London congestion charge

[3][4] Inspired by Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system after London officials had travelled to the country, the charge was first introduced on 17 February 2003.

According to TfL, the objective of the increase was to recoup inflation over the past three years and ensure the charge remains an effective deterrent to making unnecessary journeys in central London.

[44][45] The 2008 annual report on the operation of the scheme shows that around 26% of penalties go unpaid, because the notice is cancelled on appeal or the amount cannot be recovered, for example if the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be traced, has died, or is bankrupt.

During the early years of the Greater London Council, which was formed in 1965, the first plans were drawn up for a system of cordon charging or supplementary licensing for use in the central area.

[65] The scheme was to be introduced to reduce congestion in the centre of the capital following the Draft Transport Strategy of January 2001 which had highlighted the importance that the Mayor placed on tackling this issue.

[65] In July 2002, Westminster City Council launched a legal challenge against the plans, arguing that they would increase pollution and were a breach of human rights of residents on the boundary of the zone.

[77] On the first day 190,000 vehicles moved into or within the zone during charging hours, a decrease of around 25% on normal traffic levels, partly due to it also being the half-term school holiday.

Some shops and businesses are reported to be heavily affected by the charge, both in terms of lost sales due to reduced traffic and increased delivery costs, as recognised by the London Chamber of Commerce.

On 25 February 2003 Livingstone stated, "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary" referring to the amount that drivers have to pay, indicating that £5 was sufficient to bring about the reduction in traffic that he had hoped for.

[88] It was reported in July 2003 that TfL agreed to subsidise Capita by paying it £31 million because it was making no profits from the project, and that the most critical problem was the 103,000 outstanding penalty notices not paid.

The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year.

[92] In November 2003, Scientific American magazine listed Ken Livingstone as one of the top 50 visionaries building a better world and who were considered to have contributed most to science and technology during the year.

[93] They praised the mayor for his "guts and leadership" in introducing the charge which had reduced traffic and his "courage" in combating a classic case of externality, i.e. "the exploitation of common resources by some people at the expense of others".

[94] In February, shortly before the June 2004 mayoral election TfL issued a consultation document on the expansion of the zone to the west that would cover the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

A few days before the scheme came into operation, he wrote in a BBC report that it had been "shambolically organised", that the public transport network had insufficient spare capacity to cater for travellers deterred from using their cars in the area by the charge.

[81] In 2007 a green motoring website alleged to TfL that owners of luxury cars were registering their vehicles as minicabs to qualify for exemption from the charge.

[137] On 12 February 2008 TfL announced that they would introduce a new charging structure for vehicles entering the congestion zone, based on potential CO2 emission rates on 27 October 2008 following the imminent mayoral elections.

[138][139] The main change would be the introduction of two new fees: According to a report commissioned by Land Rover, the scheme would increase traffic delays and air pollution.

[159] A number of studies have been made of its effects on congestion, traffic levels, road safety, the use of public transport, the environment, and business activity matters.

[45] They had noted a small but pervasive long-term trend of less traffic entering the zone, expected to be a result of people changing their location and lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the charge.

Changes to the road network over the years has made direct comparisons difficult, but TfL suspect that certain routes used heavily by taxis and buses within the zone have seen substantially increased traffic.

[15] The pre-commencement report from TfL noted that the scheme was not expected to significantly affect air quality, but that offering a discount to encourage the use of greener fuels would be a positive measure.

[164] In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, NOX emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%, with some being attributed to the effects of reduced levels of traffic flowing better, with the majority being as a result of improved vehicle technology.

[45] A 2011 independent study published by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), and led by a researcher from King's College London, found that there is little evidence the congestion charge scheme has improved air quality.

This research used modelling and also compared actual air pollutant measurements within the congestion charge zone with those of control sites located in Outer London.

The investigators concluded that "it is difficult to identify significant air quality improvements from a specific program – especially one targeted at a small area within a large city – against the backdrop of broader regional pollutant and weather changes.

[169] In 2007 TfL reported that bus patronage in the central London area (not the same as the Congestion Charge Zone) had increased from under 90,000 pre-charge to stabilise at 116,000 journeys per day by 2007.

[45] TfL estimated that the charge has led to a small reduction in road traffic casualties against a background trend of improvement across London and across the rest of Great Britain over the period.

[170] The scheme makes use of purpose-built automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, manufactured by PIPs Technology, to record vehicles entering and exiting the zone.

[78] Although Parliament has limited the amount that authorities can borrow, for some time it had been speculated that the regular income obtained from the congestion charge and other revenues could be used to securitise a bond issue that finances other transport projects across London.