Congestion charge 'success' reduces revenue
Discussion
From the Independent:
Interesting eh!?
Comments, and leave the war out if it
Congestion charge success reduces revenue to £9m
18 March 2003
The London congestion charge has made less money than expected because thousands of motorists have stayed away from the centre of the capital. Fees paid by road users in the first month of the controversial project – the country's biggest experiment with congestion charging – have been estimated at £9m.
A member of the board for Transport for London (TfL) said traffic in the eight square miles of the zone had fallen by 20 per cent, rather than the 15 per cent planners expected.
If motorists continue to stay away in such numbers, TfL could be deprived of as much as £6m of the revenue it hoped to raise by the end of the first year of operation.
London's success in cutting traffic has persuaded the Mayor of Tokyo to consider introducing a similar scheme.
In Britain, the next step could be for the Department of Transport to investigate a scheme for motorway charging.
The £5 daily charge for non-residents proved more effective than forecast, said Professor Stephen Glaister of Imperial College's transport department, who helped to advise the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on the scheme. "Traffic is down 20 per cent rather than the 15 per cent we expected, but it's creeping back towards the forecast number," he said.
The number of paying users entering the charging zone was estimated at 100,000, but TfL figures released last week showed an average of 97,000 paid each day. On a pro-rata basis that would equate to roughly £9m in revenues, although TfL said such a figure would be unofficial because it did not account for the number of drivers from central London – who paid in effect only 50p a day – or fleet- registered cars, each of which pays £5.50 per day.
But any deficit in the revenue collected could quickly be offset by the collection of fines from anyone caught in the zone who has not paid the charge. So far, 109,000 fines have been issued, but as many as a quarter are being challenged on claims that the numberplate was incorrectly read, or that criminals had "cloned" innocent drivers' plates and put them on their cars to avoid payment.
With continued non-payment, the £40 fines rise to £80, then £120 – which would quickly compensate for any shortfall in the number of road users, Professor Glaister said.
The charge was intended to cut congestion and raise £121m in the scheme's first two years for public transport projects, said Mr Livingstone. He expected a "level of public resistance" to the scheme, but that seemed to have melted.
A survey by London First found three in four business executives believed congestion charging's first month had been a success, and thought it was working. Only 3 per cent of those questioned thought the scheme was failing.
Retail sales inside the congestion-charging zone fell compared with the same period last year, but that could be partly due to the failure of London Underground's Central line, which is still out of service and would normally take passengers to destinations including Oxford Street and Marble Arch.
Paul Watters of the AA said extra congestion on the roads bordering the zone was inevitable. He added: "We believe it may take as long as a year to see the full results. And we think there will definitely be big problems around the ring road at some point that may lead to the possible meltdown we are concerned about."
WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE FIRST MONTH
* 1,940,000 payments have been made by motorists, 97,000 a day on average;
* 109,000 fines have been issued;
* One in four fines is being challenged;
* Traffic in the zone has fallen by 20 per cent, more than the 15 per cent forecast, but is gradually increasing;
* Bus journeys in the zone are much faster;
* Car journey times into London have fallen 5 per cent;
* In a survey 30 per cent of London business people said it had a positive effect, 65 per cent said it was neutral, and 5 per cent said it was negative.
Interesting eh!?
Comments, and leave the war out if it
It is just another stealth tax - get people to pay for unavoidable journeys, because you've ****ed up transport infrastructure to such a vast extent, that there is no other way of travelling, other than private car. Clever, eh? Then add toll roads and motorway charging, and lo, we're paying all the current taxes on driving, plus extra ones just in case!
It may be seen as a "success" by the people who put the scheme in place, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's biggest success is creaming off motorists money because one man doesn't like cars. Is it a success to pay more for driving? Should we be paying more, given the poor record this government has in improving transport? I don't think it's successful.
It may be seen as a "success" by the people who put the scheme in place, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's biggest success is creaming off motorists money because one man doesn't like cars. Is it a success to pay more for driving? Should we be paying more, given the poor record this government has in improving transport? I don't think it's successful.
