Congestion Charging and Air Quality in central London

12 November 2004

Charles Buckingham

Monitoring Manager, Congestion Charging Division, Transport for London

Contents

1. Background

2. Key Impacts

3. Air Quality implications

Central London’s problem in 2000

• Greater London - largest urban area in Europe, over 7 million population

• Central London - 1 million workers, heart of UK business, government, media, heritage

• Suffered worst traffic congestion in the UK– average traffic speeds 15 km/hr– vehicles typically spent half their time in queues

• Congestion increasing, costing people and businesses time and money

• General acceptance - ‘something must be done’

Key features of scheme

• Inaugurated 17th February 2003

• ‘Area Licence’ scheme

• £5 daily charge (discounts/exemptions)

• Operational Hours 07.00 - 18.30 Weekdays

• Enforced by ANPR cameras

• Improved public transport

• Generates net revenues for reinvestment in transport

• Now 18 months on - scheme very settled and no major problems encountered

Key aims of scheme

• Reduce traffic delays by between 20 and 30 percent

• Reduce traffic circulating in zone by 15 percent

• There was no explicit Air Quality objective for the scheme

Key traffic impacts of charging

Positive traffic changes

• Traffic delays inside charging zone down 30%

• Traffic delays on main routes into the charging zone down 20%

• Traffic entering the charging zone down 18%

• 15% less traffic circulating within the zone

• Traffic continues to be successfully managed on boundary route

• No significant adverse traffic impacts outside the charging zone

• Driver responses to charging remain settled

Total traffic entering the charging zone during charging hours reduced by 18%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Cars Vans Lorries &Others

Taxis Bus &Coach

Motor-cycles

Pedalcycles

May / Jun 2002 Sep / Oct 2002 Jan-03

Feb / Mar 2003 May / Jun 2003 Sep / Oct 2003

Post-Charge

Pre-Charge

20-30% 15-25% 50-60%

Majority of ex-car users transferred to public transport

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Journeys DivertingAround the Zone

Switched to OtherModes, e.g. Taxis

Transferred to PublicTransport

Overall congestion charging has only led to some:5000 fewer trips per day to the charging zonethis is negligible in the context of 1.5m people in the zone per day

Congestion level in the charging zone during charging hours down 30%

0

1

2

3

4

5J

un

/Ju

l 86

Ju

n/J

ul 9

0

Ju

n/J

ul 9

4

Ju

n/J

ul 9

7

Ju

n/J

ul 0

0

Ja

n/F

eb

02

Ma

r/A

pr

02

Ma

y/J

un

02

Ju

l/Au

g 0

2

Se

p/O

ct

02

No

v/D

ec

02

Ja

n/F

eb

03

Ma

r/A

pr

03

Ma

y/J

un

03

Ju

l/Au

g 0

3

Se

p/O

ct

03

No

v/D

ec

03

Ja

n/F

eb

04

Ma

r/A

pr

04

Ma

y/J

un

04

Tra

vel

Rat

e (m

in/k

m)

Pre- Charge - Nighttime Post-Charge - Nighttime

Pre-Charge - Congestion Post-Charge - Congestion

Time spent at various speeds

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40

Speed bands (km/h)

Leng

th o

f tim

e (h

ours

)

May/June 2002

May/June 2003

Air Quality Impacts

• Congestion Charging is NOT specifically directed to improving air quality

• BUT changes to volume and characteristics of traffic will AFFECT air quality

Main Air Quality Effects

• Less traffic -> Less fuel -> Less emissions.

• Faster average speeds and less queueing -> greater efficiency per unit distance travelled.

• Changes to vehicle mix - a variety of effects, not all of which are ‘good’

• Background changes - such as fleet turnover, new buses etc.

• BUT direct effects on ambient AQ unlikely to be detectable in short-medium term

EmissionsPercentage change 2003/4 road traffic only (annual average)

Percentage change in relation topre-charging base (100%)

Chargingzone

NOx

Chargingzone

PM10

Inner RingRoad

NOx

Inner RingRoad

PM10

Volume change - motorcycles 0 +1 0 +1

Volume change - taxis +1 +3 0 0

Volume change - car -6 -4 +1 +1

Volume change - bus and coach +4 0 +3 0

Volume change - light goods -1 -2 +1 +2

Volume change - rigid goods -2 -1 +1 0

Volume change - articulated heavygoods

0 0 0 0

Speed changes (all vehicles) -8 -9 -4 -5

Percentage change due to trafficand speed changes

-12 -12 +2 -1

Emissions factors (fleet turnover andtechnology mix)

-4 -4 -6 -5

Overall traffic emissions change -16 -16 -4 -7

NOx - Running annual mean concentrations

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Sep-98 Jan-99 May-99 Sep-99 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04

Ru

nn

ing

an

nu

al m

ean

/

gm

-3

Suburban Outer London Inner London - Background Within Charging Zone - Background Inner London - Roadside

Inner Ring Road - Roadside Within Charging Zone - Roadside Upper Street, Islington

ProvisionalData

NO2 - Running annual mean concentrations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Sep-98 Jan-99 May-99 Sep-99 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04

Ru

nn

ing

an

nu

al m

ean

/

gm

-3

Suburban Outer London Inner London - Background Within Charging Zone - Background Inner London - RoadsideInner Ring Road - Roadside Within Charging Zone - Roadside Upper Street, Islington

ProvisionalData

AQS Objective (40 gm-3)

CCS Introduced

PM10 - Running annual mean exceedence days

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Sep-98 Jan-99 May-99 Sep-99 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04

Nu

mb

er

of

da

ys

wh

ere

da

ily

me

an >

50

gm

-3

Suburban Outer London Inner London - Background Within Charging Zone - Background Inner London - Roadside

Inner Ring Road - Roadside Within Charging Zone - Roadside Upper Street, Islington

ProvisionalData

2005 AQS Objective (35 days)

2010 AQS Objective for London (10 days)

Comparative Wind Rose

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

010

2030

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140150

160170

180190

200210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320330

340350

March to November 2001

March to November 2002

March to November 2003

Wind direction histogram(count of readings in each 10 degree bin)

Summary

• Substantial emissions gains• Not immediately visible in monitored data• 2003 an unusual year• Other factors (e.g. NO2) ?• Not possible to demonstrate ‘benefits’, but no

evidence of detrimental effects from scheme• Positive effects perceived by public

Second Annual Report May 2004

Further information

www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/cc_monitoring.shtml

www.tfl.gov.uk