The Greater London Assembly Transport Committee has released a report calling for both short term and long term measures to reform London's congestion charge, coming to the solid conclusion that the charge in its current form is not "fit for purpose". The Committee has little actual power, as the matter is up to the Mayor (the Assembly is meant to hold the Mayor to account, but the Mayor has considerable Executive power). The current congestion charge raises £168m net revenue a year.
 |
| London's congestion charge zone |
Its report is available here (PDF) and makes a series of recommendations which I have listed below.
1. In the short-term, the Congestion Charge should be reformed, so the payments levied better reflect the impact of vehicles on congestion. The daily flat rate should be replaced with a charging structure that ensures vehicles in the zone at peak times, and spending longer in the zone, face the highest charges.
For the longer-term, the Mayor needs to start to develop proposals now for replacing the Congestion Charge with a new citywide road pricing scheme, which charges vehicles according to the extent, location and timing of their road usage. Road pricing could also replace Vehicle Excise Duty, which should be devolved by the Government to the Mayor. There may be a case for the scheme to be wider than the existing Congestion Charge zone; discussions with all boroughs should take place to determine whether and how road pricing should cover their local road network.
The Mayor’s forthcoming Transport Strategy should set out plans for both Congestion Charge reform and for the potential introduction of road pricing. The Mayor should also update the committee by the end of April 2017 about discussions with the government on the devolution of Vehicle Excise Duty.(which is not a London matter, but the Mayor wants devolved to London). (this is what I will be focusing on in this blogpost)
2. TfL should ensure that new monitoring technology introduced to identify vehicles in the proposed Ultra Low Emissions Zone should be compatible with the future requirements of a road pricing scheme. TfL should confirm it will do this when responding to the recent consultation on ULEZ proposals. (i.e. ANPR, but by the time road pricing is introduced it may need renewed anyway)
3. TfL should take steps to encourage bids from boroughs interested in piloting a local Workplace Parking Levy. Provided the plans fit with any wider road pricing scheme, TfL should offer support to a WPL pilot programme if proposed by a borough. This should include offering additional funding to the borough(s) to initiate the scheme. (I'm not a fan of taxing parking places for commuters, particularly in suburban centres, because the modal alternatives for commuters are often poor, so it can be a tax on small businesses seeking to attract labour, and there is little evidence they effectively address congestion).
4. The Mayor and TfL should take steps to encourage more delivery consolidation. This will involve working with those running large construction schemes and retailers, potentially through Business Improvement Districts. The new London Plan should promote consolidation for new developments. TfL should also work with London Councils to reduce restrictions on night-time deliveries. (the latter is all about noise in residential or mixed use areas, although restrictions could be lifted if linked to more electric trucks. Delivery consolidation will occur if roads are priced efficiently)
5. TfL should pilot a ban on personal deliveries for staff. Based on the findings, the Mayor should consider extending this to all GLA Group premises, and promote this change in practice to other large employers in London. (I'm not a fan of this heavy handed approach which was justified because people can "pick them up at tube stations". This assumes people live near tube stations, over half of London doesn't. Efficient road pricing would mean the price of such deliveries could vary to reflect such costs, obviating such an illiberal policy).
6. TfL should reconsider its approach to ‘click and collect’ at Tube and rail stations. Stations should be identified for a pilot programme in which multiple retailers and/or freight operators can deliver packages to a station for collection.(This should certainly be tried where it makes business sense and is practicable and safe).
7. he Mayor should set out how his new regulations for the private hire industry and the legislative changes he is advocating will affect congestion levels in London. He should also commit to assessing the impact of making private hire vehicles subject to a new road pricing regime, and different options for implementing this proposal. (rational to require private hire vehicles to pay any new road pricing scheme, but a similar case can be made for hackney carriages "black cabs" to do so as well).
8. TfL should conduct and publish an analysis of the impact of the Road and Transport Enforcement Team and, if it is proven to be cost-effective, set out plans to expand the size and coverage of the team. (this group focusing on breakdowns, stoppages, illegal stops and other activities that create congestion. Logical).
9. The Mayor and TfL should carry out an assessment of the effectiveness of the London Permit and Lane Rental schemes for roadworks. This should be aimed at ensuring the cost of delayed roadworks on London’s road users is reflected in the amount companies must pay. (Appropriate for a scheme that should be part of what any good road controlling authority does for utility access to its corridor).
10. TfL should continue to implement its Road Modernisation Plan schemes including the proposed network of safer cycling routes such as Cycle Superhighways and Quietways. It should report back to the committee by the end of April 2017 on how the construction of additional Superhighways and other major projects will be planned more effectively to minimise traffic congestion. (the "Road Modernisation Plan" needs some more economic rigour, taking into account impacts on congestion and modal shift. It's not clear how these projects positively impact on traffic congestion, if at all. Theoretically there is plenty of scope for projects to improve the capacity of intersections, although road pricing revenue may be needed to fund those that need land acquisition).
11. TfL should conduct and publish an analysis of the impact of the pilot scheme displaying traffic notices on buses and, if it is proven to be cost-effective, set out plans to roll out the programme more widely.
Of Committee members, the UKIP Member disagrees with recommendations 2 and 3, and partly with 1 and 10.
