Navigating through this website is easier with the navigator frame which should be to the left of this window. If it is not there then click here to turn it on!
Alternatively there is a system map at the foot of this page.
More information about this website & why it was created can be found by visiting this website's "front" pages (link opens in a new window).
Page Index.
At one time it was common for road users to pass turnpikes where they would have to pay a toll for using a section of roadway, with the monies raised being spent on highway maintenance. However over time these turnpikes were abolished as funding became available from local and central governments (who - in Britain - finance the roads via property taxes, motor fuel taxes and the annual vehicle licence discs) so that nowadays on British roads tolls are generally only charged to use specific bridges / tunnels which had been constructed at great expense. (OK, so a handful of toll roads still remain, such as College Road, Dulwich, London SE21, which dates from 1789 and is the last historic working tollgate in London but they are very much the exception).
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Paying the toll at the tollgate on College Road, Dulwich, London SE21 - a slice of medieval life still very much "alive and kicking" in south London.
(About a 10-15 minute walk north of Sydenham Hill railway station). Click either image to see more and larger images - note the prices on the "Table Of Tolls" sign detailing the charges. If the links did not work then clickling here will open the page in a new full-size window. |
||
Now our politicians have decided that road tolling would be the best way to solve the conundrum of ever increasing traffic levels and urban congestion. Effectively this means that motorists are to be financially penalised for the privilege of driving on busy roads at certain times of the day. To try and sell the concept we are 'promised' that there will be a (small) reduction in other motoring taxes plus that all monies raised will be used to improve urban public transports. However, knowing that these charges will be very unpopular with the electorate (who for revenge may vote it out of office at the next general election) our national government initially planned to let local government make the decisions on which areas will be involved and how much the charges will be. But after experience in Edinburgh (see below in June 2005 the national government announced that it would be looking to a national pay as you drive system after all.
The pro-road lobbies are horrified at the proposals because motorists already pay £46 billion in taxes per year (out of which only £6 billion is actually spent on roads) with the rest being 'lost' in the general taxation fund and they suggest that if more of the remaining £40 billion was allocated to improving Britain's transport infrastructures it would help reduce congestion at (trunk road) congestion hot-spots and create fixed-infrastructure electric public transport systems in ALL our major towns & cities which would be seen as viable alternatives to driving and thereby help solve the many issues of urban traffic congestion & air pollution.
The pro-road lobbies - and indeed most of the road using British public - see tolling (or road pricing, congestion charging, or whatever other name is flavour of the month) as just another tax - albeit one that is being stealthily introduced through 'the back door'.
To validate this viewpoint the pro-road lobbies point to how the treasury has already stated that it does not like the dedication of funds raised to one specific cause, and that therefore after 10 years it will be wanting to get its hands on the money - something which it actually achieved almost immediately London's scheme started by reducing the grants it gives to 'Transport for London' - this being the organisation that 'pockets' the funds from the new revenue stream and is responsible for managing London's transport & road infrastructures - see below.
Meanwhile, the anti-car lobby suggests that motorists are not taxed enough claiming that what they pay is insufficient to cover the cost to society of the detrimental health effects caused by air pollution, traffic accidents, etc. and therefore (as a general theme) strongly supports a nationwide scheme
What no-one has realised is that if there was a massive shift away from fossil fuelled vehicles (towards electric traction or even not driving) then there would be such a significant shortfall in revenue that the government would have to 'plug the gap' somehow.
It is questionable whether vehicle owners (*sheeple) even understand that road tolling could - potentially - see the vehicle owners receiving telephone style monthly itemised invoices telling them where they (or at least their vehicles) have been.
Many of those people who do understand this would suggest that whatever system is used it must be one that respects an individual's right to privacy -- -- -- for instance just supposing you were arranging a special surprise for a loved one's birthday, and they saw a 'road user invoice' showing where you had been, and didn't believe your explanation of why you had been there... (or you didn't want to tell them the truth as it would spoil the surprise). The ensuing argument could wreck a marriage.
The advent of Electronic Your Every Move Is Being Recorded (by whom?) Road User Pricing Technologies mean that this is the way things are going... click link to go forward in time (go several sections further down this page) & learn about how "big brother" (aka 'the state') will soon be keeping records of millions of innocent people's daily travels - - and penalising those people who do not wish to succumb to being watched in this way.
In short, "yes", this is "very likely" for those vehicle drivers who use fossil fuel powered vehicles. To avoid double-taxation there would be a need whereby as road user tolling schemes are introduced the taxation on fossil fuels is reduced - and not by just a symbolic token amount.
(*"sheeple" = sheep people aka: the mass of humanity who simply follow the herd blindly trusting that everything they are told [about current affairs, global events, etc.,] in the nedia is so and who actually do believe that "the government" really is working for the betterment of our present-day society.)
On 1st October 2002 the historic city of Durham became the first British city to reintroduce road tolls - but this time as a congestion charge aimed at discouraging people from using (in this instance) one specific very busy narrow road which (because several other roads or sections of road were closed) is no longer a through route but goes from the Market Place up to the Cathedral. The charge is £2 and it applies to most vehicles using Saddler Street and Market Place between 1000 and 1600, Monday to Saturday. Payment is made at a ticket machine on leaving the tolled roadway; this is is linked to an automatic bollard in the carriageway which will lower on payment. The system is monitored by security cameras and there is a fine not exceeding £30 for drivers caught dodging the toll.
Within weeks of the scheme beginning traffic levels fell dramatically from about 2,000-a-day to around 300-400, this being about an 85% reduction and considerably fewer than the 1,000 vehicles a day it had been projected would use the tolled roadway. The local government officials behind the scheme have declared it to be a huge success, even though the considerably fewer vehicles paying the toll have resulted in a significant revenues shortfall compared to what it had been expecting. It had been hoped that the toll would help finance a shuttle bus service linking the castle and cathedral, main car parks, the bus and railway stations, and subsidise a shop mobility project for disabled people.
However a Freight Transport Association spokesperson was less enthusiastic, claiming that the charges were unfair. "By charging goods vehicles for entry they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some goods vehicles can deliver outside the charging period, but others will be forced to pay, pushing up the cost of delivering the goods which will eventually lead to higher prices in the shops. This charge will not change the need for goods to be delivered for shoppers to buy, so why charge it? There appears to be exemptions for the very people causing congestion but not for the goods vehicles that actually need to be there."
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| General overview of the entry point to the road user tolled area. | |
The exit lane - note the rising bollard and, (on the top of a black pole) three CCTV cameras monitoring proceedings. |
 The driver of a blue van pays the exit fee. |
|
Not photographed was a black saloon car which reversed away from this tolling point and exited via the entry route. This is possible because there was no form of physical
impediment (such as uni-directional flaps in the road) to prevent vehicles from exiting via the entry lane. Perhaps the driver did this because (s)he was unable to pay the exit fee - the machine neither accepts paper money nor gives change. There is also no option to pay by plastic card. |
 |
|
 |
| The historic Market Square and now pedestrianised street. | ||
 |
| Advance warning signs have been erected on all major routes into London - this example is 8 miles away!
Subsequent to this photograph being taken the ending time has been changed (30 minutes earlier) and this sign has been replaced with one showing updated information. |
Next in the pipeline was London, with a central area scheme starting in February 2003. In London the zone is active between 7am and 6.30pm with surveillance cameras watching over all the congestion charge zone entry points as well as monitoring the traffic within its boundary. Any vehicle owner who has not paid the charge by midnight (initially £5 before 10pm but in July 2005 raised to £8 - or £10 between 10pm and midnight) will receive a penalty charge notice of £80 (subsequently raised to £100) which like parking tickets if paid within 14 days will attract a 50% "prompt payment" discount but if still unpaid after 28 days increases by 50% and could result in legal action, bailiffs being sent in, etc. To make life easier it is possible to pay at certain shops, petrol stations, by telephone, over the Internet or even by text messaging on mobile phones, although for the latter you must first register your details & set up an account.
Vehicles with three or more outstanding congestion charge penalty charges become eligible for clamping or removing. TfL staff are permitted to do this anywhere within Greater London. These actions incur additional charges - £65 for clamping and £150 for removal. Vehicles which are removed also incur a storage charge of £25 per day. Releasing of clamped / stored vehicles will only be permitted once all outstanding charges and fees have been paid. After 56 days any vehicles which have not been released may be disposed of at auction or by scrapping. Even with these actions all outstanding charges and fees must still be paid, plus there is an additional disposal fee of £60!
Although not part of the original (2003) charging regime in an attempt to help encourage advance payment and generally make paying easier a 15% discount for monthly and annual payments has been introduced. Also, to try and appease the retail sector charges are not levied on the three charging days that fall between Christmas Day and New Year's Day.
London's pioneering electronic system was chosen because it avoids the need for toll booths as they would add to traffic congestion. It is of the "cordon" type where vehicles pay once to enter the zone and then can enter / leave as many times as they wish during the rest of the day. Except as detailed below all vehicles pay the same rate - cars, lorries, etc.
