London Congestion Charge

The London congestion charge is (English for London Congestion Charge ) an inner city toll, which motorists must pay in central London. London is not the first, but was until 2006 the largest city, the person claiming such a fee. The person responsible for the organization fee is the Transport for London ( TfL), which also carries the London public transport system.

This toll is intended that travelers instead of motor vehicles make greater use of public transport, cleaner vehicles, bicycles and motorbikes or on foot. This is intended to congestion and pollution associated reduced and the duration of the trips are temporally predictable. TfL invested claims to a large portion of the money collected in the transport.

The fee was introduced on 17 February 2003. The registered owner of a vehicle with which the marked congestion zone on weekdays ( Monday- Friday) will be used 7-18 clock, must pay a daily charge of £ 10 is payable (as of January 4, 2011 ). If the fee is not paid by 24 clock of the same day, they will be raised to £ 12. This should serve as an incentive not to pay at the last minute. If payment is still not made until midnight of the next day, a fine of currently £ 120 (50 % discount for payment within 14 days ) will be charged. If the fine is not paid within 28 days, it rises to £ 180 By 4 July 2005 the daily charge of £ 5, to January 3, 2011 GBP 8

Some vehicles are exempt from the fee, such as buses, emergency vehicles, police, fire and ambulance services, alternative fuel vehicles, mini buses from a certain size, motorcycles and bicycles, as well as taxis. Technically, get some of these vehicles, only complete Discounts, however, must still be registered. Residents of the congestion charging zone can save up to 90 % of the tolls by paying a minimum period of one week.

The congestion charging zone

The limit of the first zone is also referred to as the inner ring road London. The zone is seen from the northernmost point in the clockwise direction by the major roads Pentonville Road, City Road, Old Street, Commercial Street, Mansell Street, Tower Bridge Road, New Kent Road, Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Park Lane, Edgware Road, Marylebone Road and Euston Road defined. Minor roads close the resulting gaps. To pass the border roads, no fee must be paid. Between Christmas and New Year 2002 marks were made on all entrance roads, which should make the driver on the charging attentive.

Be included through these streets the entire City of London, the financial district, as well as London's West End, the primary commercial and entertainment center of the city. Of the seven million people, Greater London live about 136,000 inhabitants within the first toll zone, which is rather seen more as an industrial area as a residential area.

On 19 February 2007, the Western Extension ( extension of the zone to the west ) came into force with effect from January 4, 2011, this extension has been withdrawn.

Technology and enforcement

The enforcement of the toll is realized by video surveillance of streets with 230 surveillance cameras, of which 180 are installed at the edge of the area. In addition, a number of mobile cameras is used within the congestion charging zone. The proportion of such recognized vehicles in total traffic is estimated to be 98%. The video data are transmitted to a data center in Central London, where by automatic number plate recognition of the owner of the vehicle is determined. A second data center takes over the backup of the images.

Although this method is not infallible, but a reasonable probability of success is enough to deter from. For entry and exit from the zone so the front and rear license plates are respectively accommodated, making four opportunities exist to identify a vehicle. The 50 cameras within the toll area detect vehicles that were not identified when entering or moving within the zone.

The vehicle list thus obtained is automatically compared with the list of vehicles for which the toll has been paid. Who pays, but is not detected within the toll area, it is not entitled to repayment. Who does not, however, pays and is still detected, the threat of a fine. The holder of such a vehicle is determined using a database provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. The fine is £ 65 within the first two weeks, then £ 130 and £ 195, the amount after four weeks should not be paid.

While private vehicle owners have to pay the charge on their own initiative, apply for business vehicles other rules. A company can register a fleet of vehicles with TfL are being calculated for each detected by monitoring vehicle £ 5 per day.

In May 2005, the businessman Miguel Camacho founded the company fivepounds.co.uk. Private vehicles were registered as part of the company car fleet of fivepounds.co.uk. Thus, the vehicle owner no longer had to pay the toll proactively escaped fines and got non-detection by the cameras even "free" trips. Fivepounds.co.uk rose a monthly administration fee of £ 10, so that the offer was attractive only for regular visitors to the area. TfL that achieve 36 % of their revenues through fees fines, then demanded the presentation of vehicle registration letters for the registration of company vehicles. Due to a rule change by the competent authority had to close on 26 February 2006, the " fleet ".

Economic basis

From the perspective of economics streets are public goods that differ from private goods by non- excludability and non-rivalry. This means that the item is not " consumed " by using and individuals are usually not excluded from use. For this reason, roads must be built mostly by the state, because the market itself not provides sufficient.

On a heavily used road, however, the users interfere with each other, which implies a certain rivalry arises. Now, if an individual user uses this road, he affected so that others, refers not, however, be in a calculus. An external effect, which without intervention prevented a welfare- optimized decision and leads to market failure. A Congestion -Charge may rectify this deficiency. To achieve this, they should be as high as third parties will assess disability caused by the user, which must include so into his calculation of the users.

Ideally, the fee should therefore be adapted to the current utilization of the road. They should be significantly higher than in the low-traffic night as during the rush hours. The London Congestion Charge achieved this goal only partially, since it is on the one hand not charged during the night but during the day does not vary and the extent of disability of third parties ( for example, the duration of the trip ) is not considered.

