London Councils’ TEC Executive Sub
Committee
Future of Congestion Charging
Report by:
Antoneta Horbury
Date:
7 February 2008
Contact Officer:
Antoneta Horbury
Telephone:
020 7934 9907
Summary
Job title:
Email:
Item no: 6
Principal Transport Policy Officer
[email protected]
At the November 2007 London Councils/ TfL congestion charging liaison
meeting, TfL asked boroughs to set out a position statement which
outlined how boroughs wished to see the congestion charging scheme
develop especially in relation to new technological improvements.
This report sets out some ideas on how the congestion charging scheme
could develop for discussion by members.
Recommendations
The Committee is recommended to:

Consider and discuss how the congestion charging scheme could
develop

Agree that this issue should be discussed further with no decision
made at this meeting and that a London Councils response
should be agreed at a future full London Councils TEC
Committee meeting
TEC Executive Sub Committee – 7 February 2008
Future of Congestion Charging
Agenda Item 6, Page
Background
1.
At the November 2007 London Councils/ TfL congestion charging liaison meeting, TfL asked
boroughs to set out a position statement which outlined how boroughs wished to see the
congestion charging scheme develop especially in relation to new technological
improvements.
2.
London Councils asked boroughs for comments on the question of how do London Boroughs
wish to see the congestion charging scheme develop and in particular to respond to the
following questions:
 what are the specific outputs and outcomes that may be desirable and how these be
measured and assessed?
 what customer facilities do boroughs want? and
 what specific future changes should be considered
3.
Responses were received from: LB Barking and Dagenham, City of London, LB
Hammersmith and Fulham, LB Islington, RB Kensington and Chelsea, LB Lewisham and LB
Tower Hamlets.
4.
Members are asked to consider and discuss how the congestion charging scheme could
develop with a view of agreeing a response at a full London Councils TEC Committee
meeting. Appendix 1 provides some suggestions for the basis of this discussion.
Second Mayor’s Transport Strategy
5.
The second Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS2) member group, chaired by Cllr Greene has
agreed that congestion charging should form one of the key elements of their report.
6.
The output from the MTS2 member group will form the basis of the London Councils’
response to the TfL request for a position statement from boroughs on how the congestion
charging scheme should develop.
Suggested Points for Discussion
7.
Recent initiatives regarding the congestion charging zone, for example, emission related
charging suggest that the objective of the scheme has become somewhat confused. Should
the objective of the congestion charging scheme be a reduction in congestion within the zone
with a view to changing the behaviour of those travelling in London to use more sustainable
modes of travel? Should London Councils propose that the scheme support the smooth
running of London’s economy and services and take a strategic approach so not to
incentivise rat running or other undesirable behaviour to circumvent piecemeal initiatives?
With clear objectives other secondary benefits, such as an improvement in air quality due to
reduced amounts of standing and circulating traffic, are also likely to be realised.
8.
Should the outcomes of the congestion charging scheme be:
improvement in the quality of life for Londoners as witnessed by a reduction in congestion?
improvement in the economy and vitality of London?
value for money?
fairness in its application across the whole community?




TEC Executive Sub Committee – 7 February 2008
Future of Congestion Charging
Agenda Item 6, Page
9.




10.

