There are very few exceptions to the charge - as might be expected this includes fire / police / ambulance vehicles, buses and taxis; although there are a few other vehicle categories too. In a (token) effort to reduce urban air pollution (especially bearing in mind that there are 8000 diseasal buses on London's roads - for which "dirty diesel" is still the "fuel of choice" as defined by the decision makers) the owners of "alternatively fuelled" vehicles (LPG, electric, etc) are also eligible to register to be exempt from charging. This includes privately owned cars. As might be expected, registration is a process which also attracts a fee, this being £10, per year. Motorcycles are also not charged - but in early 2005 it was announced that because of the sharp rise in the number of motorcycles entering London and the significant increase in the number of road traffic accidents involving motorcycles, this might change. For security reasons (to avoid identification) police vehicles used by undercover officers must pay the charge. Drivers of foreign-registered vehicles are not exempt from the charge but as there is no international legal framework for the assessment and collection of traffic fines so enforcement (and recovery of fines) means that many will avoid paying it.
Residents living inside the zone who wish to use their vehicles during the charging period can register to receive a 90% discount on the fee (for one private vehicle only) although there is a minimum residents fee of £4 - this being equivalent to 5 consecutive charging days / one week's charge. As might be expected, registration is a process which also attracts a fee (£10). There is no need to pay anything for vehicles which are parked off-street or in local authority residents parking bays (displaying an appropriate valid parking permit) within the charging zone but not used / moved during the charging hours.
Fleet vehicle operators can pay the charge on a daily basis (as with privately-owned cars) but might find life easier if they join special a fleet scheme. To join such a scheme the fleet owner must register and agree to charges being taken via direct debit from their bank account. In addition to streamlining the payment process this will help ensure that they avoid the £2 surcharge for payment between 10pm & midnight and the £100 penalty charge for non-payment. In addition the actual daily charge is reduced to £7 per vehicle! As might be expected, registration is a process which also attracts a fee, this being £10, per year, per vehicle. More information can be found on the official London Congestion Charge website at http://www.cclondon.com/ (link to an external site which opens in a new window).
In an attempt to evade the charge some owners of luxury cars have been registering their vehicles as minicabs, as these have an exemption from the charge. For their part TfL have said that they will watch minicabs 'very carefully' to make sure that they really are being used as commercial vehicles.
According to the website "Watching Them, Watching Us UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign" at http://www.spy.org.uk/wtwu.htm (link to an external site which opens in a new window) London's congestion charging scheme relies on about 700 CCTV cameras covering around 203 entrances/exits to the 21 square kilometre central zone. Each lane of traffic either entering or leaving the boundary of the zone is covered by a monochrome camera linked to an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system. Each entry/exit road has at least one colour CCTV camera which streams real time pictures back to the central "Hubsite" with links to the Call Centres in Coventry and Glasgow. There are also about 10 white vans with mobile camera systems, and some 64 other cameras outside of the zone. (information from this page - http://www.spy.org.uk/cgi-bin/cclondon.pl (link to an external site which opens in a new window).
Despite the dire predictions that the technology was not proven the scheme has worked reasonably well, and indeed its architect has set himself up in a consultancy business to sell similar technologies to other cities too - and there are reported to be as many as 35 other towns and cities in Britain alone (plus many more and overseas) which are looking to introduce their own schemes. They were all happy to let London be the 'pioneer', just in case it all went horribly wrong.
Although it has been judged to be a success the London scheme has not been entirely trouble-free. Perhaps the most serious problem has been caused by vehicles bearing false number plates (see Numberplate thefts increase below). Some problems have been caused by the people who issue the fines misreading vehicle number plates, and other problems by members of the public who enter incorrect number plate details in error - for instance getting the number '0' (zero) mixed up with the letter 'O' (as in 'orange') or the number '1' (one) with the letter 'l' (as in 'light'). Another issue has been that the surveillance cameras which 'read' vehicle number plates have sometimes been blinded by strong summer sunlight.
 |
| The threat of congestion charging was so unpopular that some people set up websites to oppose the scheme, encouraging visitors to share protest banners. Above and below are two examples.
Note that 'Red Ken' (Livingstone) is London's mayor who staked his reputation on getting the scheme introduced. Clicking the lower banner will open one (or more) new windows taking you to the website. The upper image now points to a website which is not about the congestion charge so the link has been deactivated. |
 |
Before the scheme started there was much debate regarding its very existence, with many people claiming they would suffer financial hardship because they could not afford to pay the (then) £5 daily charge, which, on an annual basis equates to a whopping £1,200! (This figure assumes you use the car for 48 weeks a year and allows for Bank Holidays and the free period between Xmas and New Year). Sadly, some of these people "voted with their feet" and rather than pay they left their jobs. Meanwhile however transport experts were questioning whether the charge was too low, claiming that business people would just claim it an expense whilst the rich would willingly pay if it meant that the roads would be emptier for them. The experts wanted a far higher charge - perhaps as high as £20 per day. There was also much concern that traffic levels would rise considerably in areas bordering the charge zones (it did, by about 10%, much to the dismay of local people, although when the zone is extended some of them they will find themselves inside it and the problems pushed further out towards the suburbs).
 |
| Road marking on a road leading to the congestion charge zone (CCZ). |
 |
| Road marking at entry point to the CCZ (note the different colour compared to road marking seen above). |
 |
| Road sign at entry point to the CCZ. Note how this is called the "central" zone - implying that they are ready for other zones too.
Subsequent to this photograph being taken the ending time has been changed (30 minutes earlier) and these signs have been replaced with versions showing updated information. |
 |
| Above and below. The northern section of Gower Street where it leads towards the CCZ showing how some of the above road markings fit-in in a street scene and also how general road direction signs advise road users of which roads lead to the CCZ (ie: travelling ahead) - and which do not (ie: by turning right). The larger clickable images are also full colour. |
 |
| Above and below. These images also show one of the tall black painted poles with the enforcement cameras, although in the above picture it is partially obscured by a traffic signal. The series of buildings in the background are part of University College. |
 |
| A plethora of Orwellian 1984 "big brother" style cameras monitor vehicle movements with computers reading vehicle number plates to (try and) ensure that
no-one evades the charge. Also seen are some other CCZ road signs as used within the zone. The cameras are supposed to be a short term measure - in 2009 vehicle detection will switch to a satellite tracking system with tagged vehicles being detected by roadside beacons. This will facilitate the introduction of a new charging system that will charge road users extra to use the more congested roads and / or travel at the busiest times. The "tag and beacon" system is looked at below. |
 |
| Road signs at a CCZ exit point - the parking zone restriction also ends here as the boundary road is one of London's red routes with much stiffer parking restrictions, different signage & very steep penalties for infringement. The building in the background is St Pancras station. |
Within months of the scheme beginning traders within the zone began complaining about sharp drops in business (as much as 20%) and although it could be due to many things (such as fewer tourists and general economic decline) they are blaming the congestion charge for encouraging people to shop elsewhere.
Will central London end up as an enclave city for office workers who travel by public transport, tourists and the very rich with 'ordinary' people voting with their accelerator pedals &
rearranging their lives to remain outside the charge areas at all times?
Will urban disinvestment be a price too high? (see "A Personal Observation" at foot of this page)
A survey by Transport for London (the local government organisation behind the scheme) six months after its introduction suggests that there has been a reduction of about 60,000 vehicles a day entering the charging zone. Of these they estimate that 20 to 30% have diverted around the zone; that 50% to 60% represent transfers to public transport; and that 15% to 25% represent switching to car share, motorcycle or pedal cycle, or other adaptations such as travelling outside charging hours or making fewer trips to the charging zone.
The survey also suggests that compared to spring 2002 when an estimated 1.6 million people made journeys into the charging zone spring 2003 saw 70,000 fewer people a day are entering the zone (by all forms of transport). They do not attribute this reduction to the introduction of the charge, because "since 85-90% of people coming into central London travel by public transport, the relative impact of reduced car users is minimal. It is estimated that the congestion charging scheme is only responsible for around 5-7% of the overall reduction in people coming into the charging zone"
They also say that:-
o Provisional data for reported accidents inside the charging zone during charging hours suggest an approximate 20% reduction compared to the same period in 2002.
o Cycling has increased by 30%, although the favourable spring and summer weather may also be a factor.
The primary "stated aim" of the congestion charge is to reduce the volume of traffic using central London's roads. But was it really necessary to introduce the charge in order to achieve this? Especially as for some years prior to the charge the number of people in private cars entering Central London in the morning peak (roughly 7am - 10am) was already in decline? - between 1981 and 2002 falling from 173,000 to 105,000. What is more, the daily road traffic movements into Central London was also in decline - falling from 1,078,000 to 895,000. There was also a substantial reduction in the number of medium and heavy goods vehicles. So, given that the "stated aim" was already being achieved, why was it necessary to introduce the charge?
If there is less traffic then why is it also travelling more slowly?
Since the charge was introduced the level of traffic entering the zone has fallen by about 20%, with about 110,000 vehicles paying daily. Logic would suggest that less traffic would flow more quickly. But in fact the opposite is true. Indeed in the same time period Central London traffic speeds fell from an average 12.1 mph to just 9.9mph.
Part of the explanation would be because of a significant rise in taxi journeys (up by more than 30%) and approximately 20% more bus movements too (to cope with displaced motorists bus services have been boosted to carry an extra 15,000 passengers in the morning peak). But, "something else" which has happened within the same time frame is the rise of "anti-trafficism"; this being reflected in official circles through a policy of what is called "traffic restraint" or "traffic management" (aka mis-management) but in plain English means closing roads, reducing road widths (and hence traffic capacity), introducing significantly more traffic signals (as these too slow traffic down) and a whole host of other measures designed to make driving a motor vehicle within Central London less pleasant. Note that the vast majority of these also adversely affect bus and taxi users too - presumably the anti-traffic mafia just don't care.
