New emission zone

[280gee]

What has Brussels to do with the CC?

Sorry for the confusion it was not my intention to suggest that it has, and none that I know of... Although my suspicion is that the two are not entirely unrelated. I also didn't make a decent separation between the CC (tax) and the further comment on the emission zone policies.

However and regarding the notion that if a congestion charge was just that and demonstrated that it had been effective in reducing overall vehicle numbers and thus improving quality of life then who could reasonably disagree with it?

What may prove interesting to some is the way that (suddenly?) congestion and pollution have now become linked in "emission zone".

 

[TonyVianoAmbiente]

At least a couple of people here have practical experience of the congestion (tax) zone not seeming to achieve noticeable effects.

The traffic statistics showed a greater than 15% reduction in the number of vehicles entering the congestion charge zone when the period just after its commissioning was compared with the period just before. Those figures are not in doubt. No-one has contested them.

What has happened since is that traffic in London has grown, just as it has elsewhere in the UK. The growth is between 3.5% and 5.5% per year, with the South East of England having the highest figures. No surprise there.

Therefore, within three years of the congestion charge being introduced, the traffic levels are now back to where they were just before it was introduced, and the average traffic speed is also back down to where it was.

So why did anyone bother?

Because without the congestion charge, traffic levels would have grown by 5.5% per year and would be at least another 15% higher than they are now.

Conclusion: the congestion charge continues to have an effect, and without it, traffic levels would be much worse than they are.

I am sorry if these facts do not fit some people's preconceived conclusions that the congestion charge has been a failure.

 

[MBManInKen]

The traffic statistics showed a greater than 15% reduction in the number of vehicles entering the congestion charge zone when the period just after its commissioning was compared with the period just before.

I'm not contesting those figures, but there is a difference in reducing the number of vehicles in the zone and actually reducing congestion. It's not a "less-vehicles-in-the-zone-charge", it's supposed to be a congestion reducing measure.

As a user of the zone, congestion has not been reduced and frankly it wasn't from a users' perspective even immediately after the CC was introduced, apart from the first few days when a lot more people seemed to shun the zone. That wore of within a week or two.

 

[hawk20]

The traffic statistics showed a greater than 15% reduction in the number of vehicles entering the congestion charge zone when the period just after its commissioning was compared with the period just before. Those figures are not in doubt. No-one has contested them.

What has happened since is that traffic in London has grown, just as it has elsewhere in the UK. The growth is between 3.5% and 5.5% per year, with the South East of England having the highest figures. No surprise there.

Therefore, within three years of the congestion charge being introduced, the traffic levels are now back to where they were just before it was introduced, and the average traffic speed is also back down to where it was.

So why did anyone bother?

Because without the congestion charge, traffic levels would have grown by 5.5% per year and would be at least another 15% higher than they are now.

Conclusion: the congestion charge continues to have an effect, and without it, traffic levels would be much worse than they are.

I am sorry if these facts do not fit some people's preconceived conclusions that the congestion charge has been a failure.

It may be a bit more complicated than that. There was a fascinating documentary on TV (can't remember title etc) that showed that although traffic nationally has grown, traffic in Central London has barely grown at all since the sixties. It seems there is a level of congestion at which more cars stop coming into the city. Could be the charge is not needed.

When I was in Hong Kong I could not believe how easily the traffic moved in the capital. Yet no charges and no restrictions. Talked to someone in govt who said the solution they had come up with was to reduce the amount of parking. Then there is no point in going into the city by car as you cannot stop and park -well hardly anywhere. New buildings may not provide parking -not even for the chairman. At the same time they have lots of normal cars running amazingly cheap taxis everywhere. I asked a cabby how thay could do it so cheaply. He said that because the traffic flowed so freely his costs were low AND most important, he nearly always got a return fare as everyone was using cabs as they were so cheap.

Reminded me of the great Henry Ford who said, "If I could make a car for £100 everyone would buy one; come to think of it", he said, "if everyone would buy one I could make a car for £100."

 

[TonyVianoAmbiente]

I'm not contesting those figures, but there is a difference in reducing the number of vehicles in the zone and actually reducing congestion. It's not a "less-vehicles-in-the-zone-charge", it's supposed to be a congestion reducing measure.

As a user of the zone, congestion has not been reduced and frankly it wasn't from a users' perspective even immediately after the CC was introduced, apart from the first few days when a lot more people seemed to shun the zone. That wore of within a week or two.

