Green Cities: London’s Congestion Charge Zone…

I have been meaning to blog about this for a long time. This is where climate change and urban planning intersect. London’s Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) came into effect on February 23, 2003 with strong civic leadership and citizens advocating taxes on automobile use. It extends from parts of Central London to parts of West London covering a massive area. What are its objectives? Of course, the main impetus for such a policy tool is to reduce congestion in the downtown area and use a majority of the funds for the city’s transit system.

How does it work? The designated zone, see map, requires a motorist to pay £8 ($14 Can) when they enter within the zone from 7am in the morning to 6pm in the evening. If you want to drive through it because it is more convenient than taking public transit, you pay the cost. The rationale is that over the long-term, a motorist will spend so much money going through this zone that it may reduce their automobile usage. £8 may not seem like a whole lot, but if the motorist tries to evade this fee and not pay it, they can face a fine of £60 to £180. It’s a stringent penalty but has the power to significantly alter the behaviour of a motorist. Since the CCZ was introduced, public transit ridership has increased because the city has simply provided more buses and has invested more funds into the transport system. Traffic congestion levels have decreased about 25% and this has had numerous benefits for the environment , road safety, public transit and even business activity.

Although London’s Mayor Boris Johnson has threatened to reduce its zone coverage, the CCZ will only become more popular both nationally and internationally, as citizens recognize the importance of cutting down on automobile use and using public transit more frequently. The Mayor claims that the city’s “transport for London” initiative will lose millions of dollars from the CCZ because the city's transit service has received all of the funds and they can raise the fares if they really wanted to.

As a relatively dense city, London's petroleum usage in relation to its density is pretty good. Meaning that its urban development density does not have a high petroleum use because of things like the CCZ and the use of public transit which significantly cuts down on petroleum use per capita. The evidence of reduced congestion is compelling. Nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide and particular matter levels have all dropped since the introduction of the CCZ. In spite of criticism from the city’s own mayor and other sceptics, the total expenditures as a percent of the city’s operating budget in 2006 allocated 82% to bus network improvements, 4% to road safety including research and campaigns, 2.5% for walking and cycling programmes and publicity and finally 11% for road and bridge maintenance and upgrades. In other words, when citizens have the inclination to drive to work or through the CCZ, they are contributing more revenue to the aforementioned green initiatives.

Key message: Cities can lead by example. They may not have a lot of capital to expend because of budgetary constraints, but effective initiatives like London’s CCZ not only ameliorates the functionality of the city, but reduces congestion, creates more awareness over protecting the environment, and induces citizens to re-think transport options i.e. public transit. London’s CCZ is a model for cities to follow.