Financially things are not going at all well, indeed the phrase worst case scenario would be about the best way to describe the situation. When the charging was at the planning stage it was forecast to raise as much as £200 million - in the first year - which would be invested in London's transport systems. By the time the charging started in February 2003 this had fallen to £130 million and by June this fell even lower to £65 million. In July the Mayor gave the company running the scheme £30 million of Londoners' money because it was unable to make a profit on its operations. However in May 2003 it did manage to pay four executive directors bonus share options totalling £4.8million. Hey. its good to see all that money being used to improve London's transport system.
Meanwhile, the national govt. has decided that the scheme will be profitable so has reduced its projected grants to the Mayors' office (for investment in London's transports) by £125 million for tax year 2004-5 and £200 million for 2005-6. Not only does this mean that there is a potential shortfall looming but also that Londoners are going to lose out as the monies raised from the congestion charge should have been "extra" over and above what was being funded from the national government.
So, it seems that the pro-road lobbies are being proven correct; road tolling (or road pricing, congestion charging, or whatever other name is flavour of the month) is just another tax. Worse still it is pretty obvious that because of a double-whammy of the funding reduction by the national government (the treasury "Dark Controller" Lizards) plus the new tax not raising as much money as originally forecast the people of London are now going to be S W I N D L E D out of their money AND much needed capital investments in new urban public transports. Such as the zero emission trolleybuses proposed for the East London Transit bus rapid transit scheme.
The introduction of the congestion charge, as well as increased use of automatic numberplate recognition cameras, has also resulted in a significant rise in the number of vehicles having their number plates either being cloned or stolen.
Cloned means where a second set of number plates are made and fitted to a (usually) identical vehicle that belongs to someone else. Initially criminals adopted this practise but after changes in the regulations for issuing new numberplates were changed to require sight of a V5 certificate or other proof of ownership of a car with the required number, so number plate thefts have become more common. In both cases the result is that innocent people who (sometimes) live hundreds of miles away have been receiving penalty charge notices for not paying the fee when they have not actually been in London.
Another ruse to avoid paying the congestion charge is that when caught on camera and presented with a penalty charge some drivers will claim that their numberplates have been stolen and must have been fitted to another car.
In August 2004 the Mayor, having just been re-elected to office, confirmed that he would be acting upon his election manifesto and expanding the charging zone towards west and south-west London. He acknowledged that of the 100,000 people who responded to the public consultation 63 per cent of residents and 72 per cent of businesses oppose the plans but claimed that "whilst the proposal to extend the zone is clearly controversial, consultations tend to draw responses primarily from those opposed to whatever is being consulted upon.". He suggests that the extension would reduce traffic by five to 10 per cent - and congestion by double this figure - cutting both pollution and bus journey times. However the extension will increase congestion inside the main zone, but only by one to two per cent and it is claimed that compared to the 30 per cent reduction already achieved this will be manageable.
Opposition however remains stiff; for instance London's 33 local borough councils want a rethink claiming that the estimated £120 million it will cost to expand the zone will drain cash from projects such as new tramways or widening the North Circular Road (this being well outside the charging zone, and where the single lane sections remain the congestion often adds 30+ minutes to journey times). There is also much concern that the running annual costs of £50m - £60m will reduce the profit to only £10 million per year - and if not enough motorists enter the zone then there could even be an annual loss of £5m.
The enlarged zone is scheduled to become operational on 19th February 2007, and to help "sell" it there will be some concessions; for instance, to help the theatre and restaurant industries the hours of charging will be reduced slightly so that it ends at 6pm instead of the current 6.30pm, and that several major roads through the extended charging area will remain free, as otherwise some north-south and east-west drivers would have to make very lengthy diversions clogging up currently uncongested suburban roads.
(All this came to pass as scheduled, and is discussed further down this page).
Also revealed in November 2004 is that more than one third of revenue from the congestion charge comes from motorists being fined. However as (in January 2005) the National Audit Office revealed that one-third of cars could be incorrectly registered in government databases (vehicle owner's addresses, postcodes and / or vehicle registration numbers) it is probable there are many more vehicles getting away with not paying the congestion charge. Possible reasons why there could be so much incorrect data could include that despite being a legal obligation drivers often fail to inform the Driving and Vehicle and Licensing Agency when they buy / sell vehicles privately or the vehicle owners changes address.
Meanwhile in January 2005 it was confirmed that yet more expansionary plans would see road user tolling reaching out into the suburbs - not just the already announced zone around Heathrow Airport but also anywhere else within the Greater London area where congestion is a daily occurrence. The plans are to progressively roll out new the charging zones over a period of about eight years, probably starting around 2009, which is when the "tag and beacon" system (as described in the image panel above left - just above bottom image) is expected to replace roadside cameras in the already operational Central London zone.
There are several possible ways in which suburban charging might be effected. One option would be to base the charges on the suburban town centres. Another is for area-wide charging. A third option could involve specific targeting of congestion hotpots (especially trunk roads which suffer from heavy congestion) with higher "premium rate" tolls for use at busy times. This implies that even the single-lane sections of the A406 North Circular Road will incur charges, even though these sections of road are woefully inadequate for the traffic levels which are expected to use them - with, in many cases there being no viable alternative options - except perhaps the already massively over-congested M25 motorway, use of which will possibly double the distances to be driven for comparable journeys, resulting in much longer journey times plus increased fuel consumption, air pollution...and more fuel duty (tax) revenue for the government.
It is expected that many of the local councils in London's outer boroughs will be vehemently opposed to any charging being introduced into their areas. As will the many people who will resent being told to buy (at their expense) the 'big brother' spy in the cab tagging equipment - especially also as in the suburbs people's journeys start and finish from a much wider range of locations and therefore are less easy to cater for with public transport than for journeys to / from central London, which is a much smaller area of destination locality.
Speaking on a radio interview in summer 2004 the Mayor suggested that the daily charge would almost certainly be increased during his second term in office. In November it was revealed that the increase would be £3 per day - a rise of 60% - and in March 2005 it was revealed that the new charge would come into effect on Monday 4th July 2005. The Mayor claimed that the extra funds could raise an extra £50 million to reinvest in public transport, on top of the £79 million annual revenues already being received. He also voiced a concern that traffic levels were slowly creeping up again towards the pre-charge days and the increased fee should result in between 5% and 13% fall in traffic levels within the zone.
That there should be any increase at all angered many of the opponents to charging but now the size of that increase has been revealed the effect has been like introducing a red rag to a bull. Even some pro-charging advocates have been taken aback by such a large increase whilst the "anti" campaigners are crying foul and questioning the integrity of both the Mayor & TfL because until now it had always said that the congestion charge scheme was introduced to reduce congestion - and not raise revenue. Many businesses are claiming that when the price hike comes into effect so few people will enter the congestion charge zone that a lot of them will end up either having to relocate outside the zone / London itself (which apparently some are already actively looking to do) - or cease trading (close down / go into liquidation).
In mid August the Mayor revealed (in a letter to a national newspaper) that the increase in the charge has resulted in just 1,000 - 2,000 fewer cars entering the charging zone per day. This reinforces the views of those critics who were suggesting that revenue generation really was the intended aim - and not traffic reduction. However, following the fatal bomb incidents of 7th July, and non fatal bomb incidents of 21st July (this being the first time that terrorist bombs have exploded on a London Underground train [with fatal results] since March 1976) many people so dramatically changed their travelling habits that it will be the end of the year before meaningful changes to travelling patterns can even begin to be discerned.
In March 2005 a newspaper report suggested that they had seen secret documents proving that the real reason for the increase was to ensure that the planned westward extension of the charging zone (which opened in 2007) could be afforded and would "wash its face" financially. Yet when charging was introduced the official "stated aim" was to raise funds to improve public transport. But then most thinking people already knew that this was just political doublespeak by self-deluded politicians and well-meaning misguided advisers.
If the politicians (local and national) were really serious about using the funds raised to improve public transport then they should stop ALL their underhand scheming to use the funds on proposals which disadvantage road users and instead use the money to install non polluting electric street transport trolleybus and tram systems which will reduce traffic levels by attracting motorists out of their cars and also reduce urban air pollution. Trolleybuses especially should be London-wide (indeed nationwide) with trams reserved for routes with the heaviest traffic flows... where there is available roadspace without forcing unsuitable vehicles (delivery lorries, etc) into residential roads....
In May 2006 it became known that the Mayor is considering a further increase of £2 daily, (bringing the charge up to £10 daily) which will be included in his manifesto during the next Mayoral elections, and if he is re-elected is expected to be enacted in 2008.
As from June 2006, and following much lobbying & adverse criticism, the payment system changed slightly in that the charge became £8 if paid by midnight on the day of travel or £10 if paid by midnight the following charging day. "Next day" payments can only be made via the telephone call centre and website.
In June 2006 an article in the London Evening Standard newspaper suggested that statistics produced by Transport for London showed that the average central London travel delay had doubled from the levels when congestion charging began in 2003, and that if congestion in Central London kept on rising at the same rate then by the end of 2007 it would very probably have returned to pre-congestion charge levels.
The newspaper also revealed that taking the bus was often 'slower than walking'. Meanwhile in an interview on LBC radio a taxi driver's spokesperson suggested that whilst when the congestion charge first began the traffic flowed very well, not only had journey times now slowed down back to where they were but in some locations were already worse than before.
