes enforcement and recovery difficult. In 2005, The Guardian obtained documentation under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which showed that out of 65,534 tickets issued to non UK registered vehicles, only 1,993 had been collected.[24] In 2005, it was revealed that several London embassies were not paying the charge as they considered it to be a tax, which they are protected from paying under the Vienna Convention.[25] Although some embassies agree to pay the charge,[26] the US embassy currently owes £1.6 million (approximately $3 million) in fines for non-payment. US embassies do pay tolls in Oslo and Singapore. TfL argues that the charge is a toll, not a tax.[27]

Operations and technology

Whilst TfL is responsible for the scheme, the operation is sub-contracted to an outside company. From the scheme's inception, Capita Group has been responsible for its day-to-day operation under a five-year contract worth around £230m.[28] Having been threatened with the termination of the contract by Livingstone for poor performance, when the zone was subsequently extended, Capita was awarded an extension to the original contract up until February 2009 to cover the expanded zone.[29] Capita has employed sub-contractors including Mastek, based in Mumbai, India, who are responsible for much of the Information Technology infrastructure. Due to the wide spread around the globe of sub-contractors and because some data protection regulations vary from country to country, the scheme has prompted concerns about privacy from technology specialists.[30] Transport for London have announced that from 2009 IBM will operate the charge, along with the low emission zone under contract.[31]

The scheme makes use of CCTV cameras to record vehicles entering and exiting the zone. Cameras can record number plates with a 90% accuracy rate through automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology.[32][33] There are also a number of mobile camera units which may be deployed anywhere in the zone. The majority of vehicles within the zone are captured on camera. The cameras take two still pictures in colour and black and white and use infrared technology to identify the number plates. These identified numbers are checked against the list of payees overnight by computer. In those cases when a number plate has not been recognised then they are checked by humans.[32] Those that have paid but have not been seen in the central zone are not refunded, and those that have not paid and are seen are fined. The registered owner of such a vehicle is looked up in a database provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), based in Swansea.[34] The cameras can be fooled by tail gating or switching lanes at the correct time.[32]

Coverage

Original

Until 18 February 2007 the congestion charge applied to drivers within the highlighted area.

The original boundary of the zone was largely the London Inner Ring Road. Starting at the northernmost point and moving clockwise, the major roads defining the boundary are Pentonville Road, City Road, Old Street, Commercial Street, Mansell Street, Tower Bridge Road, New Kent Road, Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Park Lane, Edgware Road, Marylebone Road and Euston Road (other roads fill the small gaps between these roads). The zone therefore includes the whole of the City of London, the financial district, and the West End, London's primary commercial and entertainment centre.[35] There are also 136,000 residents living within the zone (of a total population of around 7,000,000 in Greater London), though the zone is primarily thought of (and zoned) as commercial rather than residential. There is little heavy industry within the zone. Signs have been erected and symbols painted on the road to help drivers recognise the congestion charge area.[36]

Current area

The boundary of the enlarged zone, as of 19 February 2007, starts at the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge and (travelling in a clockwise direction) heads along the northern bank of the River Thames as Grosvenor Road, the Chelsea Embankment and Cheyne Walk. From there, it heads north, along the eastern edges of the Kensington and Earl's Court one-way systems, part of the A3220, with the roads in between charged, before continuing to the A40 Westway as the Holland Road and the West Cross Route.

The boundary then includes parts of North Kensington, but the actual boundary is 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 Great Western Main Line out of Paddington towards Ladbroke Grove. Here, the boundary follows the Grand Union Canal and rejoins the existing zone at Edgware Road after skirting Paddington, by way of the Bishop's Bridge Road, Eastbourne Terrace, Praed Street and Sussex Gardens.[37]

TfL has defined some free through routes, where drivers do not have to pay the charge. The main route is 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 is the other exempt route.[38]

History

Signs indicate the boundary of the congestion charge area.

Historically, private toll roads, funded by turnpike trusts, were common from the late 1600s until the Local Government Act 1888 passed ownership and responsibility to county and county borough councils.[39] As a result the use of roads in the United Kingdom is generally free of charge, subject to the payment of the road fund licence.[40] However, there are specific sections of public roads that remained tolled, which are mainly bridges and tunnels as well as the M6 toll motorway.[41] Of the many previously existing toll roads in London[42] there remains one, College Road in Dulwich, which is privately owned by Dulwich College but accessible by the public.[43]

Road tolls have been advocated by many others in the past, such as the 18th century economist Adam Smith, as a way of directly funding the construction and maintenance of routes.[44] The government's Smeed Report of 1964 was the first full assessment of the practicality of road pricing in a British city on the basis of congestion.[45][46][47] It recommended a method of "car user restraint" by a variable system of charging for road usage - if the government had the will to do so. During the early years of the Greater London Council the first plans were drawn up for a system of cordon charging or supplementary licensing for use in the central area. A formal study was undertaken into the merits of the scheme, and in 1973 concluded that it would improve traffic and environmental conditions in the centre.[48] However, the newly elected Labour council rejected the study's findings in favour of greater investment in public transport. In 1995, the London Congestion Research Programme concluded that the city's economy would benefit from a congestion charge scheme,[49] and the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 required local authorities to study and reduce traffic volumes.[50]