Congestion isn't about growing private car use
The report says:
"The mode share of private vehicle transport has fallen in recent years, from 41 per cent in 2003 to 32 per cent in 2014"
"Londoners’ usage of cars has been falling for at least ten years. Between 2005 and 2014, all the key measures of car use – trips taken by Londoners as a car driver, the distance travelled and time spent driving – all fell by around 25 per cent"
In other words, public transport use has been growing significantly. However there has been an 11% increase in light delivery vehicle kms in three years, which can put down to internet shopping. There has also been a 70% increase in private hire vehicles in under four years. Both can be seen as partly an effect of reduced car use. If you don't have a car, it is difficult to go shopping for goods over a certain size to take them home, so deliveries grow. Similarly, public transport doesn't take you everywhere you want to go, especially in evenings, or when carrying a lot of shopping or luggage, so booking a private hire vehicles makes sense.
Corresponding to this has been reductions in the capacity available to motor vehicles, with the advent of more cycling lanes and in a few cases, footpath capacity.
Cycling has been increasing in popularity, but it is likely this is mode shift from buses and the underground, not cars given the low mode share for cars in any case. In short, London has successfully made commuting by private car uncompetitive in central London (although not outer London), and has not added significant road capacity for over 15 years, but non-car traffic has grown considerably. The question is how to address this.
Short term reform
The profile of traffic in the congestion charging zone by time of day doesn't match the AM peak inbound, PM peak outbound pattern seen in many cities. In fact, there is more traffic around 0900-1000 than at 0700, because very few commuters into central London travel by car. The congestion charge is an area charge. So any vehicle (that isn't exempt) moving within the area is charged a flat fee for unlimited driving in the zone that day. It would be possible to have a different rate for different times, but that could split the charge into period passes. There could be a charge for driving in the AM and a separate one for the PM period, or a pass for a two hour period, although that adds complications to the system. An alternative would be to actually trial distance charging, which simply measures distance on the charged roads and to hike the daily charge considerably (making that the capped rate for driving in the zone).
Truth be told, very little that can be done with the congestion charge would make much of a difference, except perhaps charging all private hire vehicles (and black cabs - as controversial as that will be, to them) by distance. This might be possible as a part of their licences, and would be a good start (as it could encourage mode shift to public transport and reduce the number of empty touting trips by black cabs). Another point would be to charge heavy vehicles on a PCU (passenger car unit) basis, so that they pay according to road space, although I doubt this would make much difference, it would be fairer.
Long term reform
It's fairly obvious that charging all vehicles (except perhaps contracted bus services) by distance, vehicle size, location and time of day, could transform road traffic conditions in much of London. That's assuming such a system would price with a high degree of disaggregation by time of day and route. No doubt, the idea of using it to replace Vehicle Excise Duty (the UK's annual registration fee) would make it more acceptable, although if it means transferring revenue from central government to the Mayor of London, it is more questionable unless the use of revenue is dedicated, first, to maintaining and upgrading the road network. The obvious question would be about fleets and other road users who might register vehicles at London addresses and never pay VED and pay little "London road pricing" because they rarely enter London.
A survey undertaken as part of the report (PDF) indicates a number of interesting statistics:
70% of those surveyed had not paid the congestion charge in the past year.
48% support the current congestion charge, 27% oppose it, 25% are neutral.
54% think the congestion charge is too high, 11% think it is too low, 27% think it is about right (interesting it is women, younger people and non-white Londoners who particularly think it is too high)
50% would prefer a distance (or time based) charge instead of the current flat charge, 20% oppose
47% support local congestion charge zones, 21% oppose
29% support expanding the existing congestion charge zone, 41% oppose
60% believe a distance charge would be fairer, 13% disagree
41% believe a distance or time based charged would be bad for business, 17% disagree
37% believe a distance or time based charged would make journey times quicker, 19% disagree, 44% neutral
27% believe they would be likely drive less if they faced a distance or time based charge, 15% disagree, 25% are neutral, 32% don't drive
55% believe net revenue from road pricing should be used for improved public transport, 21% believe it should be used to improve roads, 12% believe it should be used for cycling infrastructure (note a third of respondents don't drive but are included in this).
64% of those surveyed in employment don't drive to work.
30% support workplace parking levies, 39% oppose, 30% neutral
The three big questions to ask about a wide scale scheme as proposed are:
1. What about visitors to London? Any time/location/distance based system will need to involve either on board telematic or an installed on board unit to identify, measure and transmit charging information from vehicles. For vehicles without such systems, an alternative will be needed, which inevitably will be much less disaggregated, blunter and more expensive. For example, London could be blanketed with a patchwork of area charges that occasional users pay a charge to cross into. Otherwise, a single, expensive day pass could be offered for entering London, perhaps one for outer London and another for inner London. In either case, the impacts of this need to be modelled and carefully considered.
2. What should be done with net revenues? Road users should expect that if they pay a lot more, they get a good standard of service. A lot of roads need serious capital renewal due to poor maintenance. Bridges with weight restrictions could be strengthened, but more importantly, bottlenecks that are worth improving should be. The Mayor seems to have dropped planned for new east-west road tunnels, but there is much that can be done to improve some existing corridors with historic bottlenecks. Road pricing can curtail induced demand and make such improvements sustainable, and those who pay should expect an ongoing programme of capital improvement.
3. What about other charges? The congestion charge would go of course, and it's unlikely Vehicle Excise Duty would be replaced, especially since it is government policy to hypothecate the revenue for the strategic road network (although I think it should be hypothecated for local roads only). How about it being a pilot for partially replacing fuel duty? Fuel duty revenue is in decline, not just because the government wont increase it to adjust for inflation, but fuel efficiency and the rise of electric/hybrid vehicles means it is becoming slowly obsolete. Public acceptability would be much higher, and the impacts may be more dramatic if existing taxes are replaced by carefully targeting congestion.
Hopefully the Mayor will consider a study into how to take road pricing further in London.
No comments:
Post a Comment