DETAILED ASSESSMENT LONDON CONGESTION CHARGING

1、DETAILED ASSESSMENT LONDON CONGESTION CHARGINGDescription of the initial objectives of the measureCongestion charging schemes aim to reduce vehicle use by charging users to pay for entering or travelling in a particular zone, or for using a particular stretch of road.There are many examples of road

2、user charging schemes in operation across Europe on highways, where drivers pay by cash or token for using the bridge or tunnel as they pass through a toll plaza. However, these do not address urban air quality hot spots, and so are not considered further here.This section considers the use of charg

3、ing systems in major urban areas. In such areas, toll plazas are not used, because they delay traffic flow. Instead, a number of targeted schemes have been implemented. The first example of such a scheme was introduced in Singapore in 1975, which was initially based on a paper licence system (subseq

4、uently replaced by and electronic system in 1988). However, the most far-reaching scheme is the road user-charging scheme in operation in London the London Congestion Charging Scheme LCCS).The London Congestion Charge came into effect in February 2003. The Charging zone covers an area bounded by the

5、 London inner ring road, and drivers of non-exempt vehicles must pay a charge of 5 per day (approximately 7.5 Euros) to enter and travel within this zone. The scheme is enforced by a network of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras that monitor all vehicles entering and circulating withi

6、n the zone. The number plates of vehicles are read and stored on a database. At the end of each 24-hour period, the vehicle registration data held in this database is crosschecked against vehicle registration data collected from those drivers known to have paid to enter the charging zone. Drivers fo

7、und to be evading payment are issues with a Penalty Charge Notice.The congestion charging zone is 21 square kilometres in size; representing 1.3% of the total 1579 sq km of Greater London. Note, while the area is large for existing congestion charging schemes, it is still small in relation to London

8、, see figure below.Central London Congestion Charging Scheme North South CircularThe Greater London boundaryThe M25Figure 1 London Congestion Charging Scheme in Relation to LondonBackground information on London traffic numbers and emissions A very large number of vehicles operate in (Greater) Londo

9、n during the course of any single year. While there is good data on London traffic flows, there is unfortunately no robust information on the numbers of vehicles operating in London. The estimated number of vehicles travelling in Greater London each year is shown in below. The number of vehicles is

10、high, as it includes vehicles that only come into the city once a year, as well as vehicles that enter frequently. The estimates indicate that at least 14%, and probably more likely, around 36% of the British lorry fleet come into London each year. A higher proportion of coaches, possibly as many as

11、 half of all British vehicles, also operate in London during the course of a year. Finally, an estimated 14 - 18% of all British vans travel in London at some point during any year. 60, 000339, 0003, 700, 000155, 000437, 00010, 0006,10020, 50030, 0004, 900, 000LorriesVansCoachesTfL busesTaxisPrivate

12、 hireCarsFigure 2 Total Number of Vehicles Operating in Greater London each year (2002).Source: Watkiss et al, 2003. The values for lorries, vans and cars show a low and high range. Values for other vehicles are presented as a central estimate only. The scale is linear for all vehicles except cars,

13、the numbers of which far exceed other categories (denoted by parallel lines). The number of vehicles in future years will be higher due to fleet growth.Most taxis, buses and coaches are active in central London. The numbers of other vehicles entering the central area of London is much lower, as a %

14、of vehicles entering London. An estimate was made of the numbers of the national fleet operating in London, and the congestion charging area, prior to the introduction of the congestion charge Table 1 Nationally Registered Fleet and Vehicles operating in London (Numbers), Prior to Introduction of Co

15、ngestion Charge. NationalCentral London*Inner LondonGreater LondonArticulated lorries (low)114,4512,1505,51816,032% of Nat. Fleet2%5%14%Articulated lorries (high)114,4515,05117,86739,316% of Nat. Fleet4%16%34%Rigid lorries (low)310,97719,05030,04744,026% of Nat. Fleet6%10%14%Rigid lorries (high)310,

