The congestion charge was a high-profile risk that has paid off. Strangely, no other city is rushing to follow London's lead
London's congestion charge has been a bold experiment in urban government. A widely acknowledged problem, affecting virtually all large and successful urban areas, has been addressed and, to some extent, solved. Traffic speeds within the capital's central zone have increased, and there has been a further move from the car to public transport in the inner-London area.
It is hard to exaggerate the extent to which congestion charging was a political gamble. No other city the size of London had attempted anything similar. The fuel protests of 2000 had shown how politically sensitive road transport could be. The Conservatives were set against the charge. The advisers to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, were at best ambivalent. It took Livingstone's personal political commitment to make the decision.
If it had all gone wrong, the Mayor's reputation would have been fatally damaged. But the smooth introduction of the charge, coupled with its impact in reducing road use, indicated that Livingstone was competent and that his judgement was sound. It was a high-profile risk that paid off. Partly as a result, Labour won this year's mayoral election.
So far, so good. But what about the rest of the country and, indeed, the world? Traffic congestion blights the lives of people in virtually every major urban centre on the planet. There should by now (almost 18 months after the London scheme went live) be a queue of cities rushing to emulate the capital's success.
In fact, it is London itself that is closest to introducing a new charging zone. Transport for London (TfL) has started a process of consultation about extending the existing scheme to the west. The new area would be roughly the same size as the original one, and would embrace the "Dowager Duchess zone" between Park Lane and Earl's Court Road, south of the Westway. There is significant opposition to this Kensington extension, involving large public meetings of the very well-connected populations of the areas concerned. But the biggest obstacle to extending the charge will be the cost of the cameras and other infrastructure. If the full cost of setting up the proposed extension fell directly on the Mayor, it is unlikely there would be much net yield to spend on public transport improvements. Running costs would consume virtually all of the charge revenue. Livingstone has also discussed the possibility of a congestion charge for vehicles using Heathrow airport. Because of the small number of entry points and high levels of congestion, this might be an easier proposition. But there has been no formal consultation on such a scheme so far.
Beyond London, Durham has a single street toll, while Edinburgh has the best-developed congestion charging proposals. The Scottish capital is consulting on a possible scheme, but there is powerful opposition. Bristol, too, has proposals for a scheme, though nothing will be introduced before 2007. There have also been significant discussions in Leeds, Cardiff and Manchester. Yet despite the apparent success of the London charge, there does not appear to be a major rush towards city-centre schemes.
There are a number of possible reasons for this lack of urgency. For a start, no other city in Britain has anything like London's extensive public transport system. Less than 15 per cent of people working in central London commute by car. The political and economic risk would be far greater in a city where 65 or 75 per cent of workers travel by car. Moreover, because TfL controls the buses, it was able to provide additional capacity for those forced off the roads. Outside the capital, bus services are not subject to the same public sector oversight and control.
Another reason British cities are being cautious is because highly publicised research, commissioned by retailers John Lewis, suggested that the charge has had a negative impact on its flagship store in Oxford Street. A study by Imperial College London showed a marked reduction in sales after the charge was introduced. TfL, on the other hand, has produced evidence suggesting that footfall in the West End was temporarily affected by the closure (because of a derailment) of the Central Line and by the Iraq war, but that the number of shoppers subsequently recovered. None the less, the perception of damage to retailing remains.
Perception is reality. If major retailers believe congestion charging could negatively affect their business, they will change their behaviour accordingly. Out-of-town locations will enjoy more investment, and traditional city centres less. Given the importance of prestige shopping to the regeneration and image of our post-industrial cities (think of Birmingham and Selfridges), it is most unlikely any policy will be pursued that could threaten the happiness of John Lewis, Selfridges, Harvey Nichols or the rest.
Beyond the cities, a tolled section of the M6 north of Birmingham has already been opened. And the government has a major policy initiative to examine the possibility of introducing a national congestion charging system, using sophisticated satellite-based technology. Such a system could target congestion on particular roads and at particular times. But there is no pretence that such a national scheme could be up and running before, say, 2014. Nor would it be cheap or risk-free to introduce. Ten years into the future is far enough away to comfort cabinet ministers who remain fearful of the car lobby.
In the meantime, the government is moving ahead with a "lorry road-user charge" that would involve hauliers paying an amount related to the distance they travel on UK roads, regardless of their nationality. Customs and Excise is in the process of initiating such a charge which, because of the relatively small number of vehicles involved, and because it will hit overseas hauliers, should not cause the political problems of a general scheme.
Beyond Britain, there has been a surprising lack of enthusiasm for congestion charging from other big cities with chronic traffic problems. Paris, New York, Moscow and Tokyo show no signs of imitating London. Other mayors seem unwilling to invite the political difficulties faced down by Livingstone. It seems that the original London scheme may be the only one to be introduced in a very big city, at least within the current decade. It is conceivable that, as traffic gradually clogs up more and more urban areas, city leaders will be forced to follow Livingstone's lead. But for the time being, the implausible coalition of free-market economists, greens, traffic engineers and computer companies that so love the London charge may find itself hemmed in by frightened national and city governments. The consequences of inaction are more predictable than those of making a change.
London will remain the home of the congestion charge. Its impact on the economy, land use and retailing can now be studied in depth. The Conservative Party's mayoral challenger, Steve Norris, promised to switch off the Livingstone system. Londoners had a chance to dump the charge and chose not to take it. However, rather than being seen as a great experiment in urbanism or environmental reform, the congestion charge may - like Buckingham Palace, Harrods and the Tower - come to be viewed as just another manifestation of London's uniqueness.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