The power to introduce "Road user charging" was given to any future mayor in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.[51] Having won the first mayoral election in 2000, Ken Livingstone opted to exercise these powers as promised in his independent manifesto,[52][53] and carried out a series of consultations with interested parties with the basic scheme agreed in February 2002. Around this time, England's first congestion charge was introduced in Durham and was restricted to a single road in that city.[54] The London congestion charge commenced operation on 17 February 2003. In July 2002, Westminster Council launched a legal challenge against the plans, arguing that they would increase pollution and were a breach of human rights of residents on the boundary of the zone.[55] The High Court rejected the claim.[56] On introduction, the scheme was the largest ever undertaken by a capital city.[57]

After the introduction of the charge, there were a number of suggestions for its future. Soon after charging commenced, Livingstone announced that he would carry out a formal review of the charge's success or failure six months after its introduction – brought forward from one year, following the smooth start. On 25 February 2003 Livingstone stated, "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary" referring to the amount that drivers have to pay, indicating that £5 was sufficient to bring about the reduction in traffic that he had hoped for.[58] By November 2004, Livingstone directly contradicted his earlier stance and said in an interview with BBC London, "I have always said that during this term [his second term in office] it will go up to at least £6."[59] By the end of the month, Livingstone changed his position again, saying in an announcement that, in fact, the rise would be to £8 for private vehicles and £7 for commercial traffic. Business groups such as London First said following the announcement that the charges were "totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable".[60][61] The rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets.[62][2] On 10 May 2006, in a live TV debate, Livingstone supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008.[63]

Western extension

In February 2004, TfL issued a consultation document[64] on the expansion of the zone to the west that would cover the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The extension covered around 230,000 residents, compared with the 150,000 in the original zone.[65]

Park Lane is one of the new free through routes.

In August 2004, following Livingstone's re-election in the June 2004 mayoral election, the results of the consultation were published. A substantial majority of respondents did not want the extension,[66] however Livingstone said he was going ahead and that the consultation was a charade.[67] Protests continued against the extension,[68] with residents arguing that only 5% of the road space in the selected area was congested.[69] Following on in May 2005 TfL a further consultation began with specific proposals about the extensions. These included a plan to reduce the operating hours of the charge by half-an-hour to "boost trade at London's theatres, restaurants and cinemas".[70][71] At the end of September 2005, London Mayor Ken Livingstone confirmed the western expansion of the congestion charge, to come into effect on 19 February 2007 despite the majority of residents opposing it in the two consultations.[72][73] It was expected that the extension would increase congestion in the zone by around 5% as the 60,000 residents in the new zone will be entitled to the discounts available.[74] Several roads were also to be left charge-free between the original zone and the extension.[11]

Since the introduction of the western extension, TfL has made a number of bus route changes to take advantage of the presumed higher traffic speeds and the greater demand for public transport. One new route (route 452) has been introduced and three others (routes 31, 46 and 430) have been extended. In addition, the frequency of buses on other routes through the zone extension has been increased.[75]

Effects

The effects of the congestion charge have been controversial with effects on the environment, traffic levels, congestion and business activity matters for debate.

Traffic and public transport

Before the charge's introduction, there were fears of a very chaotic few days as the charge bedded down. Indeed Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London and key proponent of the charge, himself predicted a "difficult few days"[1] and a "bloody day".[76]

Immediate effects

The first two days saw a significant reduction in traffic inside the congestion charging zone. On the first day 190,000 vehicles moved into or within the zone during charging hours, a decrease of around 25% on normal traffic levels. Excluding 45,000 exempt vehicles, the decrease was more than 30%. Anecdotal evidence suggests journey times were decreased by as much as half on those days. Just over 100,000 motorists paid the charge personally, 15–20,000 were fleet vehicles paying under fleet arrangements, and it was believed around 10,000 liable motorists did not pay the due charge.[77] An extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 20,000) were introduced on the same day.[78] Bus and London Underground managers reported that buses and tubes were little, if at all, busier than normal.[76] Initially it was suggested that the reduction in traffic was caused by the half-term school holidays, but this proved not to be the case. Reports indicated that, over the first month or so of operation, traffic was consistently down at least 15% on pre-charge levels, with the first week seeing a decrease of 20%.[79] Critics suggested that this was because of changes to the timing of traffic lights and the end of major road works.[80]

On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year, representing a drop in non-exempt vehicles of 30%. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, and the remainder to car-sharing, reduced number of journeys, more traveling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 15%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report said that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the drop in retail sales.[81][82] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested.[81]

By comparison, an experimental short-term congestion charge in Stockholm saw an average 25% reduction in traffic numbers.[83]

Longer term effects

Traffic congestion on the A4 part of the extended zone.

A year before the congestion zone, TfL set up automatic traffic counters and augmented them with regular classified traffic counts at key locations, in order to monitor long term trends.[19] Their results are reviewed and reported annually.