16、97744,75698,285115,227% of Nat. Fleet14%32%37%Coach *20,0007,50210,5389,959% of Nat. Fleet38%53%50%Vans (low)2,469,445164,423197,426338,796% of Nat. Fleet7%814%Vans (high)2,469,445139,751355,027437,447% of Nat. Fleet6%14%18%Cars (low)23,196,1123,674,815% of Nat. Fleet16%Cars (high)23,196,1124,897,86

17、3% of Nat. Fleet21%*Area of the congestion chargeRoad transport is the single most important source of emissions in London, as seen in the Figure below. Road Transport58%Other transport12%Commercial7%Other1%Domestic 13%Industry9% Road Transport68%Other transport8%Industry22%Other2%Sources of Emissio

18、ns of NOX in London (%)Sources of Emissions of PM10 in London (%)Figure 3 The Current Contribution of Road Transport to Air Pollution in London.Based on 1999 data. Source: Watkiss et al, 2003. It is also useful to look at the total contribution of different vehicles to road transport emissions in Lo

19、ndon. The estimated the contribution from different vehicles to future road transport emissions in London for the years 2005 to 2010 is shown below.Figure 4 Emissions from Vehicles in London (as % of Total Road Transport Emissions).Source: Watkiss et al, 2003.Overall, transport emissions from centra

20、l London are small in relation to the Greater London area (see below). There is also a different pattern of vehicles for different areas of London than shown in the figure above. Buses and licensed taxis are much more significant sources of emissions in central London, whilst car and lorry emissions

21、 are lower (as a %). 020406080100200520072010NOx %MotorcycleCarTaxiVanLorryCoachBus020406080100200520072010PM10 %MotorcycleCarTaxiVanLorryCoachBusTransport Emissions in London in 2005 by Area.Note the central area represents the area of the congestion charge. Analysis of costs and benefitsEx-Ante En

22、vironmental Impacts (Emissions and Air Quality)As part of the work carried out in the London Congestion Charging Research programme (MVA, 1995), an assessment was of the potential effect of a charge on CO2 and CO emissions in Central London (the are that the charge covers). The study estimated a47%

23、and 21% reduction respectively, associated with a 22% reduction in vehicle kilometres in the zone: no estimates were made for the effects on NOx and PM10. Estimates were also provided for the Inner London area (which includes an area extending beyond the zone itself up to the north south circular se

24、e map above). The study indicated that for a 3% reduction in vehicle kilometres, there would be a 7% reduction in NOx.Subsequent studies, including the ROCOL report (Halcrow, 2000) and the Greater London Congestion Charging Order report to the Mayor (GLA, 2002), did not examine the emissions and air

25、 quality benefits of a charging zone at all. As stated in the Congestion Charging Report to the Mayor, “the environmental benefits of the scheme in terms of improved air quality, pedestrian amenity, or reduced traffic noise are expected to be small and have not been examined further”.The ROCOL study

26、 also acknowledged that the air quality benefits from fewer private cars might be offset by increases in numbers of heavier vehicles. Ex-Post Environmental Impacts (Emissions and Air Quality)A number of ex post studies are now available on the congestion charging scheme. We have based most of the an

27、alysis on the Impacts Monitoring Second Annual Report (TfL 2004). This is the second in a series of annual reports describing the impacts of congestion charging in and around central London. It supersedes and extends the previous material published by Transport for London (TfL), in June and October

28、2003, and in February 2004.4%25%71%Central InnerOuterNOX5%26%69%Central InnerOuterPM10The ex post analysis in the report has estimated that by reducing the volumes of traffic in the zone, congestion charging has led to a reduction of 12% in both NOX and PM10 from road traffic in the central area of

29、London. There have been some changes in the emissions on the inner Ring Road, but these are estimated at less than 2%. These benefits arise because there are reduced volumes of traffic, and the traffic is moving faster (this is important because emissions are higher, per km, at very low vehicle spee

30、ds). The ex post analysis estimates that between 2002 (pre-charging) and 2003 (post charging), primary emissions of NOX from road transport in the central zone of London fell from 810 to 680 tonnes/year (16% reduction). 75% of this is estimated to be due to congestion charging. It also estimates tha

31、t primary PM10 emissions from road transport in the central zone have fallen from 47 to 40 tonnes/year (16%) and that again, 75% of this is due to congestion charging (the rest due to changes in the vehicle fleet). The Impacts Report has also assessed the potential benefits to air quality concentrat

32、ions, as estimated by models and monitored. This comparison is difficult, because of the large number of variables that determine pollution concentrations, and because 2003 was an exceptional year for PM10.Health Indicators (Exposure, Mortality And Morbidity)No quantified estimates exist of the ex a

33、nte health benefits of the scheme. Similarly, there are no plans to measure direct health benefits arising from the scheme ex post, and none are reported in the Impacts Monitoring Second Annual Report. Other Relevant IndicatorsThe primary aim of the scheme is not air quality benefits. The congestion

34、 charging scheme has four transport priorities:To reduce congestion;To improve bus services (through revenues generated);To improve journey time reliability for car users;To make the distribution of goods and services more efficient. The most relevant indicator for the scheme is traffic congestion.

35、The benefits from the above four priorities are much more important in relation to the overall benefits from the scheme (and wider urban sustainability objectives).Since the implementation of the CCS, TfL has published reports presenting the effects that the scheme has had on actual traffic flows an

36、d congestion levels both within the charging zone and on the inner ring road. The following tables present some of the findings from these reports. The original report showed baseline traffic data for 2002 (before the scheme was implemented) and ex-post data for 2003. Table 2 Average traffic flows w

37、ithin the charging zone before and after implementation of the CCS Vehicles entering charging zone (7.00 am to 6.30 pm)Average speedCarsTaxisVansPedal cyclesMotor cyclesBus and coachHGVs and otherTOTAL (excluding cycles)May 2002 - actual traffic flows (before CCS implemented) (A)13 km/h390,000110,00

38、0110,00025,00050,00027,00035,000722,000Forecast traffic flows for 2003 if CCS had not been implemented (B)N/A391,873110,528110,52825,12050,24027,13035,168725,467Feb/March 2003 - actual traffic flows (after CCS implemented) (C)17 km/h240,000120,000100,00027,00055,00029,00032,000576,000Change in traff

39、ic flow due to CCS (C - B)4 km/h-151,8739,472-10,5281,8804,7601,870-3,168-149,467Percentage change31%-39%9%-10%8%10%7%-9%-21%Source: Central London Congestion Charging Scheme 3 months on (except Estimate of traffic growth for 2003 if CCS had not been implemented calculated using TEMPRO traffic growt

40、h factors for the London Boroughs in which the CCS operates)The data shows that on average there has been a reduction in traffic flows of 21% within the charging zone since the congestion charging scheme came into operation at the beginning of 2003. This percentage reduction is as a proportion of th

41、e estimated traffic flows for 2003 if the scheme had not come into operation. Analysis of the traffic flow data for the inner ring road shows that there has been a 4% increase in traffic flows between 6.00 am and 8.00 pm since the CCS was introduced, shown in Table 3.Table 3 Average traffic flows on

42、 the Inner Ring Road before and after implementation of the CCSWeekday average traffic flows (all vehicles)Date6.00 am -7.00 am7.00 am -10.00 am10.00 am-1.00 pm1.00 pm - 4.00 pm4.00 pm - 6.30 pm6.30pm - 8.00pmTOTAL (6.00 am - 8.00 pm)2002 average (measured data) (A)7,50034,00034,00035,10032,50018,50

43、0161,6002003 forecast if CCS had not been implemented (B)7,53634,16334,16335,26932,65618,589162,376Average flows for Feb-May 2003 (measured data) (C)8,38637,45435,40736,47132,45718,957169,132Change in traffic flow due to CCS (C-B)8503,2901,2441,203-1993686,756% change in traffic flow due to CCS11%10

44、%4%3%-1%2%4%Source: Central London Congestion Charging Scheme 3 months on (except Estimate of traffic growth for 2003 if CCS had not been implemented calculated using TEMPRO traffic growth factors for the London Boroughs in which the CCS operates)The information on the scheme has recently been updat

45、ed in the Impacts Monitoring Second Annual Report. This shows that congestion within the charging zone has reduced by 30% and the volume of traffic circulating in the zone during charging hours has reduced by 15% (excluding two-wheeled vehicles), and the traffic entering the zone has reduced by 18%

46、(during charging hours). The report states that these reductions are at the top end of the ex ante predictions, for example, the reduction in volume of traffic predicted ranged from 20 to 30%. The ex post analysis also finds that the proportion of time that drivers spend stationary or moving slowly

47、in queues has reduced by up to one third. There is no evidence of systematic increases in traffic outside the zone. The report also assesses the journey timesavings from the scheme. Panel surveys have shown that journey timesavings average 14%, with an increase in reliability of journey times increa

48、sing (27% for outward journeys, 34% for return journeys). On a typical trip of 80 minutes, on average, this could mean travel timesavings of about 10 minutes. Finally, public transport is successfully accommodating displaced car users. Of the 65000 to 70000 car trips that are no longer made to the z

49、one during charging hours, 50-60% have transferred to public transport, 20-30% divert around the zone, and 15-25% have made other adaptations, such as changing the timing of trips. A number of other indicators are relevant. These are discussed in later sections. Analysis of ex-ante and ex post costs

50、 of the Congestion Charging SchemeA number of studies were carried out to assess the potential costs of introducing and operating a charging scheme in London. In 1995, the MVA Consultancy was commissioned by the Government Office for Londons Planning and Transport Directorate to carry out the London

51、 Congestion Charging Research ProgrammeIn 2000, a further study entitled “Road Charging Options for London: a Technical Assessment” (commonly known as the ROCOL study) was carried out by a team of consultants led by Halcrow Fox. As part of the assessment, estimates of the set-up and annual operation

52、al costs were provided.As part of TfLs study into the Congestion Charging Scheme in 2002, the schemes start-up and operating costs were estimated over a ten-year time period the assumption being that the scheme would remain in operation from February 2003 until February 2013.The cost estimates from

53、all of these studies are presented below. It can be seen from the table that the start-up costs estimated in 1995 as part of the London Congestion Charge Research Programme are much greater than in the subsequent studies. This is because this study assumed that requiring all vehicles that travel int

54、o London to be fitted with electronic in-vehicle transponder units would enforce the scheme. Subsequent studies showed that whilst this would be the most effective way of enforcing the scheme, the time it would have taken to develop and procure suitable units would have meant that the scheme could n

55、ot have become operational during the first term of office of the Mayor. Consequently, a simpler enforcement mechanism using camera technology was chosen. The ROCOL report and the TfL study for the Mayor both provide costs based on using ANPR camera technology to enforce the scheme.Table 4 Ex-ante c

56、osts associated with implementing a Congestion Charging Scheme in LondonStudyCostsCosts at time of scheme assessmentCosts in 2003 pricesEx-ante costsStart-up costs95 million to 145 million116 million to 178 millionAnnual operating costs55 million to 60 million67 million to 73 millionAnnual revenues

57、from scheme (revenues given negative sign)Start-up costs30 to 50 million33 million to 55 millionAnnual operating costs30 to 50 million33 million to 55 millionAnnual revenues from scheme (revenues given negative sign)-260 million to -320 million-286 million to -353 millionStart-up costs15 millionOper

58、ating and management costs (over ten years)816 millionTraffic management costs (over ten years)40 millionAdditional public transport costs (over ten years)176 millionScheme compliance costs to road users (over ten years)200 millionN/AEx-post costs Capital costsUnknown as yetUnknown as yet Operating

59、and Maintenance costsUnknown as yetUnknown as yetCongestion Charging Order: Report to the Mayor (2001/2)London Congestion charging Research Programme (1995)ROCOL report (1999/2000)A detailed report in the actual ex post costs of the scheme has not been produced. However, some ex post cost data are a

60、vailable in the Impacts Monitoring Second Annual Report. This was presented as the following analysis of the costs and benefits of the scheme (Table 5). Note the values do not include the annualised cost of capital (the ANPR camera system), which are known to have been significant. These would need