Cambridge Congestion Charge

[Peter Hewkin]

I am not against Congestion Charging, but if I am going to pay it I want to be absolutely sure that any money raise is spent wisely - providing an excellent rapid public transport system which helps people commute from their homes (also in the villages) to work. today, I am not confident that this is the case. I would like to see Cambridge plan 'beyond bikes and buses' .. possibly 'towards tunnels and tracks' and would go the extra mile to support ambitious plans that would provide a leap forward in the quality of our infrastructure. How about you?

[Neil Davidson]

I've often wondered what it would take to do the work privately, or at least without subsidy from central government.

Perhaps Cambridge would need a US-style mayor for that to happen though?

[David Cottingham]

I'm in agreement with you, Peter, though I don't think that the authorities even seriously plan for bikes. Whilst there are some bike lanes in the city, the "national cycle routes" between the villages and the city are (in many cases) just normal roads with a few extra signs up.

As regards congestion charging: my view is that it needs to have a time-variant charge (like Singapore now uses), rather than just a flat fee per day, to properly control traffic.

[Martyn Peters]

I can understand the charge, but I am against it. I own a courier company and my vans are collecting and delivering to Cambridge businesses all the time. Whilst the majority of people see us a white van nuisance we actually provide a valuable service enabling buinesses to deliver their promises to their clients and vice versa. If the charge was five pound per day per vehicle it could increase my costs per week by up to 200.00 or an extra 10,000 per year. I would need to pass these costs on so I'm not sure how this will help Cambridge Businesses.

[David Cottingham]

As regards it being good/bad for business, it's really dependent on the increased value it generates versus the costs. In the case of deliveries, it can be argued that the less time spent in traffic jams, the lower the fuel costs, and also the more deliveries per day a single van can make. If deliveries during rush hour are essential, then the above benefits apply. If not, then (with a time-varying charge) the delivery firm would not incur the charge.

Meanwhile, if a charge means that people spend less time in traffic jams and more time at work or at home, employers are likely to benefit. The real problem with evaluating many congestion charging schemes is the cost that's attached to current levels of congestion. Estimates in 2004 were £12bn/year for all of the UK (Feasibility Study of Road Pricing in the UK, Dft, 2004)...

[John Grant]

I'd support "tunnels and tracks" -- I believe the ground under Cambridge is good for boring tube tunnels -- one of the major costs and logistical problems of public transport is getting enough drivers, so an entirely automatic system (which isn't really viable on-street) would be good -- get some 21st century technology, not the 18th century rut-way they're building to St Ives!

[Martyn Peters]

I agree that more deliveries could be made if the vans were stuck in less traffic but this only really applies to the multi drop companies such as DHL etc. A lot of companies are now demanding their freight at the start of the day so people like us have to be at a customers premises with a time critical delivery for example between 8 & 9 and then we move on to the next job. In fact the multi drop guys have many pre 9am deliveries as part of their rounds.This service is paid for by the customer as a specific request. If these are not met then the companies would normally have to offer a large discount or even occassionally do the drop for free.

I was in Sunderland recently and they, if memory serves me correct, had a special lane on entering the city that cars were banned from during rush hour to enable deliveries, taxi's buses etc easier passage to do their job.

Just as a side issue though, having years of experience driving all over the UK and Europes cities i have always found Cambridge to be one of the least congested, perhaps this is because all the traffic is parked up on the A14!!!!!

[Peter Hewkin]

In Oslo electric vehicles do not have to pay the charge. It looks like about 5% of the vehicles have converted (three years in to the charge) .. and Norway has a fledgling (albeit challenged/critized) electric vehicle industry. Is there an opportunity for us in here .. where Lotus Tesla (made in Nrowich!) meets Luton van? All assuming that the electricity used is 'green'?

[John Saint]

I am all for congestion charging. It will force the lower paid/less well members of society (who generally are not insured and have avoided car tax) onto buses; leaving the roads free for those of us better off to get into work without having to leave home at 7:30am just to make it into the office by 9am.

Now you might think that I am being a bit of a twit saying this (and I am) - but my point is that any sort of congestion charge will discriminate against the less well off in society. Should the roads be subject to pricing, or free for all to use ?

[David Cottingham]

I agree that it might price some people out of using the roads at rush hour. But the same could be said of petrol prices, or road tax, or insurance... The key point is that roads are not free to use for any motorised vehicle now. The aim of a charge is to make road users (effectively) pay the economic cost of the congestion they cause: yes, this means that the rich can cruise in more quickly than before. But today the rich can use their private car versus having to use the (cheaper) bus service.

If the charge is set correctly, and there is a viable public transport alternative, the (really) less well-off in society end up with a more affordable and efficient public transport service than at present. The issue is that congestion is damaging to a country's/region's economy as a whole, and the only way to reduce that is by reducing the number of vehicles on the road at rush hour (i.e. somehow people are forced to change journey timings or move on to public transport).

For some facts and figures on cost/benefit of cordon-based road pricing, see the results of the Stockholm trial (http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Hushall_eng.pdf). The last page details benefits of reduced journey times, cleaner air, etc..

Ultimately, is being able to afford to use a car a "right"? If we had good public transport I think I'd regard it as more of a luxury... Thoughts?

[John Saint]

I beg to differ. Road tax, insurance and to some extent petrol prices (which, by the way are falling) are fixed costs of running a car. These will still be incurred by anyone owning a car irrespective of the time that they travel. These costs do not influnce your decision to travel on any one morning.