However, with the number of vehicles entering the charging zone still well below the pre-charging levels it seems that the congestion is not because of more people bringing vehicles into Central London. Instead the extra congestion seems to be as a result of road space reallocation / reduction, traffic signal re-phasing and a significant increase in the number of buses on London's roads - especially articulated buses which although very much in the minority are blamed for taking up twice as much road space as other vehicles.
In November 2006 the Mayor announced that if he wins the May 2008 Mayoral election then he would be changing the charges so that owners of cars in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G (typically the high price / high performance cars plus the 'off-road' style 4x4's also known as 'sports utility vehicles' / SUV's) will see the daily charge rising by 312% from £8.00 to £25.00. This is being proposed for environmental reasons, because cars in 'Band G' are typically the highest polluting vehicles, producing more than 225g of carbon dioxide per kilometre. Apparently a fifth of all cars on London's roads will be affected in this way. In addition, under the revised charging system the 90 per cent resident's discount which exists for householders living in the congestion charging zone will be withdrawn for Band G vehicles.
In explaining why he was proposing these changes he said "those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles." He also questioned why anybody would need an off-road 4x4 car in what "is the most urbanised part of Britain". With respect to his proposing to scrap the householder's congestion charge discount he added "This is a warning to anyone considering buying a heavy polluting vehicle that they will not be eligible for a discount if they live in the congestion zone."
As a contrast, he also suggested that the lowest polluting vehicles will no longer be charged. This would apply to vehicles in Vehicle Excise Duty Bands A and B, which typically produce less than 120g CO2 / km, which meet Euro IV standard.
Whilst TfL have a point in wanting the lowest possible air pollution within London they are also failing themselves by increasing the number of diseasal (disease diesel) buses on London's roads... Diesel engines tend to be far more polluting than petrol engines, are known as significant sources of pollutants which are known to be harmful to human health, and as TfL's 2006 Environment Report points out, "there is not much difference in terms of pollution per occupant between buses and cars taking the average occupancy of each type of vehicle." If TfL really wanted to reduce air pollution within central London then this could be achieved by electrifying the buses (ie; convert to trolleybuses)... comparatively few roads would need equipping with the overhead power supply system, whilst the benefits would cover a much larger area.
Environmentally themed variable charging according to vehicle type was originally planned for spring 2008, however for various reasons it was put back to 2010, when charging is expected to start using the 'tag & beacon' system (as detailed in the Electronic Your Every Move Is Being Recorded (by whom?) Road User Pricing Technologies section below) rather than just number plate recognition.
New Mayor, changes cancelled. However as Mr Ken Livingstone lost the mayorall election so within days of taking hold of the reigns of power the new Mayor fulfilled his election manifesto promise and scrapped this charging change.
In February 2007 it sort of 'slipped out' in local newspapers that due to the volume of traffic which passes through its town centre the London Borough of Greenwich would like a congestion charge imposing upon itself. A spokesperson from Transport For London said that if this goes ahead then it will be a 'one-off' standalone scheme, totally independent of the Central London charging zone, which does make sense given the distance between Central London and Greenwich. In an interview London's Mayor said that a decision could be made by the end of spring, but added: "We don't want to do it unless people want it locally" - which given his previous track record (eg: publically stating that he did not want to scrap the Routemaster buses and then doing just that) makes this scheme a 100% certainty.
Whilst Greenwich has been blighted by traffic congestion for many, many years this could be because it is on the route from a to b - and there are no viable alternatives. Fume belching heavy goods vehicles only choose to travel through town centres and residential roads when they really have to! Greenwich is also an area where air pollution induced asthma is an issue - for both adults and young children.
As expected the Central zone expanded into more of West London on the 19th of February. Also as expected, to help the theatre and restaurant industries the hours of charging were reduced slightly so that it ends at 6pm instead of the previous 6.30pm, and that to encourage north-south and east-west drivers to stay on certain important through routes (instead of diverting along quiet residential roads on the zone boundary area) there are several major roads through the centre of London which remain free to use.
Preliminary results of traffic surveys show that two weeks after the expansion traffic in the extended part of the zone has decreased by 13%, which is well within the Transport for London (TfL) predictions of a 10%-15% reduction. This is said to represent approximately 33,000 fewer vehicles entering the expanded area of the zone. So far the predicted 2% increase in traffic in the original part of the charging zone has not come to pass. This was expected because with 78,000 households in the new part of the zone being eligible for a 90% discount on the daily charge so some people would decide to drive there, instead of taking public transport or not travelling at all.
In July 2007 several sources of information announced their findings of studies into the success (or otherwise) of the enlarged charging zone.
An article in the London Evening Standard newspaper suggested that average speeds in the extended part of the zone had dropped dramatically - both when compared to the time frame prior to 2002 before any congestion charging and the time when only the original charging zone was in force. Their extensive article suggested that speeds had fallen from a typical 12.4mph (no CCZ) to 12.1 mph (Central Zone) to 8mph (after opening of the extension).
Meanwhile TfL announced that its Fifth Annual Impacts Monitoring Report had shown that over the first three months of operation traffic levels in the western extension of the congestion charge zone had fallen by approximately 10% - 15% (compared to 2006). This they suggested is in line with their predictions, and that congestion has also fallen by between 20% - 25% against comparable values in 2005 and 2006. They also claimed that traffic levels in the original charging zone remained stable in 2006, being 21% lower than when charging began in 2002, whilst traffic levels on boundary routes of the original zone also remained comparable to previous years. Furthermore, they added that their studies had shown that traffic on the north - south free passage route running between the original and extended zones (Edgware Road to Vauxhall Bridge via Park Lane) has more or less remained unchanged.
However, London Assembly Member Angie Bray criticised TfL for presenting a false picture of traffic movement in the capital, saying that reality is not as rosy as TfL would have people believe, with congestion in the original zone having risen by 15% (compared to 2006). She also lambasted TfL for claiming that this was solely due to roadworks (urgently replacing life expired under-road utilities) when in reality "it is due to traffic light rephasing; the installation of bus and cycle routes and other traffic-restricting measures which have the effect of limiting overall road space." She further suggested that as much as 4% of the increased congestion is due to the western extension and a significant number of cars becoming exempt through the extended resident's discount, and added "Congestion is up on the boundary roads by 5%. So all that is happening is that congestion is being spread over a wider area, not eliminated. This new report wants to talk all about the apparent 'success' of the western extension, despite it only being in operation for a few months, but at its heart is a clear admission of failure in the central, flagship zone."
It is worth noting that after serious issues with low rainfall / low reservoir levels and severely high levels of water supply pipe leakage which almost resulted in the introduction of emergency drought measures central London became in the grip of an urgent programme of utility repair and upgrades, which have negatively impacted upon traffic flows. After the drought of 2006 it is most fortunate for the water supply companies that summer 2007 saw much rainfall.
Also interested in this report was The Association of British Drivers (ABD) whose webpage on the report would suggest that Ms Bray 's understanding of the TfL report is more accurate. The ABD also point out that despite the reduction in other traffic the 25% increase in buses & coaches plus 13% increase in taxis entering the charging zone is another factor in the slowing of overall traffic speeds, plus explain why the introduction of the charging zone has not resulted in significant air quality benefits (reductions). Indeed whilst levels of the known to be cancer causing PM10 pollutants have remained broadly stable levels of NOx pollution have, if anything, gone up - especially around the perimeter ring roads (both these pollutants are known to come from diesel engines)
"This tends to explain why pollution has not reduced because taxis and buses are generally diesel powered and often relatively "dirty" in comparison with modern cars. Even though the absolute numbers of taxis and buses may be lower, one bus generates a lot more pollution that one car, and as reported in another TfL publication entitled the "Environment Report 2006", there is not much difference in terms of pollution per occupant between buses and cars taking the average occupancy of each type of vehicle. In reality the former car users tend to have moved to using buses and underground usage has not changed much, so there is little or none environmental benefit."
The TfL report can be found at this webpage: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/5474.aspx
and the ABD report at this webpage: http://www.abd.org.uk/london_congestion_charge_report2007.htm
the ABD also has a factsheet about the CCZ which may be of interest: http://www.abd.org.uk/london_congestion_charge.htm
(links to external sites which open in new windows)
Reported on the ABD factsheet detailed above are the results of a survey conducted by the Freight Transport Association which found that as a result of the Congestion Charge...
25% of businesses have had to lay off staff.
80% of businesses have reported a reduction in takings. (London Chamber of Commerce)
27% of retailers are considering relocating outside the zone.
69% of delivery companies have seen no reduction in journey times.
Towards the end of 2007, and with the holiday shopping season in mind, an enterprising company introduced an electronic device which is located in vehicles and will help people who drive within the CCZ avoid missing payments.
The genesis of this device was the sheer frustration of being fined for forgetting to pay the CCZ, something which is very easy to do in people's busy working lives, and that the people behind this device were peeved that whilst some businesses are able to take advantage of corporate schemes which offer automated payment systems this facility is not offered to individuals. The product has been named 'KenBuster' in honour of London's (much loved) (sic) Mayor.
