Congestion Charging in London (A):

The Western Extension

Submitted By: -
Group No. – 10 Sec. – B
Abhishek Singh (2010062)
Ankit Saxena(2010068)
Deenbandhu Mishra(2010075)
Nikhil Bhandary (2010096)
 Central London – Congestion
Problem
• Transportation was the primary responsibility of the Labour
party after gaining control of Parliament in 1997.
• London residents were happy with this move.
• The Great London Authority Act of 1999 required the
authority to develop a transport strategy and gave it power to
levy road usage as well as workplace parking charges.
• Ken Livingstone running as an independent candidate became
the Mayor in 2000, with implementation of congestion
charges being his primary agenda.
 Road User Charges
Fuel Taxes
• A fuel tax is a sales tax imposed on
the sale of fuel.
• Positive Externalities
• Financing road provision and
maintenance.
• Reduces the environmental externalities
of road transport like less air & noise
pollution.
• Rise in government revenue for general
(non transport) expenditure purpose
• Negative Externalities
• to people not using cars.
• Increased cost to entire base, not just
congested zone travellers.
• Motorists using the congested road ends
up paying same as the one driving on a
freeway.
• Increase in fuel tax not a good option
in reduction of congestion.
Facility Tolls
• Toll tax is primarily used to recover
the cost of Bridges, Tunnels and
intercity Express highways. It is
beneficial there due to less number of
access points.
• Putting Toll taxes on the congested
places is not a viable option as:
• Urban expressways have large number of
access point.
• Increase in cost to road users.
• Facility Toll seldom vary with congestion
and time of day.
• There will be large queues outside toll
collection booths during congestion
timings.
Congestion
• Tolls that vary with level of
congestion.
• The congestion charges enables the
government to charge the negative
externalities
• Positive externalities:
• Reduction in Air and Noise Pollution
• Congestion Levels
• Development in public transport, charging
the peak- hour users more for the
construction charges of road.
• Rise in government revenue
• Walking and cycling area
• Negative Externalities:
• Increased cost to road users
• Economic cost to congested zone
residents, retailers, offices, transporters.
• Congestion or overcrowding at
underground rails
Prior Experience - Congestion Pricing

Singapore
• First city to adopt congestion pricing in 1975, 2.4 miles central area, that covers Singapore
Downtown, from 7:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
• Shift from Colored coded license to Electronic collection Scheme so as to save cost of
staffing toll booths and the time lost.
• After 1998, the congestion charges were made to vary with the traffic.
• Successful in congestion zone, but spillover traffic in adjoining ring roads and streets.
• Gradually expanded to adjoining areas of traffic congestion.

Norway
• Norway introduces Toll Rings in the cities of Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim And Stavanger in late
1980s.
• Purpose to raise revenue rather than congestion control
• Proved congestion charges were feasible in countries apart from Singapore
• Pioneered in Automated License plate recognition system along with non- electronic
methods.
• Enforcement was by video recognition of license plates.
• Enforcement included Periodical license schemes, unmanned coin booths.
ROCOL Study
• Greater London Authority established “ Review of Charging
options for LONDON” - ROCOL.
• Central London area was selected for charging because of
practicality.
• Congestion Pricing Features :
• Cars: 5 Pounds/day
• Trucks : 15 Pounds/day
• Time : 7AM to 7PM
• Computer simulation was used to study travel pattern and
congestion levels throughout greater London. Overall 10
percent Reduction was Predicted, with overall time
reduction from 4 min/km to 3.5 min/km
ROCOL Study
Comparison between Congestion charging and Workplace
Parking scheme

Congestion charging Parking Scheme

Cost to consumers Car : 5 Pounds/day 3000 Pounds/Annum
Trucks : 15 Pounds/day
Societal Benefit 129 – 223 million 40 – 85 million Pounds
Pounds
Financial Gain 230 – 270 million 85 – 105 million Pounds
Pounds
ROCOL Study
• 3 Options for collecting Congestion charges were considered:
• Paper Windshield License
• Digital Video Enforcement
• Electronic Collection Scheme
• The Implementation time was different for different options
with 2002 for paper licensing scheme , 2003 for video option
and 2004 for electronic scheme.
Congestion charging scheme
Scheme designed to reduce congestion

Cars and trucks entering Congestion charging zone were charged £5 per
day

Emergency vehicles, Public buses, taxis, motorcycles and cars driven by

disabled persons were exempted from the congestion charges

Scheme applicable between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm, Monday through

Friday

90% discount for residents of Congestion charging zone, Central London

Vehicles were monitored via video surveillance software

Congestion charging scheme (contd.)
Violators were fined £80; fine reduced to £40 if paid
before midnight on the same day else it was increased to
£120

License plates of violators were verified manually before

the fine bills were sent

Toll licenses could be purchased on daily, weekly or

monthly basis from vending machines, selected petrol
pumps and retail stores via telephone, post or the internet

Extensive public information campaign regarding

congestion taxes were held
Current Status: After Charging in Central
Region
Particulars % Increase/Decrease
Cars* 33 % decrease
Delivery vans & trucks * 11 % decrease
Exempt Vehicles* 11-23 % increase
Traffic circulation 15 % decrease
Congestion delays 30 % decrease
Inner Ring Road (traffic diversion effects) 4 % increase

Overall Congestion* 11-21 % decrease

Motorists Shift to Public Transport 32500-37000

Motorist changing their hour of travel 8000-18500

All Vehicles 14 % decrease

*Exhibit 4
Results of Congestion Charging
Overall traffic reduced by 14%

Traffic of 4+ wheelers which contributes maximum to the

congestion is reduced by 18%

Time to travel one kilometer in central London is reduced by

14% from 3.6minutes to 3.1minutes

Time to travel one kilometer in Inner Ring road is reduced from

3.7minutes to 3.3 to 3.5minutes

Time to travel along approaches to Central London is reduced by

10% from 3minutes to 2.7minutes
Results of Congestion Charging
(contd.)

Congestion Delay reduced from 2.4 mins/km to 1.7 mins/km

Though the traffic around central London has been increased by 4%,
the congestion delays were down by 11 to 21%

Net annual social benefit amounted to £50mn

Apart from the estimated social benefit, there are other benefits like
reduced air/noise pollution, increased quality of life in central London

People supporting the project increased from 39% to 48%

PPP-Benefits
• Project Acceleration & cost effectiveness
• Eradication of negative externalities and free rider problem
The user pays for the benefits.
• The presence of government enables the social marginal
benefit and cost consideration.
Bandra–Worli Sea Link (BWSL)
 Bandra–Worli Sea Link (BWSL)
• The Rs. 1600 crore project of Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation (MSRDC) was executed by Hindustan Construction
Company, with design and project management by DAR Consultants.
• The link has an average daily traffic of around 37,500 vehicles per day
• The toll station (TP) and collection system will provide for 3 different
types of toll collection, as follows:
- Fully automatic system: Electronic payment through On board Units
mounted on the vehicles which allow passage without stopping.
- Semi-automatic system: Electronic payment through a smart card, which
allows payment without having to pay cash.
- Manual toll collection: Payment of toll by cash, requiring vehicle drivers to
make cash payment to a toll attendant, and stopping for cash exchange.
Advantages
The Sea Link reduces travel time between Bandra and Worli from 45–60 minutes to 7
minutes
• THANK YOU