I think we'll also see traffic levels rise over the next few months to a level almost identical to this time last year. ie the introduction of a charge will have "shocked" some drivers into switching to public transport, but as they get lazy/realise it's crap etc etc, they will start to switch back again.
btw that's the first news report I've seen on it since the week it was introduced!
btw that's the first news report I've seen on it since the week it was introduced!
Whats interesting is how the scheme may appear to be backfiring.
With a greater than expected decrease, albeit may be too early to judge, in traffic the expected revenue isn't being generated.
Hopefully we will now see the true motives behind the scheme.
Will steps be taken to try to up the revenue, thus openly stating revenue is the driving force behind it and NOT reducing congestion.
With a greater than expected decrease, albeit may be too early to judge, in traffic the expected revenue isn't being generated.
Hopefully we will now see the true motives behind the scheme.
Will steps be taken to try to up the revenue, thus openly stating revenue is the driving force behind it and NOT reducing congestion.
How do you measure the success of the scheme? You first need to have clearly stated objectives, and then you can measure success against those objectives.
I suspect the view of businesses whose turnover has reduced as a direct result might have a different measure of success however.
From the North/South perspective anything which makes London less attractive is a success for the rest of the country.
For tree huggers in the City it might seem a success, but for a lentil muncher living just outside whose street is now more congested maybe not.
There are any number of perspectives, and any number of opinions on the success or otherwise.
I suspect the view of businesses whose turnover has reduced as a direct result might have a different measure of success however.
From the North/South perspective anything which makes London less attractive is a success for the rest of the country.
For tree huggers in the City it might seem a success, but for a lentil muncher living just outside whose street is now more congested maybe not.
There are any number of perspectives, and any number of opinions on the success or otherwise.
This scheme will never fail to be a 'success'. If the traffic levels fall dramatically, then they have reduced congestion. If the traffic levels do not fall then they gain large volumes of cash, which they can claim to spend on transport. While freeing up the transport budget for use elsewhere.
Ken seems to think that the only criteria for success is reducing congestion. Absolute nonsense.
Banning cars alltogether would reduce congestion. But would be unfair as well.
Reducing congestion by forcing people our of their cars isn't right. I don't care if it drops by 50% that just means that 50% of the previous drivers into London have been victimised.
Banning cars alltogether would reduce congestion. But would be unfair as well.
Reducing congestion by forcing people our of their cars isn't right. I don't care if it drops by 50% that just means that 50% of the previous drivers into London have been victimised.
This sounds familiar.
I'm sure that somewhere "oop North" (manchester?) a Specs system was installed by the council on a bypass just after the limit was reduced from 70 to 40.
The reason for the introduction & the new limit was purely based on revenue generation, and the financial model for this that the council approved was based on cathcing x number of motorists per day - this would pay the lease on the Specs system, and leave enough to balance the council's books....
However, the local populace & media got together and so many people knew about the reasons for this they simply slowed down. I think the estimated proescution figure was in the hundreds per week, but for the first two months there were single figure prosecutions. End result - increased accident rate on said road, and the removal of the Specs system because the council COULD NOT AFFORD to keep it!!!
This may be an urban myth (?) or true, but it is worryingly feasible. Just shows that if Numpties are in power they can be easily swayed by the thought of making money for "good causes" from "criminals".
BAH.....[rant over - I feel better now]
Chris
I'm sure that somewhere "oop North" (manchester?) a Specs system was installed by the council on a bypass just after the limit was reduced from 70 to 40.
The reason for the introduction & the new limit was purely based on revenue generation, and the financial model for this that the council approved was based on cathcing x number of motorists per day - this would pay the lease on the Specs system, and leave enough to balance the council's books....
However, the local populace & media got together and so many people knew about the reasons for this they simply slowed down. I think the estimated proescution figure was in the hundreds per week, but for the first two months there were single figure prosecutions. End result - increased accident rate on said road, and the removal of the Specs system because the council COULD NOT AFFORD to keep it!!!
This may be an urban myth (?) or true, but it is worryingly feasible. Just shows that if Numpties are in power they can be easily swayed by the thought of making money for "good causes" from "criminals".
BAH.....[rant over - I feel better now]
Chris
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff