London Congestion Charging Scheme Research Articles

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.

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.

Re-assessing the Results of the London Congestion Charging Scheme

The London congestion charging scheme was introduced in 2003 alongside a series of other changes to the transport system, most notably improved bus services. Research on the effects of the scheme usually attributes (often implicitly) all the changes that took place in central London since 2003 to the congestion charging, while the effects of other factors, as well as the effects of trends over time, are not usually (explicitly) considered. This paper revisits the results of the London scheme to examine to what degree observed effects (related to congestion and traffic levels, changes in travel behaviour and air pollution) can be fully or partly attributed to congestion charging. Attention is also given to the amount of revenues the scheme generated. While there is no dispute over the theoretical rationale for introducing congestion charging, the London scheme reveals that questions can be raised with regard to its practical effectiveness.

Central London congestion charging: understanding its impacts

The origins of a road user charging concept for central London and the development of the central London congestion charging scheme are outlined. The paper then explains the objectives and the main features of Transport for London's programme of impacts monitoring of the scheme. It summarises the main results that were obtained. Drawing on the extensive data from the monitoring programme, the paper then compares the patterns of congestion and traffic flows that were observed in the original scheme and in its western extension. This shows how congestion was initially eased as traffic levels were reduced and how it subsequently increased as the effective capacity of the road network was reduced or reallocated. The paper concludes with some reflections on the achievements of the charging scheme.

London's congestion charging scheme and the growth and survival of the minicab sector

Although new businesses are at the heart of economic growth, their survival rates have been rather abysmal. While Frankish et al. (2006) - in their paper Charting the Valley of Death - provided a revised 'proportional hazards model' in their consideration of business survival and closure, Langdon's (2006) research on the business birthrate strategy and economic development highlighted the failures of the public sector and policy makers with regards to micro businesses as a high priority matter. However, none of these studies considered the candidature of the minicab sector as a possible new venture with rather high and largely externally driven, mortality rates. Using in-depth interviews and the narratives of minicab operators in London, we evaluate the claim that London's congestion charging scheme introduced on 17 February 2003 has been a blessing to this latent small business sector. Our primary focuses is to evaluate the impact of London congestion charging scheme on the acclaimed uncharged fares category (i.e., minicabs in this case). We conclude the paper by suggesting that this sector is worthy of consideration in any impact analysis and/or assessment of the charge scheme - especially as they 'chart their valley of death'.

The accuracy of regulatory cost estimates: a study of the London congestion charging scheme

AbstractThis paper considers the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates using the London congestion charging scheme as a case study. In common with other regulations, ex ante estimates of the direct costs of the scheme were produced by the regulator, Transport for London. Reviews of a number of environmental and industrial regulations have shown that ex ante costs tend to exceed the ex post (or outturn) costs. This study finds that while Transport for London moderately overestimated the total costs of the scheme (by 16%) there was a significant overestimate of chargepayer compliance costs (by 64%). The main reasons for this were greater than expected reductions in traffic and unanticipated technological innovation. As the compliance cost is essentially the cost of transacting payment of the charge, these results have wider implications for other similar regulations. One example is the proposed national road user charging in the UK, where it could reasonably be expected that the ex post cost of compliance will again be lower than the ex ante estimate, and that compliance costs will continue to reduce over time. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Road pricing: lessons from London

This paper assesses the original London Congestion Charging Scheme (LCCS) and its impacts, and it simulates the proposed extension which will include most of Kensington and Chelsea. It also touches upon the political economy of the congestion charge and the increase of the charge from £5 to £8 per day. The possibility of transferring the experience to Paris, Rome and New York is also discussed. The LCCS has had positive impacts. This was despite the considerable political influences on the charge level and location. It is difficult to assess the impacts of the increase of the charge from £5 to £8, which took place in July 2005, because no data have yet been released by Transport for London. The proposed extension of the charging zone does not seem to be an efficient change on economic grounds, at least for the specific boundaries, method of charging and level of charging that is currently planned. Our benefit cost ratios computed under different assumptions of costs and benefits are all below unity. Overall, the experience shows that simple methods of congestion charging, though in no way resembling first-best Pigouvian taxes, can do a remarkably good job of creating benefits from the reduction of congestion. Nevertheless, the magnitude of these benefits can be highly sensitive to the details of the scheme, which therefore need to be developed with great care.

The impact of the London congestion charging scheme on the generalised cost of car commuters to the city of London from a value of travel time savings perspective

This paper shows that the impacts of the London Congestion Charging Scheme should not be analysed from the standard approach to value of travel time savings. This will invariably lead to the mistaken conclusion that drivers who value their travel time savings below the £5 congestion charge will be regarded as losers from the Scheme. The use of a simple expression of generalised costs leads to different conclusions. First, a motorist who continues to drive but values the time savings of the Scheme less than £5 can still gain from the scheme, if the generalised cost post-charging is lower than the generalised cost pre-charging. Second, a motorist who switches to the bus can still gain from the scheme. Since the bus travel time post-charging will typically be lower than the bus travel time pre-charging, it is possible that the generalised cost of a trip by car pre-charging will be higher than the generalised cost of a trip by bus post-charging, even after taking into consideration the inconvenience of switching.