A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%. This improvement had decreased to 22% in 2006, and during 2006 congestion levels had increased so that the improvement, compared to the year before the scheme, was just 7%. TfL explained this as a result of changes to road priorities within the zone, delays caused by new pedestrian and road user safety schemes, and, most particularly, a doubling of road works in the latter half of 2006.[84] (Utilities were encouraged to complete planned road works in the year proceeding the congestion charge, so it would appear that the first year of measurement used for later comparisons would also have been affected by streetworks to some extent.[85][86])

TfL's report in June 2007 found that the level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was now consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002.[19]

Breaking down that figure showed the number of chargeable vehicles entering the zone had reduced by 30% (primarily cars and minicabs, although vans and lorries had decreased by 13%), while there were overall increases in the numbers of taxis, buses, and especially bicycles. The daily profile of traffic flows had changed, with less traffic after 9.30 am and a peak immediately before and after the end of the charging period. The level of traffic entering the zone during the morning peak had not reduced as much as at other times.[19] They had noted a small but pervasive longterm trend of less traffic entering the zone, expected to be a result of people changing their location and lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the charge. Once within the charging zone car and delivery traffic remained unchanged, suggesting that the journeys made by residents and businesses within the zone were broadly unaffected. Changes to the road network over the years has made direct comparisons difficult, but TfL suspect that certain routes used heavily by taxis and buses within the zone have seen substantially increased traffic. On some of the boundary roads traffic numbers had increased slightly but congestion and delays were largely unchanged from 2002 levels. Year on year, counts of inbound traffic approaching the zone had also seen a distinct and significant 5–7% decline in the number of chargeable vehicles, which was unexplained.[19]

TfL have extrapolated the trends in road speed in the congestion zone; they have suggested that speeds would have dropped from 17 km/h in 2003 to 11.5 km/h by 2006, had the scheme not been put in place. (However, Smeed's law would suggest this is pessimistic, as traffic levels would have leveled out at around 15 km/h, of its own accord.)

Following the introduction of the Western Extension, TfL stated that traffic had fallen around 10 to 15% in the extended zone.[87] The original zone is showing a 4% increase in congestion following expansion of the congestion charge and the introduction of extended to discounts to residents of the new zone and buffer zone.[86] TfL assessed the increase in charges in 2005 to have had only a slight impact overall.[19]

TfL have estimated that the charge appeared to have a small impact on the number of road traffic accidents – but this was much less than the national and London trend towards fewer accidents. There were 2,598 personal injury road traffic accidents inside the zone in the year before the scheme. This fell by about 200 each year to 1,629 in 2005. TfL's statisticians have extrapolated an estimate that between 40 and 70 injuries have been avoided annually because of the charging zone, with most of the rest attributed to the changes that altered and slowed down the road network "in favour of the people-moving capacity of the network."[88]

TfL expects that many of these road safety interventions would have occurred irrespective of the introduction of congestion charging. Cars and motorcycles have seen the biggest reduction in accidents, whereas bicyclists have seen a slight increase, which perhaps reflects their increased numbers. For comparison, the inner ring road also saw a substantial drop as accidents fell from 961 to 632, which was slightly less than the average for Greater London.[19]

However, road traffic accidents are only one part of the calculation. TfL previously suggested that 1,400 accident injuries would be prevented every year if there was a 20mph limit across Greater London along with more traffic calming measures. The London Fire Brigade and London Ambulance Service (LAS) had both expressed concern about the fast movement of their vehicles. In 2003 the chairman of LAS, Sigurd Reinton, claimed that up to 800 victims of cardiac arrest die each year across Greater London for every minute of delay caused, noting that "For every life saved through traffic calming, more are lost because of ambulance delays".[89] Although it was suggested that the scheme should improve the speed of vehicles in the centre, the LAS anticipated increased volumes of traffic around the edge of the zone and an increase in demand within the zone, that might both adversely affect clinical outcomes.[90] However, since then, survival rates for LAS' witnessed cardiac arrests have tripled across Greater London. LAS attributes these improvements to equipment availability and operational processes, such as the deployment of four-wheeled and two-wheeled rapid response units that can weave through congestion more quickly.[91] This, and TfL's increase in the number central London traffic calming measures, would suggest that other much more significant factors have masked any congestion charge-related changes in outcome, either up or down. In addition, like some other essential services, LAS felt it necessary to divert about £¼M from their budget to pay congestion charge allowances for key staff affected by the charges during their journey to work.[92]

Usage of the London Underground has increased by 1% above pre-charge levels, having fallen substantially in 2003/2004, whilst bus patronage in the Central London area (not the same at the Congestion Charge Zone) had stabilised at 116,000 journeys per day after increasing from under 90,000 pre-charge. No change in National Rail patronage had been noted as a result of the introduction of the central zone charge.[19]

A further report published by TfL in October 2004 stated that only seven of the 13 government aims for London transport would be met by 2010. The target on reducing congestion for Greater London overall will not be met, the report said.[93]

Business

Reports have shops and businesses being heavily impacted by the cost of the charge, both in terms of lost sales and increased delivery costs as recognised by the London Chamber of Commerce.[94]

The City of London, the world's pre-eminent financial centre is covered by the congestion charge.