Should the measures of success be:
reduction in journey times for people and goods within the zone?
reduction in variability of journey time for different modes within the zone?
high benefit to cost ratio in general operation and for specific planned changes?
support of the scheme by those affected by it?
Members are asked to consider the following in their discussion:
Should software enhancements be investigated to allow differential charging by time of day
and direction of travel based on information received by the current Automatic Number
Plate Recognition system?
Should an account facility be available for each vehicle or group of vehicles so that the
charge could be paid by direct debit?
Should a facility be available to Oystercard holders so that they can use the pre-pay facility
already available on their Oystercard to pay the congestion charge for their vehicle or group
of vehicles?.
Should any pre-pay facility (whether linked to an Oystercard or not) have a facility to inform
the user if there are not sufficient funds in their pre-pay account to pay the charge?
Should there be a facility to inform the user when a deduction has been made from either
an account or pre-pay facility?
Should there be a more sophisticated pricing structure as the current pricing structure may
incentivise trips as they occur at zero marginal cost due to a period of charge being
purchased in advance?
Should there be a user forum for congestion charging so that TfL can receive direct and
timely feedback on the operation of the scheme?
Should there be compatibility with any national congestion charging system?
Should more information be provided to those outside London who may be occasional
visitors to London, e.g. an information telephone number could be included in the signage
on entry to the zones so that all motorists can find out more about the scheme and how to
pay?
Should improved signage outside the zone be deployed to advise users who do not wish to
enter the zone how they may avoid doing so from their present location?
Should the extended zone be split into sub-zones based around camera locations to reduce
the instances of current intra-zonal travel with residents receiving a discount for their part of
the zone and adjacent sub-zones? Distance based charging could also then be carried out
on a sub-zone basis.
Should discounts also be available for car clubs? Whilst discounts for multiple occupancy
vehicles might be desirable it is appreciated that this is very difficult to enforce in practice
and therefore unworkable.
Should further independent research be carried out so that measures can be put in place to
address the needs of those who may be marginalized from society as a result of the
Congestion Charging Scheme?
Should there be greater transparency of where the revenue collected from congestion
charging is actually going?
Should some of the net revenues be spent on road related schemes which would reduce
traffic congestion in hot spots across London, thereby spreading the congestion reduction
benefits of the scheme across London as a whole without the need to introduce congestion
charging for small sections of road?
Should TfL apply its own streetscape principles to the infrastructure it places in the public
realm, e.g. cameras should be as visually unobtrusive as possible and fit in with the local
streetscape?
Should the scheme be run more efficiently, for example, incorporating the Automatic
Number Plate Recognition technology into the cameras to reduce data transmission and
processing costs?
Future of Congestion Charging
London Councils TEC Exec - 7 February 2008
Agenda Item 6, Page
Financial Implications for London Councils
11.
There are no financial implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this
report.
Legal Implications for London Councils
12.
There are no legal implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this report.
Equalities Implications for London Councils
13.
There are no equalities implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this
report.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Discussion paper on how the congestion charging scheme could develop
Background Papers
Short file of
document
Report to London
Councils TEC, Item 7:
Consultation on
Emissions Related
Congestion Charging
Date
17
October
2007
File location
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.
uk/doc.asp?doc=20943&cat=2
587
Future of Congestion Charging
Contact
officer
Antoneta
Horbury
Exempt Info
Para under
Schedule
12A
n/a
London Councils TEC Exec - 7 February 2008
Agenda Item 6, Page
APPENDIX 1
Discussion paper on how the congestion charging scheme could develop
7 February 2007
1.
At the November 2007 London Councils/ Transport for London (TfL) congestion charging
liaison meeting, TfL asked boroughs to set out a position statement which outlined how
boroughs wished to see the congestion charging scheme develop especially in relation to
new technological improvements.
2.
London Councils asked boroughs for comments on the question of how do London Boroughs
wish to see the congestion charging scheme develop and in particular to respond to the
following questions:
 what are the specific outputs and outcomes that may be desirable and how these be
measured and assessed?
 what customer facilities do boroughs want? and
 what specific future changes should be considered
Members are asked to consider the following ideas on how the congestion charging scheme
could develop:
Outputs and Outcomes
3.
Recent initiatives regarding the congestion charging zone, for example, emission related
charging suggest that the objective of the scheme has become somewhat confused. Should
the objective of the congestion charging scheme be a reduction in congestion within the zone
with a view to changing the behaviour of those travelling in London to use more sustainable
modes of travel where this is a viable option? With clear objectives other secondary benefits,
such as an improvement in air quality due to reduced amounts of standing and circulating
traffic, are also likely to be realised. Should all car based travel not be regarded as
undesirable therefore should the scheme not be so punitive as to discourage car based travel
where this is a reasonable option?
4.
Should the scheme support the smooth running of London’s economy and services and take
a strategic approach so not to incentivise rat running or other undesirable behaviour to
circumvent piecemeal initiatives?
5.
Should the outcomes of the congestion charging scheme be:
improvement in the quality of life for Londoners as witnessed by a reduction in congestion?
improvement in the economy and vitality of London?
value for money?
fairness in its application across the whole community?




