EHJ February 2004, pages 36-39
This month marks the first anniversary of congestion charging. Stuart Spear looks at its effect on air quality and what Britain's regional cities can expect if it comes their way

London's economy did not turn to dust, its citizens failed to riot and the tube just about stayed on the rails. Doom laden prophecies that congestion charging would bring the capital to its knees have proved unfounded, with opponents, including the prime minister, having to admit they were wrong and that London's mayor Ken Livingstone got it right.

From that first day last February, Londoners felt something exceptional had happened. Normally choked streets were clear and an unnatural calm descended on one of the world's most frenetic cities. Chair of the Greater London Assembly's transport committee Lynne Featherstone, charged with keeping a watching brief on the success of the scheme, agrees that its effect on congestion has been "phenomenal". According to Transport for London figures, 50,000 fewer cars a day are entering the congestion zone, a 16 per cent decrease. Congestion levels have dropped back to pre-1980 levels, with a 30 per cent drop in traffic movement. Average speeds have risen from 11kmph to 16kmph in the city centre.

In addition to quality of life improvements and increased mobility, the unexpected success of the scheme has caught the attention of air quality experts. Improving London's air is a daunting task. Around 70 per cent of London's pollution comes from vehicles and aircraft, with 44,000 people living in pollution red zones. London ranks 24th out of 28 European cities in terms of air quality and most pollution experts believe the capital has little or no chance of meeting EU deadlines for particulates and NO2.

Targets are looking even less achievable since the introduction of a low emission zone, seen by many as the most effective way of tackling air pollution, suffered a setback last year with the publication of a disappointing feasibility study. Question marks exist over funding as well as the environmental benefits of the European standards that car manufacturers are working to. Businesses will also need to be given at least three years to upgrade their vehicle fleets.

Congestion charging was never designed to cut emissions. But such a significant reduction in traffic movement in the city centre, combined with possible plans to double the size of the charge zone into parts of Kensington and Chelsea after the next mayoral election, may have a greater impact than initially expected. It has also been suggested that congestion charging could be introduced around Heathrow Airport which, along with the city centre, is London's other major pollution hotspot.

So EHOs like Rob Gibson, head of environmental strategy for Hounslow LBC, neighbouring Heathrow, are keeping a sharp eye on London's great experiment. Especially since the government's recent white paper on aviation warned that a third runway could only go ahead once EU air quality targets are met in surrounding boroughs. This looks some way off as EHOs are currently recommending that the whole of Hounslow LBC be declared an air quality management area because of traffic and aircraft pollution linked to the airport.

"We in local authorities, and to a certain extent the airport, have been scratching our heads for the last five or six years to find out how we are going to get these pollution levels down," explained Mr Gibson. "We are looking at what will be the most effective and, when you look at the 25 to 30 per cent drop in traffic movement achieved by congestion charging, that is a lot and is within the scope of where there is an effect. So if people want a third runway we are going to have to try everything and congestion charging is something that is going to have to be looked at."

Accurately assessing what effect congestion charging has had on air quality is proving difficult because of what turned out to be a very unusual year meteorologically. The long, exceptionally hot summer ratcheted up pollution figures, masking any benefits. There is, however, anecdotal evidence that Londoners have been noticing improvements in air quality over the last year.

It is Sean Beevers's job, at Kings College's environmental research group, to factor out the background pollution for a report on the effects of congestion charging to be published by Transport for London in April. With such significant cuts in traffic levels, he expects to see some fall in the two worst offending emissions - NO2 and particulates. At present the charging zone is too small to have little more than a local impact and it is too early to see exactly what the impact is. But most air quality experts agree that, if the zone was to be extended west and to include areas around Heathrow, congestion charging could be part of a package of measures that would improve air quality.

"Logic tells us that, if we reduce the volume of traffic and get it flowing more evenly, it must be having a benefit," said Dr David Hutchinson, environment policy manager for the GLA. "Just because the influence of pollutants from central Europe and the coal-fired power stations in Lower Saxony are masking this effect, it does not mean we are not achieving benefit."

The possible environmental health impact of congestion charging is not, however, limited to air quality. With obesity set to overtake smoking as the top public health enemy, figures published by Transport for London showing that the number of cyclists in London has increased by 30 per cent look encouraging. Traffic accidents are down by around 20 per cent, while areas on the borders of the charging zone, like Camden, have noticed a drop in cars "rat running" down residential back streets. Deputy mayor Jenny Jones, who sits on the transport committee and is a Green member of the London Assembly, believes it is not just the £5 charge that will dissuade motorists from driving. "Making things better for cyclists and pedestrians makes London a better place to be and encourages people out of their cars. It's a pain-free way of reducing congestion by making it more attractive for people to use alternatives to the car," she said. TfL figures show that 17,000 commuters have migrated onto the buses and they are flowing more freely due to reduced congestion and high fines for motorists driving in bus lanes. Buses are experiencing a 60 per cent drop in lost kilometres due to traffic delays. According to TfL, London Underground is handling fewer passengers since the charge came into force, indicating a move away from the tube onto buses.