The 'KenBuster' uses global positioning satellite technology to determine whether a vehicle is within the CCZ, and if it is and during the time of day when charging is in force so an automated payment is made on behalf of the vehicle (with the cost charged to a pre-arranged credit / charge card account) and a confirmatory text message is sent to a designated mobile phone. In addition transactions can be checked on the Internet. KenBusters can be bought for £50 plus £8 a month for 12 months, or for a one-off £200 for unlimited use forever. Apparantly "tired" KenBusters will be upgraded for free.
At the time of writing (November 2007) it is too soon to know how successful this new service will prove to be, however with as many as 4,500 people being fined on a daily basis (this being about 6% motorists who enter the zone) so it is possible that this new service will be very successful. However this could prove to be very bad news for TfL.
The real issue for TfL is that without the income from the fines the CCZ system's finances will become a liability instead of the cash cow which had originally been hoped for. As stated under the headline Fines Rake It In! several columns above the income from fines actually accounts for more than one third of income (indeed for 2006/7 the fines represented a whopping 38% of total income) so if everybody was to pay before incurring the fine then the system would almost certainly start operating at a net (financial) loss. This is clearly visible when looking at the 2006/7 accounts, where (according to TfL’s annual report and accounts) the Charge Income was £157.4m, Enforcement Income (ie: fines) £95.0 giving a Total Gross Income of £252.4, of which the net income was £89.1 million, this being lower than the enforcement income! (ie, without the fines the thing would already be making a loss).
Of course it is not realistic to expect that nobody will ever again be fined for non payment, nor that they will only ever pay the lower £8 daily charge, but it is very possible that enough people will use this new service (and others which are very likely to spring up as commercial rivals) so that the reduction in income will see the CCZ system permanently operating at a financial loss. Remember, the fines are £50/100/150 (depending on how quickly they are paid) this being at least equivalent to six vehicles paying 'on time' (6 payments @ £8 = £48) or five paying the £10 'next day' rate. Then again, maybe this possibility has some bearing on why it has been proposed to switch from a congestion to an environmental basis, with some vehicles having to pay as much as £25 a day.
Additional information sourced from these webpages - although the london.gov page does not seem to work (links to external sites which open in new windows)
http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=926#comment-28962
http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/question.do?id=19484
According to a report in the London Daily Telegraph newspaper on Friday 22nd June 2007 the London congestion charge could be illegal. Or rather, the type of charging used in London could be deemed illegal.
The news article says that Britain has secretly signed up to a europe-wide road charging scheme, and the govt. used what is known as a 'Statutory Instrument' (ie: what could be said to be like a secretive backdoor fastrack entrance) to sneak the enabling legislation through Parliament in a way which effectively means that it has been given a rubber stamp of approval without serious scrutiny by the MP's.
This legislation allows a 'European directive' to become legally binding here in (was Great) Britain giving the unelected undemocratic unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels the ultimate right to dictate the types of technologies used in any British charging scheme.
The EU wants all the road pricing systems within the lands it controls to be compatible, so that it becomes possible to charge all road users, no matter where they are. To achieve this their grandly named Road Tolling Interoperability of Road User Charging and Road Tolling Systems has listed three approved technologies, all of which work on the Orwellian 'Big Brother' principle of tracking a person's every movement. These technologies are 'tag & beacon'; satellite tracking with cars carrying a black box; and a system which is based on a variant of mobile phone technology which would require vehicles to be fitted with the equivalent of a sim card - again, to enable its movements to be tracked.
Because the London charging system uses a different technology it follows that it could fall foul of this directive and therefore be deemed illegal.
Common sense suggests that a conceivable solution would be to declare that as the London system pre-existed the new directive so it could be deemed as having 'grandfather rights', so would be allowed to continue to be used - although no new pricing systems would be allowed to use similar technology. But since when has common sense ever existed in the eu? For example, in the name of public safety they ban the production of barometers containing mercury, in the process destroying many ancient industries and jobs (which in reality will simply transfer to other countries that have lower safety standards) whilst at the same time plan to force everyone to use the more energy efficient compact fluorescent lights (instead of incandescent light builbs), even though these contain mercury and create a serious environmental disposal hazard, plus if the lamp is broken (easily done) the spilt mercury then creates a similar hazard throughout its immediate environment. (including the air you are breathing!!!)
The full newspaper report can be found here (link to an external site which opens in a new window) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/22/nroads122.xml
| LEZ (Low Emissions Zone) signage... |
 |
| Sign seen at an entrance to the LEZ (ie: as seen from a road which is outside of the zone). |
 |
| One of the many 'repeater' signs on major roads within the zone to remind vehicle drivers that they are in the zone and it is enforced with CCTV cameras. These signs appear both inside and outside of the Central London Congestion Charging Zones. |
With the Congestion Charging Zone having resulted in London's streets being flooded with hundreds of extra diesel-engined motor buses (the cumulative effect of which CAN only serve to increase urban air pollution) February 2008 saw the introduction of what is being called a 'Low Emissions Zone' (LEZ) - the aim of which is to improve air quality by deterring the most polluting vehicles from driving virtually anywhere in London and its suburbs, as defined by political / local government boundaries. Because London's politicians do not have any authority outside of these areas so some outer suburban parts of London's 'built-up' area which are actually in neighbouring counties are outside of the LEZ. Also outside of the LEZ are most of the roads which enter London from outside, however this dispensation only applies as far as the first suitable reversing point, so that any vehicle which does not comply with the regulations can turn around and leave London without being penalised.
The reasoning behind the LEZ is that in London the primary causes of air quality-related health problems, including asthma comes from pollutants such as Particulate Matter (PM10) and oxides of Nitrogen(NOX) - and the principal emitters of these are heavy duty diesel engines such as are used by commercial road vehicles. Which of course includes buses - although the people behind the LEZ do not seem to understand this - otherwise they would be replacing diesel motor buses with clean electric trolleybuses - - that do not emit any tailpipe pollution at all! (For a few routes it is likely that clean electric trams will replace the diesel buses, however it is assumed that buses will always remain London's primary form of street-based public transport.)
The vehicles affected by the LEZ are older, diesel-engined lorries, buses, coaches, large vans (exceeding 1.205 tonnes unladen weight), minibuses (over eight seats and below 5 tonnes) plus specialist vehicles that are derived from lorries
and vans including: motorised horseboxes; breakdown and recovery vehicles; refuse collection vehicles; snow ploughs; gritters; road sweepers; concrete mixers; tippers; removals lorries; fire engines; extended-cab dual purpose pickups and some
light utility vehicles. Motor caravans, ambulances and large hearses (over 2.5 tonnes) are also included. The LEZ applies to all these vehicles, irrespective of whether they are used for commercial or private use.
The LEZ requires that any of these vehicles entering London meet or exceed certain specified pollution standards, which incidentally will be changed / stiffened even further in 2012. Otherwise the vehicle owners must pay a stiff daily fee
- or they will be fined. Payment can be made up to 64 working days in advance of the day of travel, on the day of travel, or up to midnight on the first working day after travelling within the zone. In all cases the charge remains the same. It is
possible to pay for more than one vehicle at a time, if it is known in advance which vehicles will be driven within the zone, on which days. Payment can be made either by telephone or online. The LEZ is being enforced by CCTV cameras reading vehicle
numberplates - this applies throughout London, both inside and outside of the Congestion Charging Zone.
Cars, motorcycles and small vans (under 1.205 tonnes unladen weight) are not affected by the LEZ. There are also a few exceptions, including historic vehicles built before 1 January 1973, military vehicles and certain vehicles designed and
built for mainly off-road use which sometimes use the road for limited purposes. These would include agricultural and forestry tractors, mowing machines, agricultural and farm machinery and equipment, mobile cranes and road and building construction
machinery.
The LEZ is in force at all times, every day of the week. It also applies to vehicles from overseas, although how violators will be traced and fined remains to be seen - especially those from countries in the eastern parts of Europe. To make life easier for overseas vehicle operators whose vehicles conform to the requirements there is a registration scheme so that TfL will know who they are and not try to fine them. This also applies to N. Ireland registered vehicles and vehicles which have been specially modified to meet the emissions standards.
The LEZ commenced on 4 February 2008 for diesel-engined vehicles exceeding 12 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (typically lorries). In July 2008 it will be extended to diesel-engined vehicles between 3.5 and 12 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight. Further types of vehicles will be added in 2010 and 2012, plus in 2012 existing vehicles will be subjected to stiffer regulations.
More information about the LEZ can be found on the Transport for London website (link to an external site which opens in a new window)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/2021.aspx
As an aside, in early 2008 several major European cities also introduced 'reduced-pollution' zones. Some (eg: Milan, Italy) charge most vehicles a fee to enter the zone while others (eg: Berlin, Germany) only require that
eligible vehicles display a colour coded sticker in the vehicles' windscreen. These stickers have to be purchased, and will vary in colour depending on to the amount of pollution given off by the vehicle. It is planned that eventually
there will be fines for vehicles without the stickers. There is more information on Milan's charge further down this page, this link will act as a shortcut straight there.
In March 2008 it was revealed that as part of his manifesto for the May 2008 London Mayor Election the London Mayor (the dearly 'beloved' Ken Livingstone) plans to implement plans he drew up with TfL back in 2006 to introduce localised congestion charge zones in many of the town centres throughout suburban London. However this would only be possible after the introduction of the 'tag & beacon' systems of vehicle detection.
