The feasibility of congestion charging in Glasgow
Transport affects everyone on a daily basis and many can testify to the infuriating delays caused by increased car ownership and the poor infrastructure of many UK towns and cities. The resulting problems associated with congestion have many consequences: economic, environmental and social.
The comments generated from research conducted by Weir et al (2004) show that everyone has an opinion on this topic and very often these opinions are different. For example, the taxi drivers believe that buses are the main cause of congestion, the buses believed that the large number of cars are to blame and the people driving their own vehicles believe that the public transport service is poor. No one driver thought that they were actually adding to congestion in Glasgow.
Weir at al (2004) highlighted the fact that the majority of people travelling through, or within Glasgow, are single occupancy cars, i.e. one person driving. On a whole, drivers would rather travel by car, rather than public transport, out of convenience During rush hours the average delay measured on a journey in the city centre is 22.7 minutes per kilometre. The pollution levels from vehicles are so high that in certain areas the air quality can severely affect the health of the people exposed. Consequently, there is a real need for implementation of a policy measure aimed at reducing congestion within the city centre.
In terms of assessing the impacts of congestion charging on property, Dunse et al. (2002), highlight how the rent gradient from the CBD for a large city is downward sloping, but suggests that proximity to motorway junctions is of more significance. The implication of this analysis, in supporting the hypothesis of a multi-nodal rent surface, suggests that proximity to a motorway junction is the most important locational variable with a much steeper and negative gradient than that to the CBD albeit over a shorter distance. Perhaps the people already commuting into Glasgow are those benefiting from access to this very same motorway network, whom are able to afford to live in the more attractive suburbs and whom are able to commute. Whilst the draw of the CBD in terms of agglomeration economies and its accessibility to labour for a city the size of Glasgow still remain, the mobility of an economic class, able to afford the charges associated with congestion charges will not be greatly impacted by implementation of a congestion charge. The potential revenue that could be accrued could be vital in improving safety and efficiency of Glasgow’s public transport network for the vast majority of Glasgow’s population. The fact that there has been no dramatic fall in London’s property market since the introduction of congestion charging would concur with the central argument of Dunse et al. (2002).
There is however, genuine concern that congestion charging could increase social exclusion for the poorer members of society, as it could raise further the barrier to jobs, leisure and education. Certainly, lower income drivers are likely to pay a higher proportion of their income in charges than their better off counterparts. It is understandable that poorer people rely more on public transport and use cars less, and that congestion charging becomes more unfair in the absence of available and affordable public transport alternatives. One of the benefits of the planned urban congestion charging schemes and the nationwide scheme, such as that proposed by CfIT, is that groups should benefit from significant public transport improvements.
The CfIT national scheme does not create an additional level of charges for the road user, but replaces the way road use is financed with a new, fairer charging system.
Motorists on low incomes will still have to pay congestion charges if they drive in congested conditions but they will benefit by receiving a reduction in road tax and/or lower fuel duty
Poorer drivers will be charged only for the amount of travel they do on congested roads, rather than subsidising higher income motorists who use their cars more (nearly twice as much on average)
Low income drivers also make the fewest car trips and they travel 40% fewer miles (6500) than those car owners in the highest income bracket (11,400) (DTLR Personal Travel Survey 2001)
It can be argued that congestion charging is not the key issue in this debate. Accessibility is vitally important in terms of the costs of using public transport which, with walking, is the most frequent mode of travel for those on low incomes. 64% of the poorest households in Britain do not own a car and are likely to depend mainly on buses.
Congestion charging will benefit those who frequently use buses by improving journey times and reliability - and, with higher bus usage, comes the prospect of lower fares.
Older people too are heavily dependent on public transport - 91% of single pensioners and 53% of pensioner couples do not own a car. This implies greater dependency on public transport, taxis, families and friends (Family Expenditure Survey 1996/7). Nearly half of all households without a car are ‘pensioner’ households (Transport Trends 1999)
Pensioners with a car tend to have more discretion over when they travel. Therefore they would benefit not only from easier journeys and lower levels of charges but also from reduced fuel costs and/or road tax. Under a fiscally neutral congestion-charging scheme, these households are more likely to enjoy lower overall costs.
In the short term there are no plans to introduce congestion charging in rural areas, where there is little congestion. However, under the CfIT proposals, where congestion occurs on country roads, some charge would be incurred.
Research in the USA (valued-priced lanes on Route 91 in San Diego) shows that less wealthy people still value their time and are willing to pay extra for faster more reliable journeys. Opinion research on congestion pricing on the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York State revealed virtually no difference in opinion about the charges between low, middle and high income level drivers.
In the wider transport field the government’s Social Exclusion Unit is currently addressing the real barriers faced by low income groups for whom lack of suitable transport is a barrier to social inclusion. Certainly, access to journeys by car is an important factor (Two-thirds of the poorest fifth of the population have no car and depend on public transport) along with, the cost, availability and security issue associated with public transport.
Most of the conclusions of this study are based on data and information generated from congestion charging systems operational in cities such as London. The system in London has been in operation for a short period of time and whilst the initial downturn in retail activity was attributed to other economic factors, analysis of the effects of the congestion charge over time may be more beneficial, in terms of extrapolating findings to other areas.
Yearly reviews of operational systems, in addition to more detailed surveys of planned areas for implementation of congestion charges are recommended. Other options, such as incentives for car sharing, need to be fully explored. The general public are receptive to the drive towards a lower carbon economy but need to be shown how they can do their bit. Congestion charging is seen as a policy intervention with respect to the problems associated with increases in car ownership. There needs to be however, an integrated approach. For this to occur there needs to be public-private partnerships, environmental educational programmes and a commitment from the highest levels. The UK’s commitment to reducing CO2 emissions is a positive step, as is improved investment in public transport (e.g. the rail network). However, there remains a lot to do. Public transport is the most expensive in Europe and is a major reason why people increasingly use their car – it is cheaper. Balancing transport costs with environmental and health concerns is a difficult task, but one which is necessary for a sustainable future.
Tags: buses, car ownership, congestion, pollution levels, poor infrastructure, public transport service, rush hours, towns and cities