In August 2003, the John Lewis Partnership announced that in the first six months of the charge's operation, sales at their Oxford Street store fell by 7.3% whilst sales at other stores in the Greater London area but outside the Congestion Charge Zone rose by 1.7%.[95] To partly compensate for the loss of revenue they extended opening hours and introduced regular Sunday opening for the first time.[96]

However London First's own report indicated that business was broadly supportive.[97] Subsequently another report stated that there had been a reduction in some employment in the charging zone.[98] TfL criticised the reports as unrepresentative and that its own statistics reported no effect on business.[98]

A report in May 2005 stated that the number of shoppers had declined by 7% year-on-year in March, 8% in April and 11% in the first two weeks of May. TfL countered that an economic downturn, the SARS outbreak and threat of terrorism were likely factors. At the same time a London Chamber of Commerce report indicated that 25% of businesses were planning on relocation following the charges introduction.[99] However an independent report six months after the charge was implemented suggested that businesses were then supporting the charge. London First commissioned the study which reported that 49% of businesses felt the scheme was working and only 16% that it was failing.[100] The Fourth Annual Review by TfL in 2004 indicated that business activity within the charge zone had been higher in both productivity and profitability and that the charge had a "broadly neutral impact" on the London wide economy.[88] The Fifth Annual Review continued to show the central congestion zone outperforming the wider London economy.[19]

It had been estimated that due to the West London extension in February 2007, 6,000 people would eventually lose their jobs.[101] In May 2007, a survey of 150 local businesses stated they had seen an average drop in business of 25% following the introduction of the charge, which was disputed by TfL which stated that there had been "no overall effect" on business and that it had outperformed the rest of the UK in the central zone during 2006.[87]

Environment

Since the congestion charge TfL has reported falling levels of some emissions within the original congestion charge area and along the Inner Ring Road boundary zone. Levels of two greenhouse gases fell, nitrous oxide (N2O), by 13.4% between 2002 & 2003, and carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as particulates (PM10).[88] In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, N2O emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%.[19]

Charging zone Inner Ring Road
N2O PM10 CO2 N2O PM10 CO2
Overall traffic emissions change 2003 versus 2002 -13.4 -15.5 -16.4 -6.9 -6.8 -5.4
Overall traffic emissions change 2004 versus 2003 -5.2 -6.9 -0.9 -5.6 -6.3 -0.8
Source: Transport for London 2003–2004 figures are TfL estimates.

National trends had already shown a rapid decline of some other emissions during the late 1990s, notably carbon monoxide, and levels have been relatively stable since 2002 across London. Since 2002 the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) produced by diesel exhaust has become a serious problem, with the London Air Quality Network of King's College London reporting that the annual mean NO2 objective (of 40 μgm-3 or 21 ppb) was exceeded at all kerbside and roadside monitoring sites across central and greater London during 12 months between 2005 and 2006. Although no areas within the Congestion Charge Zone reported NO2 levels above an upper limit of 200 μgm-3 (105 ppb), some monitoring areas near the zone boundary experienced very long periods at such levels, notably the A23 near Brixton (3741 hours) and the Marylebone Road (849 hours).[102]

Income and costs

Long queues of buses, many funded by the revenue from the scheme, are now a common sight

The 2006–7 accounts show that revenues from the congestion charge were £252.4m over the financial year, representing 8.5% of TfL's annual revenues. More than half of this was spent on the cost of running the toll system, at £130.1 million. Once other charges were deducted, the congestion charge brought in a net income of £89.1m for TfL.[103] (This income compares with TfL's total revenue from bus and tube fares of £2,269.4m, or 76.6% of revenue before costs, or grants from central government of £2,390.3 million.)

By law, all surpluses raised must be reinvested into London's transport infrastructure; at the start of the scheme it was anticipated that this would be around £200 million.[104][53] According to a report issued in February 2007, the initial costs of setting up the scheme were £161.7 million,[104] with an annual operating cost of about £115m anticipated.[105] Total revenues over the first three and a half years had been £677.4 million, with the surplus over operating costs being £189.7 million.[104]

The June 2005 increase in charges by 60% only resulted in a relatively small rise in revenues, as there were fewer penalty payments. The anticipated start up costs of the Western extension were £125 million with operating costs of £33m; expected gross revenues were expected to be £80 million resulting in net revenues of £50 million.[106]

Since 2005 TfL has published the income and expenditure for operating the congestion charge:

Revenues (£m) provisional
2004/5[18] 2005/6[88] 2006/7[19]
Standard daily vehicle charges (currently £8) 98 121 125
Fleet vehicle daily charges (currently £7) 17 19 27
Resident vehicles (currently £4 per week) 2 2 6
Enforcement income 72 65 55
Other income 2
Total revenues 190 210 213
Total operation and administration costs (92) (88) (90)
Net revenues 97 122 123

Provisional TfL figures, rounded to the nearest £1m, apparently using a different basis from the audited TfL accounts summarised above