In the event Mr Livingstone lost the election and as the new London Mayor (Boris Johnston) was elected on a ticket which included a new review of the expanded section of the CCZ and whether it is really wanted by / beneficial to the people of West London so it is now questionable whether the CCZ will be expanded any further.
The full newspaper report can be found here (link to an external site which opens in a new window)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3525570.ece
In summer 2008 the new London Mayor announced that in order to fulfill one of his election manifesto promises there would be a five week consultation period starting in September 2008 with an aim to decide the future of the expanded (western) section of the CCZ, and whether it should remain or be closed.
Apparently as many as 35 British towns and cities (plus many more overseas) are known to have investigated road pricing schemes.
The Scottish capital of Edinburgh was especially keen and proposals were put forwards for a £2 daily charge which would be levied as an "entrance fee" payable once per day, for crossing inbound across either of two charging cordons. The inner cordon would be around the city centre and operate from 7am-6:30pm whilst the outer cordon would be inside the bypass - and only operate from 7-10am.
However when in February 2005 the people of this fine city were asked to vote on the issue an overwhelming majority of them said no. Out of a total electorate of 290,000 people the two-week postal ballot saw 133,678 people voting against the charge and 45,965 in favour of the charge. The turnout was 62%, a figure that is even higher than is usual in a general election. Some pundits suggest that the people voted in this way because they very strongly felt that available funds should be invested in better public transport - NOT a road toll. In other words they want solutions which add value to their lives - not which just empty their pockets. Scotland is an oil-rich nation, although most Scots would point to London and Brussels as being reasons why so much of this wealth cannot be spent in their homeland.
Whilst the Edinburgh scheme is now unlikely to be brought into fruition local politicians in other British conurbations are still scheming - aided and abetted by the national government which is prepared to spend as much as £2.5 billion (between 2005 - 2015) on a Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) for traffic management schemes where "pricing is a major element". Whilst the national government has an ultimate aim of introducing road pricing on a nationwide basis it is content with doing this on a step by step basis, and knowing how unpopular this will be with the general population so it is using the TIF to bribe local politicians into doing its dirty work by setting up pilot installations to test feasibility and gain some understanding of how road users might change their driving habits / lifestyles.
Over 20 local governments have either put in bids for / or already received funds for preliminary studies, including...
In June 2008 it was confirmed that Manchester would receive a large injection of funds to expand the Metrolink light rail system in exchange for introducing a road pricing scheme. However, because of massive opposition to the charge there is also likely to first be a period of public consultation followed by a referendum on the issue. The leader of Manchester council (Sir Richard Leese) said he would only back the idea of a region-wide vote if all 10 local authorities agreed to be bound by the result. So the exact situation remains to be seen.
What is being proposed is the setting up of inner and outer zones (one around the M60 and one closer to Manchester city centre) with drivers being charged to as they pass the two sets of charging points. Charges will only be levied during the weekday rush hours, so unlike in London the charging scheme will not affect off-peak shoppers driving in to the city centre. The scheme is expected to commence in 2013.
Meanwhile Cambridgeshire County Council, which was expected to also introduce a road pricing scheme, has suddenly decided to "go back to the drawing board".
The following links (which lead to external sites and open in new windows) lead to newspaper articles where more information can be found:-
The Manchester Evening News - both paper and electronic versions - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/,
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1055489_uturn_over_ccharge_vote,
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1053238_kelly_paves_way_for_ccharge,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2085937/Road-pricing-first-scheme-outside-of-London-to-be-announced-for-Manchester.html,
This link leads to an interactive map of the proposed Manchester charging zoneshttp://www.newsmapping.com/manchester.c-charge.html,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2223833/Cambridge-is-the-latest-to-drop-pay-as-you-drive-scheme-plans.html.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| The organisation Manchester Against Road Tolls has created a campaigning website which can be visited by clicking either of these image banners - links will open in new windows. | ||
Another blow to the national government's desire to see satellite based "spy in the sky" road charging and tracking / surveillance of everyone's movements is that also in June 2008 the insurance provider Norwich Union discontinued its trials of 'pay as you drive' (PAYD) car insurance. Whereas normal motoring insurance is charged on the basis of a fixed fee that is usually reviewed / revised on an annual basis, the experimental PAYD system saw the actual amount paid by the vehicle owner varying depending on when the vehicle was used (time of day, etc.,) the type of road used, how far it travelled and how fast it was travelling. This system worked by vehicles being tracked 24/7 using "tag & beacon" technology. The "tag and beacon" system is looked at below.
Another form of vehicle based taxation which is set to be introduced here in Britain is the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL).
The first city expected to introduce a WPL will be Nottingham, which already has a very successful single tramline and wants to use this as another way of funding its expansion - as well funding improvements to its other railway and bus networks. Assuming that the national government gives its seal of approval the city council expects the WPL tax to be introduced in April 2010. The reason for only charging parking spaces provided by employers is that the intended aim is car commuters who are being blamed for the weekday 'rush hour' congestion, and not people entering the city to go shopping, take children to / from school, etc.
What is being proposed is that employers who provide 'free' parking space for their staff will be charged an initial £185 annual fee (per parking space), which by 2014 is expected to have risen to £350. It will then be for the employers to decide whether to absorb the cost or pass it on to their employees. Employers who absorb the cost may find that the Inland Revenue will treat their car commuters as if they had received a benefit in kind and demand that the value of this be included in their remuneration and therefore be subjected to income tax. Only large employers (about 500 are expected to be involved) will be charged in this way; smaller employers with 10 or fewer car parking spaces will not pay the tax. In theory parking spaces used by fleet vehicles which are left in the employer's car parks overnight will also be exempted - although what happens if the same space is then used during the day by commuters remains to be seen.
A WPL was chosen over a congestion charge scheme because only 10% of the income received from the WPL will be lost in operation costs compared to 40-50% lost in operation costs in London. The WPL is also thought to be cheaper and easier to organise.
Traditionally British motorists have not had to pay any additional fees above the existing motoring taxes to use the fastest & safest roads, which are known as Motorways. However, that situation is changing, and the first British toll motorway opened in December 2003. Known as the M6 Toll this 27 miles / 43km motorway acts as a relief road to the very heavily congested M6 motorway in the Birmingham, West Midlands area. The reason for charging is that as in medieval days this motorway was built (for the government) by a private (commercial) organisation on a DBOM (design, build, operate, maintain) finance contract and it was decided that the cost of construction should be recovered by charging the road users directly. The tolls are paid at tollbooths, similar (in theme) to those in the Dallas image seen below left. There is more information about the M6 Toll on their website at http://www.m6toll.co.uk. (Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
Within months of opening the M6 Toll was credited with having reduced traffic levels on the main M6 by as much as 10%, and because of this apparent success it is probable that similar tactics will be used for other new roads, which implies that despite paying heavy motoring and fuel taxes British motorists will soon be charged extra taxes not only to travel within cities but between them too. Already on the drawing board (March 2005) is a northward extension of the toll road from Birmingham to Manchester. This will be of two lanes per direction and (for the most part) run alongside the existing M6 motorway.
Toll motorway fails to solve congestion...
Depite the above comments (which came from a government Minister whose department has a vested interest in seeing the toll road as a success) a report by the Highways Agency suggested that Britain's first motorway toll is failing to cut the amount of traffic on the road and instead is increasing congestion, This report suggested that traffic north and south of the toll road is much higher than before - and that whilst rush hour traffic speeds are improved the M6 still suffers from congestion - with off-peak traffic moving more slowly than before. Information source: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2026562005 (newspaper article dated 2nd October 2005). (Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
In January 2008 it was revealed that after the roads fourth price rise in three years which saw the toll rise from £3.00 to £4.50 the House of Commons transport select committee would include increases in the the cost of road tolls in a wider ranging investigation in to increases of travel costs over the winter holidaty period. MPs are considering an investigation into Britain's only privately-owned motorway after the cost of driving on it rocketed by 50 per cent in just four years.
Meanwhile, in September 2005 information published under the Freedom of Information Act (but surely it would have come out anyway, albeit perhaps via a different route??) suggested that transport officials are planning to impose a fee which could be as high as £20 per journey on vehicles using the section of the M4 motorway which passes London's Heathrow Airport. This would apply even to vehicles which are travelling to or from London, and for which the airport is just a commercial organisation that is passed en route. This would the first mandatory levy on drivers using an existing (ie: not new build) motorway and would probably lead to road users switching - in their droves - to other, local roads.
The M4 toll would be in addition to the Central London Congestion Charge, creating a financial double-whammy for those road users who travel through to central London.
It is perhaps significant that the primary motivation for this M4 charge (and its very steep fee) is to deter motorists travelling to / from the airport from travelling by car - especially once the new Terminal 5 is open - as it would then help stop local air pollution levels from rising, and indeed even see them falling - something which would then make it possible to build a third runway at the airport whilst still keeping within stiffening local air pollution regulations. The following link to a national newspaper website has more information about the proposed M4 toll. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796281,00.html. (Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
As previously stated some bridges and tunnels also charge drivers to use them; these are separate issues not directly related to (urban) road / congestion charging although experience with the Dartford Tunnel / QE2 Bridge crossing over the River Thames to the east of London is worth mentioning - because whilst originally the tolls were collected to repay the cost of construction and build up a pot of money for future maintenance (a happy situation which was reached in 2003) it has subsequently been decided that so much money is being raised from vehicles crossing the river here that the toll represents a "nice little earner" and therefore it will not be stopped even though the original intentions have been realised.
