London admits congestion charge failure

Posted Fri Aug 8 2008 8:20 AM by Siddharth Raja

Traffic levels in London are the same today as they were five years ago when the city’s controversial congestion-charge (c-charge) was first introduced. This has prompted officials to admit that the scheme is a failure as it has not significantly reduced traffic levels or journey times as promised. According to the sixth annual Transport for London (TFL) monitoring report released yesterday, the level of congestion during 2007 was effectively identical to the representative value for conditions before the scheme was introduced in 2002.

Figures show that in the first four months of this year, and in all of 2007, the primary congestion measurement - the mean excess travel rate - was 2.3 minutes per kilometer. This figure is identical to the rate measured in 2002, before charging began.

Blame is being placed on the increased level of roadworks and measures to give priority to pedestrians, buses and cyclists, Reuters reports. However, the report doesn’t praise the fact that despite London’s population increasing in the past five years traffic levels have remained the same.

London residents and business owners, who have contributed more than £268 million (approximately $536 million) in charges last year alone, have showed their distaste for the scheme, voting out one of the key backers of the scheme, former mayor Ken Livingstone, in the most recent mayoral elections. Livingstone was not only trying to increase the charge but was also planning to extend it to more areas.

London’s new mayor, Boris Johnson, said in a statement that he has always thought that the c-charge is a "blunt instrument" and is currently planning a new scheme that gives greater consideration to how all transport measures impact on the movement of traffic on our roads.

Reader Comments

Fri Aug 8 2008 9:34 AM
cirquo says

Let's make sure that Mayor Bloomberg sees this report in NYC and quits planning any future schemes. The price of gasoline is enough of a detterant and a visible one on the streets.
Fri Aug 8 2008 10:45 AM
NCyder says

From a money-grubbing politician's point of view, this just means the charge wasn't high enough.
Fri Aug 8 2008 5:47 PM
Roy says

No, no, the original report was flawed. If levels really did stay the same, that's a significant improvement. The level of traffic on most other roads (esp in the UK) has gone through the roof over the same period. It's a bit like saying that being able to buy a CD for 10 dollars isn't a good deal because they were 10 dollars about 10 years ago - that just doesn't take inflation into account. The analysis is flawed if they haven't normalized the background.
Sat Aug 9 2008 12:49 AM
James says

Roy,

So you are saying the congestion charge was successful? That sounds like wishful thinking. If the point was to drive (pardon the pun) people OUT of their cars and into other forms of transportation, then the plan obviously failed. Obviously, despite the c-charge, despite the UK's high petrol taxes, etc., Londoners still like to drive, and still need their cars. Who knew?

If, however, the plan was --all along-- just another tax wrapped with a green facade, then it was a blazing success.
Sat Aug 9 2008 11:11 AM
Gus says

Congestion is enough of a deterrant to congestion.

MotorAuthority