Measurement of Success
6.
7.




Should the measures of success be:
reduction in journey times for people and goods within the zone?
reduction in variability of journey time for different modes within the zone?
high benefit to cost ratio in general operation and for specific planned changes?
support of the scheme by those affected by it?
The scheme should be continually monitored against the measures of success to ensure that
it is still effective at combating congestion
TEC Executive Sub Committee – 7 February 2008
Future of Congestion Charging
Agenda Item 6, Page
Differential Charging
8.
The congestion charge is regarded by many as a blunt instrument as people travelling in the
opposite direction of peak flow are charged the same as those who contribute towards
congestion at peak times. In order to assess the feasibility of differential charging, Transport
for London are currently trialling “tag and beacon” technology to monitor the scheme in the
London Borough of Southwark.
9.
“Tag and beacon” is a system whereby there would be a device in each vehicle (a tag) and
roadside equipment either across the carriageway or on the side of the road (beacon) which
would record when the vehicle passed and so would provide vehicle details, time, direction of
travel and location information to the central system.
10.
The trial in the London Borough of Southwark has been a success in terms of reliability of the
information received from the tag and beacon system however there are aesthetic issues
regarding the size and positioning of the beacons.
11.
Tag and beacon offers no more information than is currently available from the current
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, e.g. time, direction of travel and
location information however the current ANPR software is relatively inflexible and so
changes such as differential charging cannot be easily made using the existing system.
12.
Should Tag and Beacon be developed any further in relation to congestion charging or
should the software supporting the existing Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
cameras be upgraded so that the differential charging functionality which would be available
from a tag and beacon system is developed for the current ANPR system, for example, traffic
entering London in the morning peak could pay more than traffic leaving London in the
morning peak and hence the charge could be adapted to meet the congestion experienced?
13.
Both cameras and beacons have an element of visual intrusion however cameras have a
benefit that they could also be used for policing and community safety and will be cheaper as
there is no need to buy and maintain more equipment (since the cameras will always be
required for those who don't have tag)
14.
It is difficult to measure distance accurately with either tag and beacon or ANPR cameras
unless the area is saturated with beacons or cameras. The extended zone could be divided
into sub-zones and charging could be done on a sub-zone basis. More accurate distance
based charging could be based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) or a tag connected
to vehicle’s odometer or tachograph.
15.
If the tag or GPS device is stolen it may be fraudulently used and could encourage more
crime. It would be difficult to enforce differential charges based on the characteristics of the
vehicle with a tag which was easily removed, e.g. a tag which was registered to an electric
car could be removed and used in 4 x 4. To avoid this happening the tag would always need
to be compared to the picture of the vehicles Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) so that if the
car has been cloned (e.g. the registration of one vehicle is used on a completely different
vehicle) this may be more easily identified. To reduce the incidence of this happening the tag
or GPS device could be embedded into the vehicle’s mechanics however this may not be
popular with the public especially for vehicles at the high end of the market and it may affect
the resale value of the vehicle outside London.
16.
Should the extended zone be split into sub-zones based around camera locations to reduce
the instances of current intra-zonal travel with residents receiving a discount for their part of
the zone and adjacent sub-zones? Should distance based charging be carried out on a subzone basis?
Future of Congestion Charging
London Councils TEC Exec - 7 February 2008
Agenda Item 6, Page
17.
With improvements in technology, it would be feasible to consider some sophisticated pricing
structures so that the charge paid was a combination of a variety of factors, e.g. time of day,
distance travelled, direction of travel, whether the vehicle was registered to a resident within
the zone, whether the vehicle was a member of a car club etc. Should this be recommended?
Customer Facilities
18.
London Councils supports congestion charging in principle, however there are inherent
inefficiencies in the operation of the scheme. For example, incorporating Automatic Number