Some of the British tunnel / bridges which charge fees to use them offer regular users the option of automated electronic payment systems as an alternative option to paying in cash "there and then" every time they pass through the toll booths. For instance: the Dartford Crossing operates what it calls the "DART-Tag", this being an electronic pre-payment "tag and beacon" system whereby detectors mounted at the toll booths read tags located inside the vehicles' windscreens, and then automatically deduct the charge from the vehicle owners' account. The advantages of this to businesses (especially fleet owners) include vehicle drivers not needing to carry cash, the possibility of centralised accounts, and a 7.5% discount for each use. However, the system only works when the pre-payment account is in credit - so if the credit runs out then tolls must be paid, in cash, at the time of use. That way the recipients of the tolls avoid the issue of monthly accounts which run into arrears and the many cowboy companies which take an outrageous 90+ days to settle their accounts. For more information visit their website at http://www.dartfordrivercrossing.co.uk/dart-tag. (Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
The M6 Toll also operates an electronic "tag and beacon" system and it is probable that long distance road users who use both the M6 Toll and the Dartford Crossing would subscribe to both such systems. This means that they will probably have two "tags" inside their vehicle windscreens - hopefully when these vehicles pass through the toll booths only the correct tag for that organisation will be read and only the correct account (for that organisation) will have money deducted.
In October 2006 the Department for Transport (DfT) announced that instead of honouring the previously stated commitment to make the Dartford Crossing free once a sufficient pot of money had been raised it wanted to increase daytime toll charges on the Dartford Crossing.
If these government proposals go-ahead then in January 2008 the fee charged to car drivers who pay cash will soar upwards by a whopping 50% - from £1.00 to £1.50. Meanwhile, for "DART-Tag" users the fee will be bumped-up from £0.93 to £1.00. They also talked of a possibility of making the crossing free at night (between 10pm and 6am) as this would encourage commercial heavy goods vehicles (whose tolls are much higher) to travel at these times, when the roads are less busy.
The DfT claims that the rise is to encourage motorists to use the "DART-Tag" instead of waiting in queues at toll booths, and, as part of a series of small stepping stones towards a nationwide 'pay-as-you-drive' system to get more motorists used to having RFID chips in their vehicles. They 'conveniently' forget that many car drivers take advantage of the automated payment machines which already minimise delays. They totally ignore the fact that the optimum way to avoid delays would be to make the crossing free, as this would totally avoid the need to pass through tollbooths.... although congestion might still occur if more traffic tried to use it than the tunnels and bridge could carry.
In early October 2007 a Scottish govt. insider let it be known that the Scottish govt. would not co-operate with the Westminster politicians and instead would refuse to pass legislation to allow road pricing in Scotland. Although
the Westminster govt. has the power over transport policy to introduce UK-wide tolls, these would still require approval by a vote in the Scottish Parliament. What is more, it was pointed out that some aspects of the plan, such
as laws allowing installation of equipment, would have to be authorised by the Scottish transport minister, so even if the minority Scottish National Party govt. lost a Holyrood (Scottish Parliament) vote on the introduction of road
tolling, the transport minister could still block their introduction by refusing to rubber stamp minor aspects of the plan. Information source:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=477&id=1600962007 (Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
With the above news item in mind, and a count of 1.8million people on a 'Office of the Prime Minister / 10 Downing Street Petition' against road tolling it is not surprising that just one week later the national govt. let it be known that whilst it would still be looking to see as many as ten (10) 'pilot' local road charging schemes being introduced (in England) it would scrap its plans for a national scheme for all of the UK.
In defending this policy u-turn a spokeperson from the DfT said "We agree that there are congestion problems on parts of the strategic road network, but 88 per cent of congestion is in urban areas. Therefore it is sensible to prioritise the assessment of road pricing in these areas."
Instead of a centrally planned national scheme the national politicians will leave it to local politicians to decide upon road pricing schemes, this even applies to national trunk roads which pass through their areas. The same newspaper article also points out that (so far) only Greater Manchester has submitted a formal application to run a road pricing scheme and that earlier in the year the West Midlands, which had been seen as another possible guinea pig, decided against drawing up a road pricing blueprint.
At least for the time being - as we all know, politicians can and often do change their minds, especially immediately after winning an election when they know that they will have enough time to implement an unpopular proposal well before
the next elections. Additional information source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/15/nroads115.xml.(Link to an external site which opens in a new window).
As part of its management of our roads system the Highways Agency is introducing a new nationwide roads information system which is being promoted as being designed to inform motorists about road conditions, delays, planned closures for roadworks (etc.,) and therefore help make journeys more reliable and safer. What is not being said is that this system is also capable of transmitting the information required for road pricing.
Known as the National Roads Telecommunications Services (NRTS) and costing upwards of £500 million, the system has been designed to create a "single national approach" to the future of communications on our motorway and road network. The news that this system could be used as part of any future road pricing system came in an apparently unguarded remark by a consultant working on the system who suggested that just as plug and play technology (usually) makes it easy to add new features to computers so NRTS has been designed so that in years to come it would be relatively easy to add extra functions such as the Govt. / Highways Agency see fit, and that an ability to transmit the data required to make road pricing work could be one of these extra functions.
The NRTS links the many cameras, message signs, sensors and other kit which makes it possible for the Agency to keep track of traffic. One member of the consortium rolling out NRTS throughout Great Britain also has expertise with automatic number plate recognition technologies, although NRTS could just as easily be used to transmit data collected from electronic tags located on vehicle windscreens / number plates, and or other systems.
Information sourced from the printed and online versions of the Daily Telegraph newspaper, the latter as per the following two links which open in new windows:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/06/nroad106.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/06/nroad206.xml
In August 2008 during the height of the holiday season the information sort of 'escaped' that in or around 2010 various parts of the country will host a series of technology trials for a national road pricing scheme, which at peak times on the busiest roads could see charges of as much as £1.30 a mile. It seems that the desire for road pricing is being driven by the Treasury, who are keen to find new ways of taxing people. Curiously however, these trials could coincide with a general election, and 'if so', then mass voter disaffection could influence the result of that election.
What is a real mystery is why anyone believed the earlier pronouncements that a national road pricing system was no longer on the agenda. Maybe the public are gullible? Too trusting? Unaware of possible / probable ultimate intentions?
 |
||
| In 2005 Transport for London trialed a 10 vehicle / 2 beacon "tag & beacon" system, which in 2006 was extended to use 20 beacons and 500 vehicles. This beacon is in Tooley Street, near to London Bridge station and (perhaps very appropriately) the "Britain at War" and "London Dungeon" visitor attractions. |
||
 |
||
| More experimental road pricing beacons - seen in summer 2007 on London's North Circular Road. -------------------------------------- Unidirectional above and bi-directional below (located alongside some traffic signals on a road centre traffic island). |
||
 |
||
Whereas the traditional way for road users to pay road tolls has always been by handing over money at toll-booths / turnpikes recent advances in technology have led to the development of new ways of extracting money.
The electronic system which is currently used the most is known as "tag and beacon". This works by means of an electronic radio emitter (the "tag") being located within a vehicle. Usually this will be on the inside of the windscreen although obviously safety dictates that it must be somewhere where it will not obstruct the driver's field of view. These tags are interrogated when the vehicle passes close to a "beacon" unit and information is exchanged between the two. This communication is by means of microwave technology:
The advantage of electronic systems such as this is that journeys are not delayed by calling at toll plazas, toll booths or coin chutes. In most situations vehicles just drive normally - which is important on busy and urban roads as it helps to maintain a steady flow of traffic.
For road tolling the beacons tend to be mounted on overhead gantries which span the carriageway, with there possibly being several beacons per gantry - the exact number will vary according to the road configuration (eg: number of traffic lanes). The beacons usually share the overhead gantries with surveillance cameras which are linked into number plate recognition computer systems. This is primarily done for enforcement purposes, although the use of such vehicle movement tracking systems could also help the various authorities to keep tabs on vehicles as they travel around. (See below)
Depending on the type of scheme (eg: a flat rate bridge / tunnel toll scheme or a varying charge distance-travelled / road usage scheme) each "reading" of a tag might simply deduct a "unit" which is equivalent to paying a flat rate toll, or deduct a variable monetary value. Monetary values can be held either at a central database or on a "smartcard" tag. In the latter instance it could be possible to use the same tag to pay for parking, public transport usage or even purchases at a local grocery, newsagents (etc.,) .
Because of the automatic number plate reading systems it is possible to track vehicles without tags and assuming that the registration details held by the vehicle licensing authorities are correct an automated invoice (or fine) can be sent to the vehicle owner. If the system is set up to do so it would also be possible to send automated alerts to the police if any vehicles are detected which are "of interest" to them - perhaps for having been reported stolen, for not being registered as having paid the road fund tax disc, for not having motor insurance or for having an unknown number plate. If it were possible to identify "cloned" number plates it could help prevent much heartache for the otherwise innocent people who would (probably) be receiving invoices and / or penalty notices for having been in violation of the road user charging system when in fact they had not even been there!
A slightly different electronic system would dispense with the tags (or make them optional) and see road users being billed directly from the information gained by the surveillance cameras. It would still be possible for road users to pay funds "upfront" into their road user charging account (if such accounts exist) however, especially for a variable charge system, there would also be a much larger element of retrospective billing. Plus it could be that there would need to be surveillance camera equipped gantries on every road at regular intervals - something that could become unmanageable on any large geographic scale or complex urban area.