Expenditure (%)
2004/5[18] 2006/7[19]
Bus network improvements (incl. vehicles, garages & shelters) 80% 82%
Road safety (incl. research & campaigns) 11% 4%
"Safer routes to schools" initiative 2%
Walking & cycling programmes & publicity 6% 2.5%
Distribution and freight (incl. review of a London lorry ban) 1%
Road and bridge maintenance & upgrades 11%

Although Parliament has limited the amount that authorities can borrow, for some time it had been speculated that the regular income obtained from the congestion charge and other revenues could be used to securitise a bond issue that finances other transport projects across London.[107] TfL issued their first bond for £200 million in 2005, to be repaid at 5% interest over 30 years. TfL plans to borrow £3.1 billion more to fund a 5-year transport programme across London, including works on London Underground and road safety schemes.[108]

The revenues from the congestion charge have not reached the expected levels. Within six months of the start of the scheme, the reduction in traffic had been such that TfL were predicting a £65 million revenue shortfall.[109]

Reaction

The congestion charge has been heavily criticised by some opponents. They argue that the public transport network has insufficient spare capacity to cater for travellers deterred from using their cars in the area by the charge. Further, it is said the scheme affects poorer sections of society more than the rich, as the charge to enter the zone is a flat £8 for all, regardless of vehicle size.[110] The charge has proved controversial in the outer areas of London, where it has encouraged commuters who previously drove into central London to instead park at suburban railway or underground stations. This has been accompanied by the introduction of extra on-street parking restrictions and controlled parking zones in these areas, at the expense of local residents.[111]

Political

Steven Norris, the Conservative Party candidate for mayor in 2004, has been a fierce critic of the charge, branding it the 'Kengestion' charge, and pledged to scrap it if he became mayor in June 2004. He had also pledged that, if elected, he would grant an amnesty to anyone with an outstanding fine for non-payment of the charge on 11 June 2004. In an interview with London's Evening Standard newspaper on 5 February 2004, Conservative leader Michael Howard backed his candidate's view by saying "[the charge] has undoubtedly had a damaging effect on business in London."[112] Liberal Democrat candidate, Simon Hughes, however, supported the basic principles of the scheme. Amongst some of the changes he proposed were changing the end time from 6:30 pm to 5 pm and automatically giving all vehicles five free days each year so as not to affect occasional visitors.[113]

In 2005, the Liberal Democrats claimed that Capita had been fined £4.5 million for missing the targets set for the congestion charge, that was equivalent to £7,400 for every day that the charge had existed.[114] The London Assembly Budget Committee 2003 report on the company criticised the contract with Capita as not providing value for money.[115] It was reported in July 2003 that TfL agreed to subsidise Capita by paying it £31 million because it was making no profits from the project, and that the most critical problem was the 103,000 outstanding penalty notices not paid.[116] Capita was also the company that won the 'Most Invasive Company' award in the Privacy International 2003 Big Brother Awards.[117]

Congestion charge CCTV cameras on Vauxhall Bridge Road

Outside London

The first congestion charge in the UK is a much smaller £2 charge which has been running in Durham since 2002,[118] however the London scheme was the first large-scale implementation.[119] Following implementation, the Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-wing think tank, called for similar schemes to be established across the country.[120] However, in November 2003, Secretary of State for Transport Alistair Darling said that despite apparent initial interest from many city councils, including those of Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol, no city apart from Edinburgh had yet approached the Government for assistance in introducing a charge.[121] Edinburgh City Council proposed a congestion zone, but this was rejected in a postal referendum by around 75% of voters in Edinburgh.[122] Unlike in London, where Ken Livingstone had sufficient devolved powers to introduce the charge on his own authority, other cities would require the confirmation of the Secretary of State for Transport.[121] Manchester has proposed a peak time congestion charge scheme which could be implemented in 2011/2012.[123][124] In the East Midlands, the three major cities of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester are examining the feasibility for a congestion charge.[125] The government has proposed a nation wide scheme of road tolls.[126]

A few other cities around the world already use or have tried congestion charging, including Singapore (the first scheme in the world, started in 1975, upgraded in 1998),[127] Rome,[128] Valletta,[129] and Stockholm. Others have implemented a city centre charging zone as a road toll to pay for capital investment in transport infrastructure, including Oslo, Trondheim, and Bergen. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a congestion charge the centrepiece of his plan for sustainable growth and quality of life in the 21st century.[130] New York City's programme is proposed to be a three-year pilot scheme, at the end of which the City and State would decide if it should be made permanent.[131] If final legislative approval is given, the programme could be put into effect within 18 months.[132]

Future proposals

No further extension to the geographical zone is currently planned. However, towards the end of 2006, Livingstone proposed the introduction of a variable congestion charge. Similarly to vehicle excise duty (VED), it would be based on emissions of carbon dioxide in g/km. This would reduce or eliminate the charge for small and fuel-efficient vehicles, and increase it to up to £25 a day for large, inefficient vehicles such as SUVs, large saloons and compact MPVs with a Band G VED rating, that is, emissions of greater than 225 g/km of CO2. Electric zero-emissions vehicles are already exempt from the charge.[37][133] Consultation on these proposals began in August 2007.[134] According to a report commissioned by Land Rover by the Centre for Economics and Business Research think tank, this scheme would increase pollution. Consultation ended on 19 October 2007.[135]