The impact of congestion charging on vehicle speed and its implications for assessing vehicle emissions

Previous analysis of London's congestion charging scheme (CCS) has shown that changes in vehicle speed are an important factor in reducing vehicle emissions. Therefore, a detailed investigation of network average vehicle speed in both central and inner London has been undertaken using a combination of the non-parametric Wilcoxon sign ranks test and a method for calculating the cumulative difference between mean speeds pre- and post-CCS, or cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Within the charging zone (CZ), the Wilcoxon test has shown that the difference in speed between pre- and post-CCS periods has increased on average by 2.1 km h −1 and that these changes are significant at the p = 0.05 level. The CUSUM analysis has provided evidence of the timing of this change in mean speed in the CZ and this agrees well with the introduction of the CCS on the 17 February 2003. In combination, these results provide compelling evidence that the introduction of congestion charging has significantly increased vehicle speed in the CZ and by comparison with the results in inner London, that these changes are not part of a wider trend. To examine one impact of this change we used an instantaneous emissions model, the Vehicle Transient Emissions Simulation Software, to undertake a comparison between the change in vehicle emissions associated with changing driving characteristics, between pre- and post-charging periods, and those associated with a change in average speed. The analysis was limited to three vehicle types: a Euro II LGV, a Euro III diesel car and a Euro IV petrol car, but showed that driving characteristics in central London have a relatively small effect on emissions of NO X and CO 2 compared with the average vehicle speed. However, for PM 10 emissions from the Euro II LGV the opposite was found and for this vehicle the driving characteristics were more important than the average speed in estimating exhaust emissions. For this vehicle, emissions increased between pre- and post-CCS periods by 4%. For the Euro IV petrol car NO X emissions also increased by 6% between pre- and post-CCS periods. These findings will help to further understand the extent to which congestion charging reduces vehicle emissions in London.

Assessing the changes in shopper numbers within the London congestion charge zone

The introduction of the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Scheme in February 2003 aimed to reduce the traffic congestion within central London and encourage a greater use of public transport. Two years on, the scheme is successfully achieving this aim. But some retailers located within central London have experienced noticeable drops in sales over this period. This paper analyses the changes in shopper numbers within the congestion charge zone, in comparison with shopper trends in London and the rest of the UK, and addresses some other contributing factors that have also impacted on people's shopping behaviour. Analysis has shown that while shopping numbers have declined within the congestion charge zone, weekday patterns differ from weekend patterns, with discretionary shopping trips on weekends facing a larger impact than shopping on weekdays. Furthermore, international events – the Iraq war and SARS – as well as major local transport issues cannot be disregarded in their impact on shopper behaviour.

The impact of congestion charging on vehicle emissions in London

Abstract The London congestion charging scheme (CCS) was successfully implemented in February 2003 and has measurably reduced traffic flows in central London. The air pollution impact of the scheme has been difficult to assess using ambient measurements alone as the air pollution concentrations in 2003 were higher than in 2002 because of unusual meteorological conditions. However, a comprehensive analysis of the impact using detailed traffic data, combined with the Environmental Research Group's road traffic emissions model, has identified a number of important results. First, between 2002 and 2003, total NOX emissions in the charging zone have reduced by −12.0% ±12% ( 2 σ ) and have increased on the inner ring road (IRR) by +1.5%. PM10 emissions have reduced by −11.9% in the charging zone and by −1.4% on the IRR. There is a significant reduction in the emissions of NOX and PM10 associated with increases in vehicle speed and that this is as important in reducing emissions as changes in vehicle numbers. There is also evidence that the speed changes in km h−1 are uniform across the whole range of average speed and therefore changes at the slower speeds have a disproportionate effect on vehicle emissions. Second, that changes in vehicle km, as a result of the scheme, are large (−15% ±4% ( 2 σ ) ) particularly in the charging zone itself. To meet the demand to travel into central London there has been increased bus use. However, the expected increase in emissions from buses have been mostly offset by the widespread introduction of particle traps to the new and existing bus fleet as well as the introduction of newer technology bus engines. Finally, there is a reduction in emissions of CO2 (−19.5%) but that unlike NOX and PM10 little additional benefit is apparent through new vehicle technology. The evidence presented shows that the congestion charging schemes could assist in attaining both the UK government's targets on air pollution as well as those relating to climate change and other international obligations.

Preliminary Results of the London Congestion Charging Scheme

On February 17, 2003, the London Congestion Charging Scheme came into effect. Preliminary results show a significant response to the £5 (U.S. $8) charge. Congestion over the first year decreased by 30%. Overall traffic levels within the charging zone fell by 16%. Speeds for car travel increased by more than 20%, and bus travel became more reliable. Elasticities of demand for trips by car with respect to generalized costs are estimated to be between –1.32 and –2.10. The average marginal congestion cost within the central zone is estimated at £1.65/vehicle-km (approximatelyU.S. $2.58/vehicle-km). The net economic benefits of the Scheme for the first year were £50 million (U.S. $78 million) and the net revenues, £68 million (U.S. $106 million). Net revenues are mainly being used to improve public transport.