The western extension of London’s congestion charge is to be scrapped after a majority of respondents to both an informal consultation and survey said they opposed the scheme.
During the campaign for May’s elections, Mayor Boris Johnson promised to consult Londoners on the future of the extension zone. Earlier this year he launched a consultation process offering three options, keep the extension, modify it or remove it.
Te extension was introduced by former Mayor Ken Livingstone in February 2007 despite opposition from many local residents and councillors, although it was backed by many in the environmental lobby.
According to City Hall, 86 per cent of businesses responding to the public consultation supported the removal of the zone. Nineteen per cent stated that they wanted the extension kept as it is, and 12 per cent supported changing the scheme to improve the way that it operates.
The Mayor says he will now instruct Transport for London “to begin work on the process of a formal consultation on the removal of the Western Extension.”
In addition to the consultation TfL commissioned a survey to gauge the views of 2,000 Londoners and 1,000 London-based businesses. Axing the extension was the preferred option of 41 per cent of members of the public with 30 per cent saying they were in favour of keeping it. Half of businesses surveyed wanted the extension scrapped and 23 per cent supported keeping it. Fifteen per cent of members of the public and 14 per cent of businesses said they would change the way the scheme operates.
Despite today’s announcement he extension cannot be removed until a statutory consultation procedure has been completed and the Mayor is required to take into account the views expressed in the formal consultation when deciding whether or not to confirm his decision.
The statutory consultation will last 12 weeks commencing summer 2009 and assuming the final decision is to scrap the extension, the earliest this could happen is 2010.
Reaction
Today’s news has been welcomed by Liberal Democrats on the Assembly. Transport spokesperson Caroline Pidgeon said: “It is good that that this ill-conceived idea will be abandoned. The western extension of the Congestion Charge zone encouraged thousands of residents to drive into central London, putting the original scheme at risk.”
Pidgeon said the Mayor should now “explore with London’s boroughs a more sophisticated system of road pricing, and the Mayor should direct TfL to use the latest technology to target local congestion “hotspots” across greater London because there are many people, in all parts of the capital, who wish to see something done about traffic congestion in their local area.”
Labour’s Val Shawcross said Johnson’s decision was “a foolish and backward step” which would “lose TfL £70 million a year that could have been spent on improving our public transport system and will increase traffic and air pollution in one of the dirtiest and noisiest areas of central London.”
Sharon Grant, Chair of passenger watchdog London TravelWatch, warned that the resulting “loss of revenue flows will also create serious difficulties for Transport for London (TfL) and impact other services.”
Grant added: “there is no doubt this is a hugely significant decision, which signals a sea change in transport policy in London. It goes against the grain of the wider public concerns about both the environment and prospect of ever more congested cities.”
Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones commented: “The congestion charge has been an incredibly successful method of traffic reduction. Scrapping the Western Extension will almost certainly lead to a sharp rise in traffic, more congestion, more air pollution and more climate change emissions.”
A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the decision marked an “important milestone for many of the capital’s hard-pressed businesses” and said the body wanted the Mayor “to launch a root-and-branch review of the original charging scheme in the central zone.”
It’s a shame, I was just coming round to the idea that Boris might actually be good for the whole of London.
Alas this is a backwards step in all ways.
Once a difficult policy like the congestion charge is in place it makes sense to keep it. Adjusting it to suit would have been fine, but to remove it alltogether merely means someone else will have to implement it again in the future and go through all the pain and upopoularity that Ken had to. Because as true as the sun shining this WILL be back one day, because the alternative is a gridlocked London from 8 until 6 every day.
The basis of the survey was inconsistent and poorly collected and wouldn’t stand up to much scrutiny. Firstly I think it was only really available online (ruling out anyone who doesn’t have free or easy access). I also noted (when I did my vote) that you could easily create as many comments as you like implying they were all from different sources and thereby swaying the vote.
It’s a well known fact that people who object to something – just like empty kettles – make the most noise. Therefore I suspect the results are not actually a reflection of the people’s opinion, but a set of hardcore objectors.
…and lets face facts, the ONLY people who object to the congestion charge are those who have their own self interests at heart.
The businesses are only complaining because they think it’s loosing them money – which in every case I have seen – will be the same when the roads are congested again. I would argue that there isn’t much of a business if an £8 charge for drivers cripples your sales. Maybe your sales audience is in too much of a narrow band.
The residents who live inside the zone aren’t too bothered – because of the heavy discount, and the fact that the benefits of less cars is great for them.
No, the main objectors are the ‘Jeremy Clarkson M4 drivers’ who feel they should have a free ride into central London because their backsides are now so big they cannot fit into a bus or train seat. That coupled with an inflated sense of self-importance means they cannot possible ‘socialise’ with commuters on trains and buses (because they are seen as some form of underclass).
This move by Boris is evidence of where his loyalties really lie. “I’m alright Jack” is back and alive in London where it really doesn’t matter who else’s life is made hell as a result of your selfish behaviour – as long as you get to do what you want.
I shall remind everyone, when I sail past them on my bike in the old extension zone, that apparently ‘the majority wanted this’ as I see thier glum faces in their sweaty cars and steamed up windows and their constant moaning about ‘how bad London traffic is’.
You foolish, foolish people.
On the bright side however, I have just got back from booking my 2 week holiday in JAPAN next April – all paid for by the money I have saved by not using public transport or driving to work in the last year.
I’ll be thinking of you all behind the wheel in the April rain suckers.
Well done Boris.
There are not many politicians who honour their election pledges. This was one of the policies that got you elected and why Ken was thrown out.
This part of London was never the subject of gridlock before the charge was set up, against the popular vote by Ken. Funny thing is the now the charge is in place the area is grid locked with TFL’s phoney road works scheme’s. Just drive or cycle round the area Tawkin and see the road cones put out with no one working there, temporary traffic lights that need not be there.
This is what the businesses and the residents of this area wanted. People who dont like it should buy a bike, Oh I see you already have one, what a suprise.
Did Ken write that first comment himself??
Boris Johnson has done absolutely the right thing for residents and business and I am confident that he will find a solution which addresses the environmental aspect.
If at all then why don’t they introduce an Eastern extension, the traffic there is absolutely hideous.