TfL ran a six month trial of Tag and Beacon from February 2006 to replace the camera based system. This uses an electronic card affixed to the windscreen of a vehicle and can be used to produce "smart tolls" where charges can be varied dependent on time and direction of travel. This system automatically deducts the charge so that the 50,000 drivers a year who forget to pay the fine would not be penalised. TfL has suggested that this scheme could be introduced from 2009.[136][33]

Transport for London consulted on a charge for the Blackwall Tunnel in East London, but these proposals have been put on hold following significant opposition from the public.[137] Ken Livingstone has since stated that he has "absolutely no plans to set up a congestion charging zone to charge vehicles that use the Blackwall Tunnel or the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road. But if Greenwich wishes to do so on any of its roads then I will support them".[138]

Campaigning for the next mayoral election has seen the congestion charge remaining an issue. Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party, candidate has suggested looking at a graduated charging scheme.[139] Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, has suggested exempting delivery vehicles from the charge.[140][141]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Beard, Matthew (2003-02-17). "Livingstone predicts 'difficult few days' as congestion charge begins". The Independent. Independent News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2006-04-09.
  2. ^ a b "Congestion charge increases to £8". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-04-01. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
  3. ^ "I live in the Congestion Charging Zone. Do I have to pay if my car is parked and I don't move it during charging hours?". Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  4. ^ "Congestion Charge Zone increases". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-19. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  5. ^ "Road toll stopped over Christmas". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-10-19. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  6. ^ "How to pay the charge". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  7. ^ "Congestion Charging in London". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-04-05. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  8. ^ "Exemptions & Discounts". CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  9. ^ "Registering for the Alternative Fuel Discount" (PDF). CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  10. ^ "Residents' Provisional Registration - Introduction". CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  11. ^ a b "The Western Extension". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  12. ^ "Congestion Charge Zone increases". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-19. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  13. ^ Lydall, Ross (2005-01-18). "Discounts offer in 'buffer zone' for C-charge". Evening Standard. Associated News. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  14. ^ "Will I have to pay the Charge if I am diverted into the Zone?". Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  15. ^ AFX News Limited (2005-07-07). "London Bombs Roundup Four terrorist blasts kill at least 37 people Update". Forbes. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  16. ^ Williams, David (2005-05-09). "TfL changes rules to stop C-charge 'fleet' scheme". Evening Standard. Associated Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  17. ^ "Penalties and Enforcement". CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  18. ^ a b c "Impacts Monitoring - Third Annual Report" (PDF). Transport for London. April 2005. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Impacts Monitoring - Fifth Annual Report" (PDF). Transport for London. June 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  20. ^ "Car cloners try avoiding charges". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-06-24. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  21. ^ Arthur, Charles (2003-02-26). "London congestion charge leads to flood of false number plates". The Independent. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  22. ^ Sheth, Niraj (2003-02-26). "London's Congestion Fee Begets Pinched Plates". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
  23. ^ "Minicab Scam To Avoid Congestion Charge". sky.com. British Sky Broadcasting. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  24. ^ Clakr, Andrew (2005-03-15). "TfL axes C-charge debt collection agency". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  25. ^ "Road toll leads to diplomatic row". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-10-18. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  26. ^ "Embassy to pay congestion charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-04-06. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
  27. ^ "Embassy road toll row continues". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-05-14. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
  28. ^ Rogers, James (2003-02-21). "Capita admits congestion charge 'teething problems'". Computer Weekly. Reed Business Information.
  29. ^ Clark, Andrew (2005-12-13). "Capita congestion charge contract to be extended". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  30. ^ Lettice, John (2003-02-21). "The London charge zone, the DP Act, and MS .NET". The Register. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  31. ^ "Capita to lose congestion charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-10-25. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  32. ^ a b c Symonds, Tom (2003-02-11). "Preparing for Congestion". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  33. ^ a b "C-charge plans 'will waste £166m'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-11. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  34. ^ "How it Works". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  35. ^ "What it is". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  36. ^ "Signs and Symbols". CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  37. ^ a b "Q&A: The congestion charge". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 2006-08-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  38. ^ "Congestion Charge Through Roads". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  39. ^ "Timeline of British Turnpike Trusts". University of Portsmouth, Department of Geography. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  40. ^ "Car tax rules". Directgov. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  41. ^ "Q&A: Road pricing". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-21. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  42. ^ "Tollgates of London". Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  43. ^ http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-12-19/Writtens-1.html. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 2004-12-19. col. 875. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  44. ^ Miers, Tom (2003-07-07). "Should Darling travel down Smith's road pricing route?". The Policy Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  45. ^ Tempest, Matthew (2006-08-07). "Q&A: National road charging scheme". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  46. ^ Smeed,, R.J. (1964). Road pricing: the economic and technical possibilities. HMSO.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  47. ^ "Experts' plan to cut traffic pressure". The Times. 1964-06-11. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  48. ^ Bannister, David (2002). Transport Planning.
