Road pricing

Brave Ken
Jul 27th 2000
From The Economist print edition

LONDON will soon embark on an experiment in traffic control that no other major city in the world has dared to attempt. The capital’s new mayor, Ken Livingstone, has a clear mandate to restrain traffic congestion. His proposal to charge motorists £5 ($7.50) a day for driving in central London has, nevertheless, come as a shock to many motorists. It is likely to happen. But it will lead to a protracted and bitter argument, whose outcome is by no means certain.

A discussion document due to be published on July 28th outlines a series of options for the scheme, which it is proposed to bring into force in three years’ time. The area subject to charges would cover several square miles. It includes the West End and the City but could be extended as far west as Battersea and Kensington (see map). The charging period would include daytime and peak commuting hours, but exclude evenings and weekends. Enforcement is likely to rely on roadside digital cameras recording the number plates of the 200,000 private cars and 50,000 commercial vehicles that drive into central London daily. The pictures would be compared with a database of vehicles that have paid. Drivers would be able to pay the daily fee at any time on the day of travel. Drivers caught not paying the fee would be fined, by post.

The benefits of this ambitious scheme cannot disguise the political risks involved. A government-funded study “Road Charging Options for London” estimates that a £5 charge would make traffic congestion fall by 10% in peak periods and that traffic speeds would increase by 2mph to just over 11mph. A £5 fee would yield up to £320m for London’s government.

Raising the daily fee to £7.50, as has been mooted by transport specialists, would significantly increase these revenues, and further reduce congestion. Public transport would be likely to improve, since it would get more money and would have less competition for road space. But the higher the charge is set, the more outrage it is likely to generate. Every driver wants less traffic, but few are prepared to alter their travel habits. When the government’s researchers surveyed the opinion of London residents last year, 67% backed charging if the money raised was spent on transport improvements. But there are bound to be vigorous protests from those directly affected, such as mothers taking their children to school, or the sick travelling to central London hospitals. Three Conservative-run boroughs—Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Wandsworth—have voiced strong opposition, although they cannot block the scheme.

A particularly sensitive issue is the question of exemptions. Transport specialists advising the mayor believe that only emergency services, buses, disabled drivers and possibly taxis should be exempt from the fee. But residents who live within the charging area will be furious if they have to pay the full charge every time they move their cars. If special discounts are given to residents, however, those who live just outside the charged area will feel aggrieved.The boundary effects are also likely to be troubling with increased congestion as drivers change their routes to avoid paying the charge.

The sheer complexity of London is a further problem. So is the short time before the planned introduction of the charge in 2003. None of the technology involved is cutting-edge, but no other city in the world has attempted anything on such a scale. Singapore’s area licensing scheme has been in operation since 1975, but it involves a tiny area and much smaller traffic flows. The Norwegian cities of Bergen, Trondheim and Oslo have also successfully operated road tolls, but these have been designed to raise revenues rather than restrain traffic.

The London plan stands a chance of public acceptance only if it is seen as part of an overall transport strategy including major and visible improvements to public transport. Mr Livingstone is popular and determined, but he can be under no illusions about the scale of the task he has set himself. If he fails, his chances of re-election in four years’ time will probably be minimal. If he succeeds, every other city in the world will be beating a path to his door to see how it was done.