Plate Recognition technology into the cameras will reduce data transmission and processing
costs, it is not clear whether cameras are switched off when the scheme is not in operation
and how loop holes and abuses of the system are mitigated.
19.
Resource is currently being utilised sending Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to users for not
paying the charge (and then receiving and processing their payment) but how many of those
who receive a PCN actively wished to avoid paying and how many just plain forgot to pay the
charge. With no pre-pay or account facility this is difficult to establish. Should there be a prepay facility for those who forget to pay the charge – this could be either a stand-alone
account or card? Driving in Central London is not in contravention of any regulations
therefore people should not be treated as if they have done something wrong. Should the
level of charge be affordable but at a level where the cost of a trip is not negligible?
20.
Should an account facility be available for each vehicle or group of vehicles so that the
charge could be paid by direct debit?
21.
Should Oystercard holders who wish to use the pre-pay facility already available on their
Oystercard to pay the congestion charge be able to do this by means of linking a vehicle or
group of vehicles to a given Oystercard? Should any pre-pay facility (whether linked to an
Oystercard or not) have a facility to inform the user if there are not sufficient funds in their
pre-pay account to pay the charge?
22.
Should there be a facility to inform the user when a deduction has been made from either an
account or pre-pay facility?
23.
There are concerns that the current pricing structure may incentivise trips as they occur at
zero marginal cost. For example, the residents’ discount is not available for just one day but
a week must be bought at the cost of £4. Therefore as the daily non-residents charge is £8, it
is cheaper for residents to buy a week’s worth of charging days rather than 1 day at the full
price thereby making the other 4 days travel at zero marginal cost. Should there be a more
sophisticated pricing structure? Should there be a discount available to residents for each
day of use?This would be administratively simple if pre-pay or an account facility were to be
introduced.
24.
Should there be discounts for residents within the zone for their part of the zone? Should
there be discounts for car clubs? Whilst discounts for multiple occupancy vehicles would be
desirable it is appreciated that this is very difficult to enforce in practice and therefore
unworkable
25.
Should there be a user forum for congestion charging so that TfL can get direct and timely
feedback on the operation of the scheme?
26.
Should there be compatibility with any national congestion charging system?
Future of Congestion Charging
London Councils TEC Exec - 7 February 2008
Agenda Item 6, Page
Other Specific Improvements
27.
Should more information be provided to those outside London who may be occasional
visitors to London, e.g. an information telephone number could be included in the signage on
entry to the zones so that all motorists can find out more about the scheme and how to pay?
Whilst most Londoners are familiar with the meaning of the red “c” – those outside London
may not be so familiar.
28.
Should improved signage outside the zone be deployed to advise users who do not wish to
enter the zone how they may avoid doing so from their present location? A red/ yellow/ green
coding could be a useful indicator for those unfamiliar with London as to how close they are
to entering the zone and therefore the urgency of any corrective action to not enter the zone.
29.
Should TfL apply its own streetscape principles to the infrastructure it places in the public
realm, e.g. should cameras be as visually unobtrusive as possible and fit in with the local
streetscape?
30.
Should the social impacts of the congestion charging scheme be fully understood. There has
been anecdotal evidence suggesting the zone heightens social exclusion particularly for
those on lower incomes, the elderly and those dependent on carers, where they receive
fewer visitors due to the charge. Should further independent research be carried out so that
measures can be put in place to address the needs of those who may be marginalized from
society as a result of the Congestion Charging Scheme?
31.
Should there be greater transparency of where the revenue collected from congestion
charging is actually going? ShouldTfL be required to provide accounts for the congestion
charging section only each year? Should a list of schemes and improvements funded by the
charge be made available on TfL’s website?
32.
Should some of the net revenues be spent on road related schemes which would reduce
traffic congestion in hot spots across London, thereby spreading the congestion reduction
benefits of the scheme across London as a whole without the need to introduce congestion
charging for small sections of road.
Future of Congestion Charging
London Councils TEC Exec - 7 February 2008
Agenda Item 6, Page