London Congestion Charging Research Articles

How does the dominant stakeholder strategically manage an innovative public policy? Evidence from the London congestion charge

AbstractPrior studies have examined various economic, environmental, and social impacts of the London congestion charge (LCC). However, few studies have investigated how the Transport for London (TfL) managed the LCC in all stages of its policy. Without active, strategic management of policies, stakeholders affected may doubt the policies’ legitimacy and reduce policy effectiveness. Thus, examining the means utilized to achieve effective policy management is critical and can potentially influence the development and management of future policies. This study adapts Mitchell et al.’s stakeholder typology to study how the TfL, as part of the management of, and as the dominant stakeholder in, environmental regulations in London, strategically managed the LCC via their own efforts to exert power, establish legitimacy, and claim urgency. Relying on Yin, we analyze publicly available data to show how the TfL actively managed the LCC to ensure its sustainability as policy. The TfL primarily used tactics to maintain and enhance the LCC's legitimacy with authoritative power and fears of unproven urgency to influence other stakeholders. Results have practical implications for policymakers contemplating policy reforms and shed additional light on less‐discussed latent factors regarding policy management. This study contributes to the literature by applying stakeholder theory to the domain of policy reform, administration, and management. Our findings have policy implications as policymakers may benefit from learning the tactics examined in this study to assess their policy management and administration. Lastly, through our discussion and conclusions, we reflect on our findings to encourage research on policy management.

Do economic incentives promote physical activity? Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

Abstract This study investigates the impact of economic incentives on travel-related physical activity, leveraging the London Congestion Charge’s disincentivising of sedentary travel modes via increasing the cost of private car use within Central London. The scheme imposes charges on most types of cars entering, exiting, and operating within the Central London area, while individuals living inside the charging zone are eligible for a 90% reduction in congestion charges. Geographical location information provides the full-digit postcode data necessary to precisely identify the eligibility for the discount of participants in the London Travel Demand Survey for the period 2005–2011. Using a boundary regression-discontinuity design reveals a statistically significantly positive impact on active commuting (i.e. cycling and walking) around the border of the charging zone. The effect is larger for lower-income households and car owners. The findings are robust against multiple specifications and validation tests.

Equity Impacts of the London Congestion Charging Scheme: An Empirical Evaluation Using Synthetic Control Methods

Congestion pricing has been long-believed to effectively regulate traffic in urban city centers. Practical implementations of such policies have been hindered by concerns that they would disproportionately and adversely affect low-income groups. This paper analyzes the impacts of two price increases to the congestion charge on different income groups in Central London, making use of the synthetic control method to leverage empirical data from the UK National Travel Survey. We estimate that the highest income earners contributed to more of the revenue than the lowest income earners, making the scheme progressive in the scale of its equity impact. Although high-income travelers appeared to drop more charge-eligible trips as the price increased, their total trips to Central London did not decrease, suggesting that they were able to substitute with non-chargeable modes of travel. Low-income travelers saw large declines across both chargeable and non-chargeable modes, revealing a much lower rate of substitution. The low-income group responded more to the 2011 price increase than the 2014 one, demonstrating the diminishing ability of subsequent price increases to regulate demand.

London congestion charge: the impact on air pollution and school attendance by socioeconomic status

Air pollution negatively affects individuals’ health and human capital accumulation. For example, students’ school performance is hampered by air pollution as it decreases cognitive abilities and increases absences. Moreover, low-income students are the most exposed and vulnerable to the negative effects of air pollution as they lack protective resources and suffer from pre-existing health conditions. Here, we inquire how more stringent traffic regulations implemented in Central London from late 2015 affected pollution levels and school absences. First, we observe a substantive decrease in pollution in the area affected by the regulations from 2016 onwards. Secondly, we use a difference in differences approach to estimate the causal effect of the policy on school absences. For all schools combined, findings do not show any substantive improvement in attendance. However, when looking at the heterogeneous effects of the policy, we observe a significant decrease in absences for schools with a high share of students with low socioeconomic status (SES). Consequently, the findings highlight the efficacy of environmental policy in diminishing pollution levels and to benefit the poor.