  49. ^ Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1995). The London Congestion Research Programme. HMSO. ISBN 0-11-551755-3.
  50. ^ Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1997). "Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 Chapter 54". HMSO.
  51. ^ "What does the mayor get to do?". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2000-05-16. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  52. ^ "Blair accuses Livingstone of £5 car toll". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 2006-08-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  53. ^ a b "Drivers face £5 London toll". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2001-10-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  54. ^ "Toll road lawyers in award hope". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-04-09. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  55. ^ "Congestion charges face legal challenge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2002-07-15. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  56. ^ Hardie, Alison (2002-08-01). "Livingstone wins road toll battle". The Scotsman. Johnston Press plc. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  57. ^ "Smooth start for congestion charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-18. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  58. ^ "'No increase' in congestion charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-25. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  59. ^ "Road toll up by 'at least £1'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-11-01. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  60. ^ Blitz, Roger (2004-12-01). "Congestion charge rise to £8 planned by London mayor". Financial Times. The Financial Times Ltd. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  61. ^ "Congestion charge may rise to £8". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-11-30. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  62. ^ "Congestion charge to increase to £8; fleet and regular users to receive discounts" (Press release). Greater London Authority. 2005-04-01. Retrieved 2005-11-25.
  63. ^ "Anger at '£10 congestion charge'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-05-11. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  64. ^ "Londoners views sought on c-charge western extension" (Press release). Transport for London. 2004-02-16. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  65. ^ "Protest over congestion charging". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-06-05. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  66. ^ "Congestion Charge Zone to expand". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-09-30. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  67. ^ Barney, Katharine (2005-12-07). "C-charge consultation is charade, admits Ken". Evening Standard. Associated Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  68. ^ "Go-slow protest over road charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-04-27. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  69. ^ Rohrer, Finlo (2007-02-17). "Leafy Kensington shows its anger". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  70. ^ "Public Consultation on detail of proposed extension to congestion charging zone begins" (Press release). Transport for London. 2005-05-09. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
  71. ^ "Charge zone times could shorten". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-05-09. Retrieved 2005-10-11.
  72. ^ "Congestion Charging Western Extension". Greater London Authority. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  73. ^ Webster, Ben (2005-10-01). "Livingstone takes charge zone farther west despite opposition". The Times. News International Limited. Retrieved 2006-04-09.
  74. ^ Woodman, Peter (2007-02-19). "Capital's congestion charge area extended". The Independent. Independent News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  75. ^ "Buses increased after congestion extension". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  76. ^ a b "Congestion charge cuts traffic levels". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-18. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  77. ^ "10,000 chased for congestion fine". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-18. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  78. ^ "First congestion fines to go out". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-18. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  79. ^ "Congestion charge survives school run". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-02-23. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  80. ^ "Congestion charge cuts jams". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-06-06. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  81. ^ a b Congestion charging six months on (PDF). Transport for London. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  82. ^ Muspratt, Caroline (2004-02-16). "Charge fails to stop roar of London traffic". Daily Telegraph. Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  83. ^ "Traffic solutions". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
  84. ^ "Congestion charge 'not working'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-23. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  85. ^ Marston, Paul (2004-02-06). "London congestion charge 'not working'". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  86. ^ a b "Road toll 'cut traffic by 70,000'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  87. ^ a b "Traders rally against charge zone". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-05-21. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  88. ^ a b c d "Impacts monitoring - Fourth Annual Report Overview" (PDF). Transport for London. June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  89. ^ Murphy, Joe (2007-12-24). "999 patients 'killed by speed bumps'". Evening Standard.
  90. ^ "Annual Report 2002-3" (PDF). London Ambulance Service.
  91. ^ "Capital's cardiac arrest survival rate more than trebles in five years". London Ambulance Service. 24 October 2007.
  92. ^ Meeting of the Trust Board (PDF). London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. 2003-9-30. p. Table 18. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  93. ^ "Road toll 'fails to cut traffic'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-10-27. Retrieved 2006-04-08.
  94. ^ Muspratt, Caroline (2004-04-21). "Congestion charge cost £300m, say Oxford St traders". Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Ltd. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  95. ^ Allison, Rebecca (2003-09-05). "Store chief hits at congestion charge". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
  96. ^ Blitz, Roger (2005-07-05). "Damaging rise in congestion charge not justified, says West End store". Financial Times. Retrieved 2007-12-25.
