Congestion charge

What is the congestion charge?

The congestion charge is a daily £8 levy imposed on drivers choosing to drive within central London. It applies between 07:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

A public consultation considering the future of the congestion charge began on August 10th and closed on October 19th 2007. It suggested increasing the fee from £8 to £25 for drivers of high-polluting vehicles, and relaxing the charge for drivers of greener models.

The congestion charge zone covers a large portion of central London. The boundaries of the congestion charge zone link points in central London such as Euston Road in the north, Commercial Street in the east, Vauxhall and Chelsea Embankment in the south and Harrow Road and Earls Court in the west.

The scheme is monitored by cameras on roads across the congestion charge zone, which read car number plates and cross-references them against a register of cars that have paid the charge.

Drivers can pay the charge in advance or on the day of travel, but if they forget they can pay up until midnight the following day, but will incur a £2 surcharge, taking the total charge to £10. There are several methods of payment, including telephone, text message, post, online or in a shop. Failure to pay risks a penalty charge notice of £100.

Groups exempt from paying the congestion charge and those eligible for discounts include people with disabilities, residents living within the congestion zone, emergency services and breakdown recovery vehicles, taxis, and drivers of alternative fuel vehicles.


Background

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, introduced the congestion charge at £5 a day in February 2003 with the aim of reducing traffic congestion in and around the charging zone. It was increased to £8 a day from July 2005.

Among other aims, the congestion charge is meant to reduce the length of journeys within the congestion zone, improve bus services and encourage motorists to use public transport instead of their cars.

The charge also attempts to collect net revenues to improve public transport facilities in London, as, by law, the proceeds raised by the congestion charge must be added to expenditure on public transport in London.


Controversies

The congestion charge has faced a barrage of criticism since its inception. Opponents have challenged its regressive nature, whereby poorer motorists are charged the same levy as richer car owners, and some have described the congestion charge as a 'tax on the poor'. The decision to impose the levy on key workers, who are not exempt from the congestion charge, was similarly criticised.

The impact of the congestion charge on businesses within the capital has been a major source of contention. Businesses affected by the charge have been vocal critics of the mayor's scheme, because of both the new costs imposed by the congestion charge and concerns that visitors to central London would be deterred by the daily charge.

A study of 334 firms by the London Chamber of Commerce in November 2003 found 79 per cent of shops reported a fall in takings and 42 per cent said the congestion charge was to blame. By January 2005 the same survey found 84 per cent of shops reported a fall in takings, with 62 per cent attributing this to the charge.

There was also controversy about the congestion charge operators, Capita RAS. In October 2003, the firm was fined £1 million for its poor performance dealing with both drivers and equipment. The company was given an extra £31 million by the mayor of London in June 2003 to help administer the charge. The mayor later admitted that he came close to sacking Capita soon after the charge was introduced because of its customer service failings.

But the congestion charge was welcomed by environmentalists as a way of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging people to use public transport, and town planners across the UK have begun looking into the scheme as a way of cutting congestion.

However, the decision to extend the congestion charge zone to the west from February 19th 2007 reignited the debate in London. A Transport for London consultation found 70 per cent of the public and 80 per cent of businesses in the capital were against the extension, which is bounded by Harrow Road, the West Cross Route, the inner southbound arm of the Earls Court one way system and Chelsea embankment. There were particular concerns about the impact it would have on small shops in west London.

To appease his critics, Mr Livingstone announced that, from February 2007, the congestion charge across London would end at 18:00, rather than 18:30, and motorists would be able to pay the following day, for a surcharge of £2. The charge would also be suspended between Christmas and the new year.

Vehicles with low carbon emissions receive a discount or an exemption from the charge. In July 2006, the mayor said he was considering plans to increase the congestion charge to £25 a day from 2009 for band G cars, which emit more than 225g of carbon dioxide per kilometre. He also suggested congestion charge zone residents driving these cars could lose their 90 per cent discount.

A number of embassies in London refuse to pay the congestion charge as they believe they are exempt under the Vienna Convention, which grants ambassadorial staff immunity from local taxes.

In February 2007, the congestion charge was extended westward across London to cover Kensington and Chelsea.

Then in August, Ken Livingstone proposed raising the central congestion zone charge for the most polluting vehicles to £25 and this highly controversial charge is due to take effect from October 27th 2008.

Defending the move the mayor said: "There will be losers but overall we will all gain." He also stated that cars with the lowest CO2 emissions will be allowed a 100 per cent discount on the charge.

The congestion charge scheme received a further boost at the beginning of 2008 when researchers from King's College, London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine suggested there could be unexpected health benefits from the reduction of exposure to nitrogen dioxide.

According to the researchers: "The results showed that there was little change in pollutant levels in London as a whole. But there were more substantial falls in the charging zone. Levels of NO2 fell the most."

The report added: "Policies affecting a larger geographical area and residential population, and which directly aim to reduce vehicle emissions, are likely to have larger public health impacts."


Statistics

Congestion in the western extension has been cut by 20 to 25 per cent after the first three months of operation, against comparable levels in 2005 and 2006.

Significant improvements in bus services have been sustained.

Cycling levels within the zone are up 43 per cent since the introduction of the congestion charge.

The trend for increasing public transport and cycle use, despite growing car
ownership, sets London apart from other UK and European cities.

The number of vehicles entering the original charging zone has fallen by 21 per cent, compared with 2002.

(Source: Transport for London: Fifth Annual Impacts Monitoring Report 2007)


Quotes

"Not only is this new tax on motorists unfair, it is also a disproportionate and illegal use of power by the mayor. The Porsche case is about protecting London and Londoners from a new tax that will not only fail to reduce CO2 emissions in central London, but also increase congestion and damage air quality."

Andy Goss, managing director of Porsche Cars GB – April 2008 - explaining why Porsche has filed a legal challenge to the London mayor’s plans for the daily congestion charge in central London to increase from £8 to £25 for the most polluting cars.

"We have already made clear that we believe Porsche's reasons for objecting to the proposed CO2 charge are unfounded. We believe they should focus their attention on cutting CO2 emissions from the cars they produce, rather than pursuing this pointless legal action which we will vigorously contest when it reaches judicial review."

Michele Dix, managing director of planning for TfL – April 2008 - responding to Porsche's challenge.

"Changing this will confuse the public and reduce support and trust for future initiatives… The real polluters are the old bangers kept on the road by motorists who can't afford to change them. This is gesture politics rather than a serious attempt to tackle London's air quality problems."

Sheila Rainger, Acting Director for the RAC Foundation – February 12th 2008 – responding to the emissions-based charge announcement.