Do Economic Incentives Promote Physical Activity? Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

Do Economic Incentives Promote Physical Activity? Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

Accident externality of driving: evidence from the London Congestion Charge

Abstract This paper estimates the marginal accident externality of driving in Central London by exploiting variation in traffic flow induced by the London Congestion Charge Zone using an instrumental variable approach. The charge attributed to a 9.4% reduction in traffic flow, which resulted in a less than proportional 6.0% and 7.6% decrease in accidents and slight injuries, and a 6.5% increase in serious injuries/fatalities. Our preferred estimates indicate that the accident, slight injuries and serious injuries/fatalities rate elasticities with respect to traffic flow are −0.36, −0.19 and −1.65, respectively. These estimates imply that the marginal external benefit of road safety from an additional kilometer driven is approximately £0.16. The marginal accident externality is positive, as the marginal driver along congested roads decreases the risk and severity of traffic collisions for other road users by slowing others down and increasing awareness.

The Cost of Traffic: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

This paper exploits the implementation of the London Congestion Charge (LCC) to provide credible estimates on the willingness to pay to avoid traffic using the housing market. This policy curtails road traffic by imposing a fee on anyone driving into the charge zone. My results show that the LCC is associated with significant improvement in traffic conditions and housing values. Instrumenting local traffic conditions with the enforcement of the LCC, and limiting the analysis to properties proximate to the charge boundary, I find that the elasticity of housing values with respect to traffic is -0.30. These findings suggest that the consequential improvement in traffic conditions due to the LCC has generated substantial windfall of more than £3.8 billion for homeowners in the zone.

Affected area and residual period of London Congestion Charging scheme on road safety

The London congestion charging (LCC) scheme was first introduced in 2003. It did not only help alleviate traffic congestion and reduce vehicle emissions, but also had favorable safety effect. Western Extension of LCC was applied in 2007, but then removed in 2011. It was suggested that adjacent areas of the congestion charging zone could also be benefited. As well, the benefits would not disappear immediately after the removal of congestion charging scheme, which is known as residual effect. This paper attempts to examine the affected area and residual period of the safety benefits by the LCC scheme using the traffic and crash data from 352 Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) of London, with which the original LCC scheme was imposed in 24 MSOAs (‘treatment’ units for Analysis I), the Western Extension scheme was imposed in 27 MSOAs (‘treatment’ units for Analysis II), and no congestion charging was implemented at all in 301 MSOAs (‘control’ units for both Analysis I and II). Factors including traffic flow, land use, built environment and population demographics are considered. To eliminate the bias by the selection of treatment and control groups, Propensity Score matching (PSM) method is applied. Results indicate that favorable effect on safety is prevalent in the 1.5 km buffer area of LCC zone. On the other hand, for the residual effect, considerable crash reduction could be found in the first year after the removal of Western Extension of LCC. However, no evidence could be established for significant crash reduction in the second and third years after the removal. Findings should be indicative to the transport management policy that could improve the road safety in the Greater London in the long run.

Effect of London cycle hire scheme on bicycle safety

This study evaluates the effect of London Cycle Hire scheme (LCH) on bicycle crashes, based on the data from 333 Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the period 2011–2012. The Propensity Score Matching method (PSM) is applied to evaluate the effects of policy interventions (‘treatment’) on bicycle safety, with which the effects of confounding factors on the treatment effects are accounted, using the systematically established untreated groups. Covariates including land use, traffic and population characteristics are considered when selecting the untreated group for each treated unit. Results of PSM indicated that numbers of overall and slight injury bicycle crashes increased by 37.7% and 31.8% when LCH was introduced. Additionally, the interaction by another transport management policy – London Congestion Charging scheme (LCC) – on the effects of LCH on bicycle crash was estimated. Numbers of overall and slight injury bicycle crash further increased by 59.1% and 57.8% because of the implementation of LCC. For the killed or seriously injured (KSI) bicycle crashes, increases were observed in both cases (i.e. 81% for LCH and 66% for LCC), despite that they are not statistically significant. Results are indicative to the design and planning of bicycle infrastructure that could enhance the overall bicycle safety in London.