It is anticipated that none of the tolling methods described above would be robust (or intensive) enough for the large scale (virtually nationwide) schemes which would be needed if road user tolling is to be a viable alternative to the present-day system of imposing taxes on fuels sourced from finite resources. Instead what is being proposed is that every vehicle contains a GPS (global positioning satellite) receiver which - by listening for incoming signals from the satellite - matches its position with an electronic map of charged areas and a list of charge rates. Then either an in-car "smartcard tag" can have the appropriate value deducted from a previously installed monetary value or the appropriate data can be sent (perhaps by an automated radio link) to a processing office for the user's invoice to be generated. Both variants of this system would still require some surveillance cameras to watch traffic flow - if only to ensure that every vehicle actually using the public highway was accounted for and being charged,
Apparently something known as "Assisted GPS" is already being introduced for use with future generations of mobile phones. This enhanced form of GPS will incorporate new levels of accuracy in locating the phone's exact position and will allow retailers, for example, to call potential customers as they pass their doors. Similar technology could easily be adapted for motor vehicle use - not just for road user tolling but (for instance) to help summon emergency assistance in the event of a road traffic accident (rta) - perhaps as automatic summoning of help whenever the airbag is deployed? (something that every vehicle driver will appreciate after the inevitable rta because a retailer they were passing diverted their attention from driving safely by phoning to ask them to visit and buy things the motorist neither needs nor wants!)
Another use for "tag & beacon" technology is the creation of car insurance based on when a person actively drives the vehicle.
A trial of this was offered by one of Britain's major insurers (Norwich Union) but it was suspended in summer 2008.
The idea was that charges would be higher at times when accidents would be more likely - such as during the rush hour and late at night. Charges also varied depending on the type of road travelled on and the distance travelled. It was claimed to result in people with low car usage or young drivers, who typically face very high insurance costs, saving as much as 30% compared to other types of car insurance.
The reasons for the suspension of this type of insurance policy include that:
"Big Brother" 1984 is N-O-WAs many people know, everything in life is connected. The topic of road user tolling systems which involve the continuous detection and tracking of moving vehicles crosses over into many other aspects of life - creating new possibilities for improving our daily lives, as well as new dangers - and this section looks at some of these issues.. Note that these comments are not intended to be judgmental - just to explore the possibilities.With CCTV (closed circuit television) surveillance cameras almost everywhere nowadays many people already accept that their every movement is being watched and would therefore see road user tolling systems (whether satellite based or otherwise) as nothing more than just an extension of that surveillance. Furthermore, for most people the attitude would be that as they have "nothing to hide" then why should they worry? But it could also be asked why - if a person is innocent of any crime - should other people (including the State as well as an unknown number of possibly unscrupulous commercial organisations) be allowed to track them in this way? Some people would suggest that such tracking would be more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union - where power-crazed leaders had enemies within their own nations and therefore really did live in fear of their own people - than the free, open, democratic nation that we tell ourselves is modern-day Britain... (maybe though our leaders really are frightened of the general population? - of course if asked they will deny this but that might just be a "politicians" response! - the way in which the 2004 Civil Contingency legislation confiscates our human rights suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye.) Terrorism cannot be a valid excuse for such tracking - after all even when the IRA was bombing Britain in the 1970's the powers that be did not deem repressive-style tracking, internal passports (aka ID cards) and compulsory fingerprinting of the entire population to be a sensible solution. (Few people will remember that in the 1970's the IRA even bombed the London Underground - with fatal results!) Whilst it is true that ID cards were used during WW2 experience afterwards when the police used just checking your ID as a legitimate excuse to stop (harass) otherwise innocent motorists was a significant factor in their abolition. Vehicle tracking systems might be intended for road user charging but once the technology is in place its uses could easily be expanded to "other" areas / uses too. It is hoped that with vehicle tracking systems which are based on computers reading vehicle number plates already being used there is *very* robust checking of the data - anyone who has ever used computer image manipulation software packages (such as Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Photo Goo, plus many others) will know that it is possible to "digitally" enhance images so that a photograph could be produced showing a vehicle (or person) as being somewhere where they have in fact never been. Indeed, the technology is now so advanced that it is possible to add / remove people or things from live streams of video. This technology has already found favour in the advertising industry as it facilitates the customising of the advertisements the viewer sees on broadcasts of live international sporting events to products available in the viewers' home country! To a certain extent transponder "tag" based vehicle tracking technology has already been used for many years here in Britain. Fleet owners / employers (such as the money - cash - distribution to banks industry) already keep tabs of their vehicles' movements to check up on their employees and make sure that they are where they are supposed to be. Many vehicle owners also subscribe to a tracker system designed to help the police locate stolen vehicles - the on-vehicle "tags" help identify individual vehicles even when the number plates have been replaced with false plates - although here the "tags" are only activated after an equipped vehicle has been reported as missing / stolen. Information from these systems could also be used in a court of law to prove a vehicle's whereabouts - and if / when every road vehicle is tracked in this way the information could help the police with their scene of crime (or accident) investigations as it would let them know which road users were in the area at that time - possibly seeing innocent motorists being treated as potentially guilty until they can prove otherwise. Some of the issues raised in this section are not directly related to road tolling but as previously stated technology does have a tendency to "cross-over" into other uses too. Skin Detecting Cameras |
|
In summer 2005 it was reported that an automated camera detection system was under development - amongst the challenges which needed to be resolved were to correctly detect occupants in vehicles with partially obscured windows
/ passengers only in the back seats / vehicles with children in them / babies in child seats... plus of course that no-one is using blow-up dolls or dummies - these being the legendary North American 'dodges'!
Occupant-based Variable Charge Road Pricing???One possible future use being touted for Dtect camera systems is that they could be also used to police sophisticated local congestion and road pricing schemes in which discounts could be offered to anyone willing to share a vehicle. Is everyone happy about this??? After all, it does sound logical. Maybe we should all just welcome implantable RFID chips and let the power mongers turn us into real life 'Borg', who are monitored and controlled 24/7 - this being the ultimate endgame plan... |
 |
| Road pricing was first introduced into Singapore city in 1975, with vehicles entering the 'Restricted Zone' during the hours of operation having to display a special licence, or be fined. This system was enforced by police officers making visual checks at entry points. Even taxis were charged, with most taxi drivers just adding the fee to the fare of the first passenger who took them into the restricted zone that day. |
 |
| More recently Singapore has started using the "tag and beacon" ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) system. In the Central Business District the scheme applies from 7.30am to 7.00pm, whilst on the
expressways / outer ring roads charging is between 7.30am and 9.30am. Different charges for using the various tolled roads at different times are automatically deducted from CashCards as vehicles pass under the gantries. For the future Singapore is looking at replacing ERP with one that uses the global positioning satellite based technology. This is because they see advantages in a system which overcomes the inflexibility of having physical gantries, which seen to be somewhat inflexible when it comes to re-locating them. The image above sourced from the free online "Wikipedia" encyclopædia link (link to an external site which opens in a new window). |
In Norway three cities have toll rings around them, charging what effectively is an urban "entry fee" into their communities - Bergen (opened 1986) Oslo (opened 1989) and Trondheim (opened 1991). These cities use tollbooths where there are special lanes for "tag and beacon" equipped vehicles. Vehicles without tags must pay at the automatic coin machines located in the other lanes. Toll prices increase during peak rush hours and since introduction the system has been changed so that drivers are also charged as they travel around eg: for passing from one sector of the toll ring to another. However limits are imposed on the number of charges that can be made so that people who live close by the ring or who make very frequent crossings do not rack up huge bills. Enforcement comes via video camera systems which will record vehicle's front number plates if a non-tagged vehicle tries to use the wrong lane, if the vehicle's tag has no credit or is otherwise inoperative. In these situations a demand for payment will be sent by post. The video is also used if someone tries to cheat the coin machines.
Trondheim claims to be the first city anywhere globally to use an automatic toll collection system. This was on the 14th October 1991. The word "automatic" means in this context that the toll ring almost exclusively consists of unattended toll stations. In Trondheim the electronic "smartcard" tags can also be used to buy public transport tickets and pay for parking - both "on street" and in multi-story parking garages which are also equipped with tag readers so that on arrival the barrier will open automatically and the vehicle owner does not have to pay on exit as a beacon unit will read the vehicle's tag and charge the fee automatically. In this way there are none of those "take ticket on entry & pay on exit" tickets to lose.
When road tolling began in Bergan the funds raised were matched by national government with the monies raised being spent on roads, public transport and inner-city regeneration. However in 1988 the agenda was changed and it was decided to banish through traffic and close many of the roads within the tolled area. After a one year "experiment" these road closures were made permanent.
A new urban charging scheme was planned for introduction in Stockholm (the Swedish capital) starting summer 2005. However on 8th February 2005 the Swedish National Road Administration ordered a halt to all works to introduce the e-congestion charge project pending new court rulings on the contract awarding process. This was after a company which lost its bid to install and operate the system filed a complaint in a district administrative court, claiming the negotiations unfairly favoured the winner. Stockholm's road pricing system was meant to be a one year trial aimed at assessing whether congestion charges could reduce traffic, increase accessibility to the city centre and improve the environment. It was originally scheduled to run from 1st June 2005 to 31st July 2006 but the start date was put back to 3rd January 2006, ending as originally