In connection with the private transport, there are other externalities such as environmental impact, but which can also be captured by a general fuel tax.

From the perspective of economics so it's always a good idea to charge a toll for the use of congested roads.

Special

The London Congestion planning has for several reasons been attracting attention:

• It is the first large-scale project toll Britain; previously a smaller model in Durham has only been tested. This driver must pay weekdays 10-16 clock £ 2 for the entrance to a small area of the city. In addition to the camera surveillance also bollards are used, which are lowered automatically after payment upon leaving the zone. The experiment proved successful, as he lowered the traffic within this small zone from 2,000 to about 200 vehicles per day.
• As well as many other high traffic cities are faced with frequent congestion worldwide, similar models could, when the London Congestion actually turns out to be jam -resistant, be transferred to other cities.
• The system is based on advanced technology; so drivers can pay the fee via SMS, in shops with a PayPoint or by phone.
• The total cost for the implementation of the plan, including the installation of the cameras, the call center for the settlement fees and the advertising campaign, which made ​​the driver aware of the system amounted to about 250 million pounds sterling. A payback was expected within three years. Due to the decline of the traffic and the associated revenue decline TfL ( see below), this expectation was not fulfilled.

Opponents of the toll, however, bring to harsh criticism. Thus, lack of capacity of local transport and social intolerance of privileges are listed as arguments. However, contrast is that free parking spaces are available for residents only during times of toll and the toll is less than the average parking fee for one hour.

TfL commissioned Capita plc with the implementation of the model. Subcontractors were among others Mastek Ltd from Mumbai, India, which were responsible for the IT infrastructure. According to their information, it is the largest ever realized with Microsoft. NET platform project. Due to the worldwide distribution of the parties in countries with different policies in terms of data protection, the project has drawn concerns about the security of privacy to yourself. So confirmed Ken Livingstone (then Mayor of London) saying that a remote control of the cameras is possible and in the case of investigations stood the data to the investigating authorities. Likewise, Livingstone announced that the cameras for security remained in failure of the system in operation.

The toll in practice

Before the introduction of the toll a rougher start was feared. Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London as a major proponent of toll feared even a " bloody day ". In fact, the system was brought about in the first two days of a dramatic decline in traffic in downtown. On the first day sailed 190,000 vehicles the zone during the chargeable period. This represents a decline of about 25 % dar. Given freed of 45,000 vehicles the total fall was thus over 30%. Individual voices reported a reduction in journey times by half. About 100,000 drivers paid the fee itself, 15,000 to 20,000 were business vehicles and an estimated 10,000 drivers paid not the fee. With the introduction of tolls also 300 new buses were taken ( a total of about 20,000 ) in operation. Bus operators and the London Underground reported a possibly slight increase in passenger numbers. Chance was, however, reported that at peak times problematic anyway overcrowding would have continued to increase.

Initially it was suspected behind the reduced traffic school holidays, but this proved to be false. Reports showed a consistent decline in traffic in the first month of operation of the toll. This decrease was at least 15 %, in the first week even at 20 %. Although accurate statistics were out of the media spotlight, the toll is considered successful.

On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report that examined the first six months after the introduction of the toll. According to this report, the average number of oncoming vehicles in the central region was reduced by 60,000 over the previous year, representing a reduction of non-exempt vehicles by 30%. 50 to 60 % of the use of the ÖPNVs and 20 to 30 % are allocated to the avoiding the zone. The rest is caused by carpooling, reduction of trips, increased driving outside the hours of operation of the toll system and increased use of motorcycles and bicycles. Travel times have been reduced according to a report by an average of 15%. The variance of the travel times on an observed, heavily traveled route also fell.

According to report, the toll caused only a slight decrease in sales at retail. In August 2003, the John Lewis Partnership announced a reduced sales by 8% of their business in Oxford Street during the first six months after commissioning of the toll system. Sales of other businesses outside the congestion zone, however, rose such as in Kingston upon Thames. TfL countered that only 0.5 % of the decline of the toll could be attributed to London was suffering from its long-term inability to modernize its transport routes and infrastructure. TfL claimed that London would develop positive long-term thanks to the toll.

The number of granted fines amounted to about 100,000, the report monthly, which is being appealed against about 2,000 Affected by contradiction. The significantly stronger than expected reduced traffic meant for TfL a yield of only 68 million pounds sterling. Originally TfL had announced 130 million. The toll system influenced according to report, the accident rate does not appreciably so that the slightly declining trend remains intact.

Another, published in October 2004 report stated that by 2010, only 7 of the 13 government requirements for transport in London were met. The congestion would not be sufficiently reduced, which would indicate an error in the policies of toll collection. However, the report refers to total London and the congestion can be mainly attributed to the arterial roads in the suburbs, where the construction of a transportation network is more difficult and increases the motor vehicle is used.