There was a 25% reduction immediately after the charge was imposed but this quickly stabilised at around 15%. I don't have the figures to hand for congestion - it is difficult to measure objectively but the average speed is a good indicator, and that returned last year (2007) to pre-congestion charge levels (2003).

So it would appear that the congestion charge has given London about a 4-year breathing space. Traffic grows as the economy grows so perhaps we should pray for a recession. (I don't think so!)

 

[MBManInKen]

So it would appear that the congestion charge has given London about a 4-year breathing space.

From this link:

Just after the charge was brought in, traffic speed rose from 8.5mph to 11mph cutting journey times by 15%, according to Transport for London

I know of no other European capital where an 11mph average speed is considered a good or even acceptable value.


And there is worse:

But when measured last year, the speed (including queueing at junctions) has come down to 10mph.

The responsible politicians might be happy with such a damp squib, but I would say that the one thing the charge hasn't done is reduce congestion to a useful extent.

 

[robert.saunders]

Amazing that the London population in 1961 was 7.9m and in 2001 was 7.1m.

So, less people means less cars? It should be positively countryside-like in London, what are you moaning about

 

[MBManInKen]

So, less people means less cars? It should be positively countryside-like in London, what are you moaning about

I feel another thread hijack is on its way .

 

[robert.saunders]

Noooooo, just throwing spanners around

 

[MBManInKen]

*ducks*

 

[robert.saunders]

Actually, one small off-topic - isn't this image fab?!

 

[MBManInKen]

Actually, one small off-topic - isn't this image fab?!

Ab Fab!

 

[GRAV888]

Actually, one small off-topic - isn't this image fab?!

You can see my lorry on Southwark Bridge

 

[robert.saunders]

You can see my lorry on Southwark Bridge

Blue lorry?

 

[MBManInKen]

Blue lorry?

With an eeyore dangling from the mirror?

 

[robert.saunders]

With an eeyore dangling from the mirror?

That's what I was checking for - but then I thought it couldn't be GRAV's lorry, the cab looks remarkably intact

 

[280gee]

The traffic statistics showed a greater than 15% reduction in the number of vehicles entering the congestion charge zone when the period just after its commissioning was compared with the period just before. Those figures are not in doubt. No-one has contested them.

It would be difficult probably nigh on impossible to do so as access to the relevant measuring equipment is controlled and would necessitate great expense to replicate it's function. It matters little because the temporary reduction effect was almost certain to be seen, as those with non-essential or perhaps pleasure journeys would have been scared off as it was no longer free of tax to drive into London. Many beauty spots etc. see the same thing happening when car parking charges are introduced.

What has happened since is that traffic in London has grown, just as it has elsewhere in the UK. The growth is between 3.5% and 5.5% per year, with the South East of England having the highest figures. No surprise there.

As you say no surprise, given the lamentable state of alternatives to the motor car. Public transport at present is simply too expensive, often inconvenient, and sometimes downright dangerous.

Therefore, within three years of the congestion charge being introduced, the traffic levels are now back to where they were just before it was introduced, and the average traffic speed is also back down to where it was.

So why did anyone bother?

Because without the congestion charge, traffic levels would have grown by 5.5% per year and would be at least another 15% higher than they are now.

Conclusion: the congestion charge continues to have an effect, and without it, traffic levels would be much worse than they are.

Those were forecast traffic levels? Nevertheless traffic levels i.e. motor transport, will continue to grow unfettered whilst there are few or no viable alternatives I assume.

I am sorry if these facts do not fit some people's preconceived conclusions that the congestion charge has been a failure.

With respect don't your figures above point exactly to the opposite? Taken in isolation, if the scheme was intended to reduce congestion and it has failed to reduce congestion, then it is a failure. I've attempted in good faith to give some reasons why though and hope they will be considered similarly.

 

[GRAV888]

That's what I was checking for - but then I thought it couldn't be GRAV's lorry, the cab looks remarkably intact

 

[jeremytaylor]

The problem with the CON charge is the western extension - all the residents there who previously had to pay to go into Central London can now do so for free.

 

[hawk20]

Everyone seems to be assuming that traffic would have grown without the congestion charge in Central London. Yet as I pointed out in posting number 44: -
"There was a fascinating documentary on TV (can't remember title etc) that showed that although traffic nationally has grown, traffic in Central London has barely grown at all since the sixties. It seems there is a level of congestion at which more cars stop coming into the city. Could be the charge is not needed."