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 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% Post-Charge Pre-Charge

20-30%15-25%50-60% Majority of ex-car users transferred to public transport Overall congestion charging has only led to some: 5000 fewer trips per day to the charging zone this 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% Pre- Charge - NighttimePost-Charge - Nighttime Pre-Charge - CongestionPost-Charge - Congestion

Time spent at various speeds Speed bands (km/h) Length of time (hours) 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

Emissions Percentage change 2003/4 road traffic only (annual average)

NO x - Running annual mean concentrations Sep-98Jan-99May-99Sep-99Jan-00May-00Sep-00Jan-01May-01Sep-01Jan-02May-02Sep-02Jan-03May-03Sep-03Jan-04May-04Sep-04 Running annual mean /  gm -3 Suburban Outer LondonInner London - BackgroundWithin Charging Zone - BackgroundInner London - Roadside Inner Ring Road - RoadsideWithin Charging Zone - RoadsideUpper Street, Islington Provisional Data

NO 2 - Running annual mean concentrations Sep-98Jan-99May-99Sep-99Jan-00May-00Sep-00Jan-01May-01Sep-01Jan-02May-02Sep-02Jan-03May-03Sep-03Jan-04May-04Sep-04 Running annual mean /  gm -3 Suburban Outer LondonInner London - BackgroundWithin Charging Zone - BackgroundInner London - Roadside Inner Ring Road - RoadsideWithin Charging Zone - RoadsideUpper Street, Islington Provisional Data AQS Objective (40  gm -3 ) CCS Introduced

PM 10 - Running annual mean exceedence days Sep-98Jan-99May-99Sep-99Jan-00May-00Sep-00Jan-01May-01Sep-01Jan-02May-02Sep-02Jan-03May-03Sep-03Jan-04May-04Sep-04 Number of days where daily mean > 50  gm -3 Suburban Outer LondonInner London - BackgroundWithin Charging Zone - BackgroundInner London - Roadside Inner Ring Road - RoadsideWithin Charging Zone - RoadsideUpper Street, Islington Provisional Data 2005 AQS Objective (35 days) 2010 AQS Objective for London (10 days)

Comparative Wind Rose

Summary Substantial emissions gains Not immediately visible in monitored data 2003 an unusual year Other factors (e.g. NO 2 ) ? 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