An article published in May 2006 BBC report can be seen that the U.S. Embassy in London refused to pay the congestion charge. The U.S. Embassy maintains the congestion charge for a tax, by the diplomatic agents under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations were freed. In the period from October 2005 to May 2006 were imposed against vehicles from the U.S. Embassy in London fines totaling £ 271,000, but can not be enforced because of diplomatic immunity. Other countries also refuse to pay, including Russia, Japan and Germany.

Toll history

In England there were always many toll roads, earlier today. Duties came on as a result of deterioration of the roads in the late 17th century. This decline was caused by the Protestant Reformation, as the Catholic priests took care of the streets any longer. At the end of the 18th century, the English road network was mainly bezollt. Customs roads finally abolished in the late 19th century, after the competition of the railways and the protests from travelers who had to pay duties as often in long distance, have been overpowering.

Although the model of a city toll is widely attributed to the London Mayor Ken Livingstone, he gives himself as the source for the idea of the Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. General road tolls were previously touted by others, such as the economist Adam Smith in the 18th century.

Mid-1990s, examined the British government plans that are similar to today's toll. The London Congestion Research Programme was in July 1995 that London's economy would benefit from such a program. The Greater London Authority Act of 1999 approved every mayor of London to the office right to be allowed to introduce a toll system. After his election victory in 2000 Livingstone decided, as promised in its election manifesto to take advantage of this law and negotiated with interested parties. The basic model was agreed in February 2002 and started with some compromises on February 17, 2003.

After introduction of the toll, there were a number of future desired changes. Livingstone announced a formal review of the system to only six months after its commissioning. Originally a year was provided; thanks to the successful launch shortened Livingstone the time, however. On 25 February 2003, he announced that he could not foresee events that would make it necessary to change the amount of the toll, but that could change in a few years. He therefore suggested that the five pounds were adequate to inhibit as desired traffic.

This statement he disagreed in November 2004 in an interview with BBC London, when he stated that it was always clear that the charge is increased to at least 6 pounds during his second term. At the end of the month Livingstone fully again resulted in a turn and now spoke in favor of increasing the fee to £ 8 for private and £ 7 for business vehicles. Business groups such as London First reacted angrily to this announcement and called it as " neither satisfactory nor acceptable". The increase to £ 8 was formally announced on 1 April 2005, along with discounts on the purchase of monthly and annual tickets.

Shortly after the introduction of the fee speculated newspapers, an extension of the congestion charging zone is part of Livingstone's re-election manifesto ( under the Labour Party) in 2004. Indeed TfL raised in February 2004 survey data on a western extension of the zone, then the rest of the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea would include.

In August 2004, TfL published the results of the survey. Many of the respondents did not want expansion, but Livingstone said the results from a representative character. For critics, this was the confirmation that the entire interview was nothing but a legal safeguard serving sham.

Steven Norris, 2004, prepared for the office of mayor candidate of the Conservative Party, is known as a harsh critic of the toll, calling them, inspired by Ken Livingstone as " Kengestion charge". He promised to abolish the toll at won election to adopt and unpaid fines 11 June 2004. In an interview with the London Evening Standard newspaper of the Conservative leader Michael Howard backed its candidate by stating that toll had " undoubtedly " have a harmful impact on the businesses of London.

Simon Hughes, the candidate of the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand supported the basic principles of the model. He suggested, among others, before a possible payment the next day, a shortening of the hours of operation at 17 clock and 5 days off a year for each detected vehicle.

In May 2005, TfL announced a further survey with specific proposals for the extension. These included a plan to increase sales of London's theaters, restaurants and cinemas, which should be achieved by a shortened to 30 minutes toll collection.

As a result of the attack on the London Underground toll collection on 7 and 8 July 2005 suspended.

After Livingstone's re-election and were made in September 2005, confirming the western extension was carried out for 19 February 2007. This causes the area of the zone was doubled and now includes areas such as Kensington and Chelsea. The mayor admitted that by the 230,000 rebate-eligible residents of the extended zone, a traffic increase in the existing area was to be expected. A majority of the respondents previously rejected the extension vehemently. This was especially businesses that have been fighting for their sales. The core area of ​​London shopping, Oxford Street sits in the midst of the extended zone. Livingstone defended his position with ecological reasons, but are Gerry Archer, chairman of the Climate Change Partnership of the mayor, that they had nothing to do with the toll.

Other effects

Other cities with downtown toll, for example, Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Milan and Singapore. Singapore 1975 was the first city to introduce a toll.

Thanks to the transport -inhibiting effect of the London Congestion ask some, like the left-wing think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, comparable systems for other parts of the country. In November 2003, responsible for the transport of State Alistair Darling However, denied that were approached with the exception of Edinburgh city with a request for aid to implement a toll system to the government. After the publication of offers of the English Transport Innovation Fund in November 2005 is likely to change, however, the. A toll in Edinburgh is tentatively seen as unlikely after in a poll 75 % of voters opposed it. Unlike in London, where Ken Livingstone had sufficient own office force to cause the toll, need other cities because of the Transport Act 2000, the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport.

Even cities in other countries watch the London model. For example cited councilors in Queens and Brooklyn, a report of the London Chamber of Commerce, who claimed a business- damaging effect of the toll. This should be the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, are quenched by a toll system.