However, congestion charging is a specific tax at a specific time. It's aim is not to make people pay for congestion, it is to raise taxes. Pure and simple. What is the economic cost of congestion - it takes people longer to get to work. So what. Other than being an annoyance there are no other costs. However, by forcing people to only have the one option (ie to travel by car), it then becomes a very easy tax revenue raiser. We already suffer the highest level of fuel duty in Europe and this has done nothing to ease congestion. The Government/Local Governments have over-extended themselves with a bloated number of public servants (that they can never get rid off) that they are desperate to raise taxes.

Perhaps before we allowed the massive population expansion we should have made sure that we had the infrastructure in place. The populations in and around Cambridge have exploded in the last 10-15 years, yet I can't think of any new access roads, or even widening of roads, to accomodate this. The public transport system is a joke. It is not frequent enough and is not convenient.

David Cottingham said:

I agree that it might price some people out of using the roads at rush hour. But the same could be said of petrol prices, or road tax, or insurance... The key point is that roads are not free to use for any motorised vehicle now. The aim of a charge is to make road users (effectively) pay the economic cost of the congestion they cause: yes, this means that the rich can cruise in more quickly than before. But today the rich can use their private car versus having to use the (cheaper) bus service.

If the charge is set correctly, and there is a viable public transport alternative, the (really) less well-off in society end up with a more affordable and efficient public transport service than at present. The issue is that congestion is damaging to a country's/region's economy as a whole, and the only way to reduce that is by reducing the number of vehicles on the road at rush hour (i.e. somehow people are forced to change journey timings or move on to public transport).

For some facts and figures on cost/benefit of cordon-based road pricing, see the results of the Stockholm trial (http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Hushall_eng.pdf). The last page details benefits of reduced journey times, cleaner air, etc..

Ultimately, is being able to afford to use a car a "right"? If we had good public transport I think I'd regard it as more of a luxury... Thoughts?

[David Cottingham]

I definitely agree that many of the costs of driving are fixed (see http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table...). However, that doesn't change the fact that they exclude some people from owning/driving a car (as does a congestion charge, i.e. it's not really any more of a social discrimation factor than other motoring costs). As regards whether they influence whether people use their cars or not, if we do want to discourage car use then more of these costs must be made variable, i.e. if one drives less one pays less. Some steps have been made towards this, e.g. pay as you drive insurance (Norwich Union being one example). If road tax were also usage-dependent (as well as on emissions and vehicle weight) this would further encourage people to carefully consider each car journey.

In terms of congestion not having a cost, I disagree. Before listing a few examples, one interesting point to consider is the price people are willing to pay to avoid congestion (which hence puts a value on it). Clearly people do place a value on getting round congestion, as evidenced by people using toll roads (e.g. M6 toll) instead of alternatives. What costs does congestion have? A few are:
- Longer journey times, which means less time at work, or with family. Either results in lower productivity and hence lower incomes. For some businesses, such as multi-drop deliveries, more congestion means more vans/drivers are needed.
- Air quality is considerably worse with large numbers of cars idling, then continually undergoing stop/start transitions (as in congested cities). Higher levels of pollution cause long term health problems (asthma, probably lung cancer...), which then cost the tax payer via the NHS.
- Journey costs are increased to the driver themselves, as congested conditions will mean less efficient fuel burn, plus extra wear and tear on the vehicle due to continual stop/start behaviour.
- Congestion has been linked to higher incidents of vehicle collisions, which both increases health costs and insurance/repair expenses.

All of these costs have significant values (hence the £12bn/year estimate I gave above). This is both in costs to individuals and to society as a whole. However, clearly these costs aren't ones that the average driver considers when planning a journey (e.g. every time I go to the shops I don't think about the tiny increase in the probability that I'll get lung cancer). Moreover, such costs are paid for by everyone, regardless of whether they drive. It seems fairer to charge those who are causing such costs accordingly.

Further details of the costs of congestion can be found in section 5.5 of VTPI's "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" (http://www.vtpi.org/tca/).

A congestion charge could indeed be used to raise tax revenues. However, there is nothing to stop a government, in principal, committing it to be spent on transport. This has been the case in London, Bergen, and Stockholm. Such revenue hypothecation is one of the characteristics of successful congestion charging schemes (if only the UK government would learn that).

In terms of high fuel duty not affecting congestion, that is correct: it simply increases the costs of driving, regardless of when or where (apart from using more fuel in congested areas). A congestion charge (particularly time-variant) provides an economic disincentive to people from travelling in congested areas at peak times (i.e. causing congestion). Petrol prices do have an effect on how much people use their car, as was seen in the USA recently when prices were particularly high (estimate of 58 billion fewer miles travelled in first seven months of 2008, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/26/energyefficiency.usa). However, that just penalises everyone wherever, whenever.

Overall a government needs to be clear on whether they want to reduce congestion, which is discouraging people from travelling at certain times in certain places, or to reduce total vehicle miles, which can be achieved by increasing the proportion of the total cost (but not necessarily the total cost!) of running a vehicle that is distance-dependent. Of course, we probably need to do both, (carbon dioxide emissions now being hugely significant will require us to cut down total vehicle miles; congestion costs us all, as described above).

So: does congestion have an economic cost? Yes, definitely. But do people really take that cost into account at the moment? No.

[Jacob Corn]

I agree Peter, being a commuter travelling out of Cambridge to St Ives every morning, I use the city bus from Chesterton to the centre every morning, where I take one of the frequent buses out of the city and down the A14. I do have the option of cycling into town, and am very well catered for if I choose to do so.

Beyond a quarter to eight, cycling to my city centre bus stop becomes a much faster option than the bus, as traffic comes close to a standstill.

Before we can put a Congestion charge into practice however, people need to be confident that they will be able to rely on the public transport option.