Objections to congestion charging have focused on its impact on business. The Conservatives have said that, if they win the mayoral election in June, they will abolish the charge to protect retailers who claim to have been badly hit from the loss of passing trade. The retail group John Lewis has estimated that sales from its Oxford Street store, which is within the charging zone, are 9 per cent down on the rest of its retail outlets. But supporters of congestion charging argue that the Central line being out of action for months, along with Sars and fears of terrorist attacks, are just as likely to have caused any perceived economic downturn. The message from industry groups like London First and the Confederation of British Industry is that the retail trade is taking a knock, but other businesses are benefiting financially from greater mobility around the capital.

Another criticism is the poor level of customer service offered by Capita, the company administering the scheme. Last year the company was fined £1m for its poor performance. Methods of payment are seen as unnecessarily cumbersome, with over a thousand drivers being pursued for fines they have already paid, while other motorists who have not paid the charge appear to be entering the zone with impunity. One-in-five cars in London is not registered or taxed, making tracking down drivers difficult. Capita says improvements to the system will be in place by March. But last month, London Transport's commissioner Bob Kiley warned that the company's performance would have to get a lot better before an extension to the scheme could be considered.

The chair of the GLA transport committee also believes the company has been poor on financial planning. "Capita being the single provider of the system is like having a gun to the head of Transport for London," explains Ms Featherstone. "When Capita suddenly needed another £31m over four years, TfL gave it to them. This came out of the blue, at a stage when customer service was worse than appalling."

So what can other cities learn from London? The good news for supporters of road tolls is the speed at which Londoners have become used to the charge. Research out later this month by the RAC motoring organisation shows a growing acceptance for the need for some form of charging mechanism. "If we had asked people 'what do you think about road user charging?' five years ago, they would have reacted with horror," said an RAC spokesperson. "But this year, the growing trend is that people realise that this is the shape of things to come and what concerns them more is the manner in which it is going to be done."

In particular, the RAC survey reveals serious concerns about satellite tracking, which drivers believe smacks of big brother, fearing it will eventually be used to monitor speeding and minor traffic offences. A proposed road charging system in Hong Kong collapsed for this reason, with drivers feeling that the Chinese government would use data for state control.

Three years ago, interest in road charging appeared to be strong, with 35 local authorities looking to adopt congestion charging in their five-year local transport plans. But apart from London, only Durham has actually introduced a charge. Cars accessing the historic city centre and the approach to the cathedral and castle have been paying a £2 charge since October 2002, reducing car numbers from 2,000 a day to a mere 200. London, Durham and the M6 toll, which opened in December, are Britain's only examples of congestion charging.

Edinburgh, Bristol and Cardiff are considering charging schemes while Nottingham is looking at introducing a workplace parking levy. Leeds is about to pilot a Department of Transport feasibility study, testing electronic charging systems that could be rolled out to other councils. Leeds MDC, however, is clear that it will not proceed until transport improvements are in place. On trial is the dedicated short-range communications system which transmits signals from the roadside to an electronic unit about the size of a cassette tape, fitted to vehicle windscreens, to generate bills. The second system to be trialed uses a global positioning satellite already used for navigation in the road haulage, shipping and aircraft industries.

Transport experts believe that decisions over what technology to use may be one reason why other cities have not followed suit as quickly as expected. So far, only Edinburgh has approached the transport secretary Alistair Darling with plans to introduce congestion charging before 2010. The cost of setting up the London system, at £175m, was prohibitive and revenue has been half what was expected, estimated at around £68m this year. By law, all revenue has to be spent on the mayor's transport policy. Regional cities would not be able to generate enough income to cover the start-up costs of a similar system. One of the difficulties of having London as the trial city is that, because of its size, underground network and unique layout, lessons learnt may not be applicable in the regions.

Peter Mackie, professor of transport studies at the Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, believes that local politicians are also putting the brakes on proposals for commercial reasons. "To me, the dominant issue in most cities is fear of economic competition effects as most cities are not in a dominant market position," he explains. "So, for example, in Leeds a major consideration is, 'if we do it for the Leeds central area, what might migrate out of Leeds city? What will go out of town to Harrogate, Bradford or Huddersfield?'."

So despite the success of the London experiment, regional cities have put their proposals on the back burner. Transport analysts believe they are waiting to see what the longer term effects on London will be, especially to the commercial sector. Other major cities around the world may not be so hesitant. Enquiries have been flooding in from the US, Tokyo, France, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden. Even the Arab world has shown an interest, in particular Cairo and Tehran, with the Arab news station Al-Jazeera providing extensive coverage of London's congestion charge.

Many believe that introducing congestion charging to the capital was one of the boldest and biggest changes to civil life in London since the Second World War. But there has been another less obvious outcome - it has made people start to once again believe that political action can make our cities better places to live in.