Did the London congestion charge reduce pollution?

Recent vehicle charging schemes aim to reduce pollution and other congestion externalities. We reexamine the London congestion charge introduced in 2003 and demonstrate significant reductions in several pollutants relative to controls. We even find evidence of reductions per mile driven suggesting amelioration of a congestion externality. Yet, we find a more robust countervailing increase in harmful NO2 likely reflecting the disproportionate share of diesel vehicles exempt from the congestion charge. This unintended consequence informs on-going concern about pollution from diesel-based vehicles and provides a cautionary note regarding substitution effects implicit in many congestion charging schemes.

Accident Externality of Driving: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

This paper estimates the marginal accident externality of driving in Central London by exploiting variation in traffic flow induced by the London Congestion Charge Zone using an instrumental variable approach. The charge attributed to a 9.4% reduction in traffic flow, which resulted in a less than proportional 6.0% and 7.6% decrease in accidents and slight injuries, and a 6.5% increase in serious injuries/fatalities. Our preferred estimates indicate that the accident, slight injuries, and serious injuries/fatalities rate elasticities with respect to traffic flow are -0.36, -0.19 and -1.65 respectively. These estimates imply that the marginal external benefit of road safety from an additional kilometre driven is approximately £ 0.16. The marginal accident externality is positive, as the marginal driver along congested roads decreases the risk and severity of traffic collisions for other road users by slowing others down and increasing awareness.

Accident Externality of Driving: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge

This paper estimates the marginal accident externality of driving in Central London by exploiting variation in traffic flow induced by the London Congestion Charge Zone using an instrumental variable approach. The charge attributed to a 9.4% reduction in traffic flow, which resulted in a less than proportional 6.0% and 7.6% decrease in accidents and slight injuries, and a 6.5% increase in serious injuries/fatalities. Our preferred estimates indicate that the accident, slight injuries, and serious injuries/fatalities rate elasticities with respect to traffic flow are -0.36, -0.19 and -1.65 respectively. These estimates imply that the marginal external benefit of road safety from an additional kilometre driven is approximately £ 0.16. The marginal accident externality is positive, as the marginal driver along congested roads decreases the risk and severity of traffic collisions for other road users by slowing others down and increasing awareness.

Exploring the effect of local transport policies on the adoption of low emission vehicles: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge and Hybrid Electric Vehicles

The London Congestion Charge (LCC) is a transport policy with a precise spatial footprint. As such, its impact on the transport system can be expected to vary over space, providing an opportunity to explore the geographical reach of local transport interventions. This paper assesses whether the exemption of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) from the LCC affected the registration rate of these vehicles in Greater London and the surrounding areas. The analysis uses official data on the number of HEVs registered across the local authorities of the United Kingdom. This dataset is assessed using [1] exploratory spatial analysis to determine the degree of spatial variation in HEV registrations, [2] area classifications to consider if HEV registrations diminish as nearness to the LCC recedes, and [3] spatial regression models to evaluate the association between distance to the LCC and HEV registrations, controlling for other area characteristics (i.e. socioeconomic, household, and transport system variables). The results clearly show that nearness to the LCC is positively associated with HEV registrations, implying that this form of transport policy is effective at promoting the adoption of low emission vehicles.

The impact of congestion charging on social capital

We analyse a new data set to examine how congestion charging policies affect an individual’s investment social capital. We exploit a (quasi-) natural experiment - the implementation of the Western Extension Zone (WEZ) to the London Congestion Charging zone in 2007. We measure investment in social capital by using the frequency of visits to friends and family before and after the implementation of the WEZ. Using longitudinal data collected in January and November 2007 made available by Transport for London, we perform difference-in-difference analysis, using both OLS and interval regression, with the treatment group defined as those who used a car to make visits pre-WEZ. We observe large and statistically significant reductions in visits as a result of the WEZ, with, for example, a reduction of around 20 visits a year to friends. The effect of the WEZ on the number of visits to act as an informal carer is much larger, with reductions of around 100 visits a year. Given that the changes occurred in such a small time frame (10months), we conclude that the WEZ is likely to be the main driver of these reductions.