  97. ^ "Jury out on congestion charging". BBC News. 2004-02-16. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
  98. ^ a b Clark, Andrew (2003-11-25). "C-charge 'leads to layoffs'". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  99. ^ Allen, Richard (2003-05-27). "Congestion charge hammers shops". Evening Standard. Associated Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  100. ^ Clark, Andrew (2003-08-13). "Business backs congestion charge". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  101. ^ Clement, Barrie (2007-02-20). "Congestion charge: Green lobby hails road-toll extension". The Independent. Independent News and Media Ltd. Retrieved 2004-05-26.
  102. ^ Fuller & Green (2006-07-28). "Air Quality In London 2005 and mid 2006 – Briefing" (PDF). London Air Quality Network. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (help)
  103. ^ Transport for London (April 2007). "Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2006/07" (PDF). Mayor of London. p. Note 26. Retrieved 2007-11-25.
  104. ^ a b c "Where has the money gone?". BBC London. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-02-19. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  105. ^ "Congestion charging". Confederation of British Industry. Retrieved 2006-08-20.
  106. ^ Transport for London with GLA Economics (April 2005). "Congestion Charging: Proposed Western Extension Public Consultation Economic and Business Impact Assessment" (PDF). Transport for London. p. Pages 9 & 10. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  107. ^ Glaister, Stephen (2000-4-10). "Rocky road to a smoother journey". New Statesman. Retrieved 2007-12-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  108. ^ "Newsletter Issue 8" (PDF accessdate=2007-12-25). Transport for London. Spring 2005. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |format= (help)
  109. ^ "Congestion charge leads to budget shortfall". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-06-12. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  110. ^ Norris, Steve (2003-02-12). "Why Ken's charge will do damage for years to come". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  111. ^ Clark, Andrew (2003-03-17). "Road and rail promises leave commuters unmoved". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2008-01-06.
  112. ^ Murphy, Joe (2004-02-05). "Howard: C-charge damages business". Evening Standard. Associated Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2007-01-06.
  113. ^ "Hughes will stop road toll at 5 pm". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004-03-08. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  114. ^ "Capita fined £4.5 million for missing C-Charge targets". Liberal Democrats. 2005-03-08.
  115. ^ "Public Interest, Private Profit: Transport for London's Contract with Capita for the Congestion Charging Scheme". London Assembly Budget Committee. October 2003. We dispute the Mayor's frequently made claim that TfL's contract with Capita represents 'best value' for Londoners. It has not proved to be a good deal for taxpayers {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  116. ^ "Capita making no profits from London congestion charge scheme - report". Interactive Investor. Interactive Investor Trading Limited. 2003-07-31. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  117. ^ "Mayor Ken named Big Bad Brother". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-03-25. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  118. ^ "Drivers charged to cut congestion". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2002-10-01. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  119. ^ "Green Groups Attack Government Over Congestion Charge Cowardice" (Press release). Friends of the Earth. 2003-02-14. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  120. ^ "UK congestion charge proposed". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-10-14. Retrieved 2005-10-11.
  121. ^ a b Tempest, Matthew (2003-11-28). "Congestion charge fails to catch on". Guardian Unlimited. Guardian News and Media Limited Friday November 28, 2003. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  122. ^ "Edinburgh rejects congestion plan". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005-02-22. Retrieved 2005-10-11.
  123. ^ "Congestion charging: FAQs". BBC Manchester. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-01-25. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  124. ^ "City congestion fee plan unveiled". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-05-25. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  125. ^ "£1.8m congestion research begins". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-11-06. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  126. ^ "Push towards pay-as-you-go roads". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-05-22. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  127. ^ UK Commission for Integrated Transport (2004). "Charging schemes around the world". Retrieved 2007-07-22.
  128. ^ UK Commission for Integrated Transport (2007). "Road Charging Scheme: Motor Traffic Limited Zone System". Retrieved 2007-11-27.
  129. ^ CVA Technology (2007). "Valletta Controlled Vehicular Access (CVA) System". Retrieved 2007-07-07.
  130. ^ "Congestion Pricing Proposal Races Ahead". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. 2007-06-01. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
  131. ^ "New York City Mobility Needs Assessment: 2007-2030" (PDF). PlaNYC 2030. New York City Council. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
  132. ^ Hakim, Danny and Ray Rivera (2007-06-08). "City Traffic Pricing Wins U.S. and Spitzer's Favor". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
  133. ^ Webster, Ben (2006-07-13). "Congestion charge will rise to £25 for 'Chelsea tractors'". The Times. News Corporation Ltd. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
  134. ^ "Polluting cars C-charge discussed". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-08-10. Retrieved 2007-11-25.
  135. ^ "Warning over pollution c-charge". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-10-18. Retrieved 2007-11-25.
  136. ^ Webster (2006-02-22). "Electronic tags for cars as congestion charge spreads out". The Times. News International Ltd. Retrieved 2007-05-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |fist= ignored (help)
  137. ^ "77% reject A12 Blackwall Tunnel toll, says City Hall survey". East London Advertiser. Archant Regional Limited. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  138. ^ Livingstone, Ken (2008-01-08). London Mayor http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/08jan/letters.jsp. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "title Letters, The Londoner" ignored (help)
  139. ^ Crerar, Pippa (2007-11-16). "Boris backs small shops campaign". Evening Standard. Associated Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  140. ^ "Brian Paddick: 'Why I want to be mayor'". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2007-11-23. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  141. ^ Carlin, Brendan (2007-11-14). "Brian Paddick is Lib Dem London candidate". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2007-11-23.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_congestion_charge&oldid=183628915"