London's Congestion Charge

Describes the events leading up to the imposition of the London congestion charge. Views about the congestion charge, both pro and con, are presented. Also discusses, in general terms, the economics of traffic congestion, pointing out that an unregulated market for driving will not reach the social optimum. Contains sufficient data to estimate the deadweight loss in an unregulated market and the reduction of the deadweight loss due to the imposition of the congestion charge in 2003.To provide a good illustration of how an unregulated market with negative externalities can lead to an overprovision of a good (in this case driving). Also, to show how an externality tax (in this case, London's congestion charge) can lead to an improvement in social welfare.

Making roads safer and raising revenue

Public Economics![Figure][1] London's congestion tax led to fewer traffic accidents PHOTO: © BJANKA KADIC/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO Road space is not infinite, and drivers impose costs on other travelers by delaying or hitting them. The London congestion charge instituted in 2003 makes those costs

Traffic accidents and the London congestion charge

In a rare effort to internalize congestion costs, London recently instituted charges for traveling by car to the central city during peak hours. Although the theoretical influence on the number and severity of traffic accidents is ambiguous, we show that the policy generated a substantial reduction in both the number of accidents and in the accident rate. At the same time, the spatial, temporal and vehicle specific nature of the charge may cause unintended substitutions as traffic and accidents shift to other proximate areas, times and to uncharged vehicles. We demonstrate that, to the contrary, the congestion charge reduced accidents and the accident rate in adjacent areas, times and for uncharged vehicles. These results are consistent with the government's objective to use the congestion charge to more broadly promote public transport and change driving habits.

A User Satisfaction Study of London's Congestion Charge e-Service

The importance of evaluation and optimization of electronic government (e-government) services is imperative if the government organisations are to have an effective impact on the success and take-up of the services offered. Transport For London's (TFL) London Congestion Charging (LCC) is one of the innovative electronic services (e-services) introduced by the United Kingdom (UK) government to the citizens. While some studies have addressed the impact of the introduction of the congestion charge there has been a dearth of research performed to address user (citizen) satisfaction of the online LCC system. Therefore, this research seeks to measure the citizen satisfaction of using the LCC online payment system offered by TFL. The citizen satisfaction in this context is measured using the four dimensions from the COBRA framework that comprise the cost, opportunity, benefits and risk assessment constructs. This paper presents the findings of a survey of 500 users of the TFL LCC online payment system. It also reports the qualitative feedback obtained from the participants that can be used to determine the areas that need further improvement in the current LCC e-service and potential influences on user satisfaction.

Sustainable Transportation: Lessons from London

Andrea Broaddus, a PhD Candidate at UC Berkeley, spent the last year as a Visiting Scholar at University College London, researching the London Congestion Charge policy and its longerterm impacts on travel patterns and location choices. She provided a special guest lecture for the Department of City and Regional Planning while on a brief trip back to the United States in May 2014. In this article, she summarizes her talk and the opportunities it presents for experimentation in the United States.

Exploring the market for Compressed Natural Gas light commercial vehicles in the United Kingdom

This paper examines the potential market for natural gas as a transportation fuel in the light commercial vehicle sector in the United Kingdom. In order to understand this market and identify barriers to growth and possible solutions interviews were conducted with a number of professionals with experience in this market. These interviews were open and exploratory enabling the application of grounded theory techniques in analysis. Clear priorities for potential users were cost and carbon reduction and the main constraint a lack of refuelling infrastructure. Small scale and low cost policy interventions were identified, at national level including maintaining tax differentials; easing payload restrictions; and limited support for refuelling facilities alongside local policy initiatives, for example, restoring the exemption from the London Congestion Charge for gas vehicles, that could help to kick-start the market at least at a niche level.