Congestion charging causes consternation

The advent of 'congestion charging' in the centre of London in February caused consternation amongst road haulage operators, who now have to pay for the privilege of delivering their customers' goods in the city centre. Irish Trucker reviews the introduction of Ken Livingstone's brainchild and the Road Haulage
Association's pragmatic response.

Lord Mayor of London Ken Livingstone

Ken Livingstone has always courted controversy, but the introduction of 'congestion charging' during his tenure as London's Lord Mayor will be remembered for years to come; long after he fades away from public life.
On Monday February 17, motorists driving to work in central London were forced to fork a £5 for the privilege, as congestion charging began for the very first time. Every weekday from 7.00am until 6.30pm, motorists entering central London will now be subject to a charge of £5.

The scheme - brilliant in its simplicity - operates using a network fixed traffic cameras, which record vehicles' registrations as they enter central London. If the owner does not pay on the day (before 12 midnight) a fine will arrive in the post.

The RHA is opposed to congestion charging

A fine of £40 will apply for the first 14 days. If the fine remains unpaid after 28 days, authorities will seek a County Court judgement against the motorist.
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) in Britain has opposed the application of 'congestion charging' to commercial vehicles. The primary reason for this objection is based on the assertion that urban congestion charging with regard to commercial vehicles, will not achieve its primary objective of reducing congestion.

The RHA contends that a private motorist has choices in how to react to the introduction of the scheme. The motorist may decide to switch to public transport, walk, cycle or may decide not to make the journey. These choices are not available to commercial vehicle operators. Commercial vehicles do no travel into city and town centres unless there are urgent business reasons for doing, the RHA argues.

London Bridge

In a recent policy document on the issue, the RHA stated: "It is simply not feasible to put goods on a bus or the tube. And whilst some freight does go by rail, to move it from the rail station to the shop or office it is intended for, it has to go by road. Nor can a haulier decide not to make the journey. If businesses do not get the goods and services they need in an efficient and cost effective manner, they will not survive."

The RHA points out commercial vehicles will continue to operate in urban areas, despite the introduction of the charge, which will ultimately have negative effects on the economy.

Congestion charging arrived in central London in February

The report added: "They will have to pay for the privilege of doing so. Inevitably this will have consequences for those living, working or running businesses in the charging area, as the additional costs imposed on the transport industry will be passed on to the customer, and ultimately the consumer."

The RHA claims there may be a case for initiating night time deliveries in the centre of London. However, the existence of weekend and night time lorry bans in a large number of urban areas including London precludes this possible solution.

To that end, the RHA wants the relevant local authorities in the London area to review the existence of such restrictions in light of the recent introduction of 'congestion charging' there.
The RHA adapted a pragmatic approach in setting out its policy document on urban congestion charging. It realised that a decision had been taken to proceed with the charge and all the huffing and puffing in the world, wouldn't reverse that decision.

It therefore called for the use of automatic technology to ensure that the administrative burden imposed on business was kept to a minimum. Commercial operators should be given the choice of a wide range of methods in which to pay including: pre-paid, on-line, by telephone, by post and by automatic debit.

It also called for the use of sophisticated equipment that would capture all vehicles entering the zone, including those registered outside the UK.
Failure to do so, the RHA warned, would introduce yet another element of "unfair" competition for commercial operators, or would encourage the misuse of foreign number plates in order to evade the charge.

The RHA acknowledged that road charging schemes will be the norm rather than the exception in the years ahead. It therefore called for the use of compatible technology throughout the various schemes, so that commercial operators would not be burdened with having to comply with the requirements of several different schemes at the same time.

In re-affirming its opposition to urban congestion charging for commercial vehicles, the RHA stated that charging schemes would only bring about benefits, if the charges were set at a sufficiently high level, to make modal switch an attractive alternative for private motorists.

It also called for the ring-fencing of all funds generated by the scheme to be spent on transport initiatives in central London. These funds should be in addition to existing transport spending and should be spent on all modes including road improvements.

Finally, the RHA accepted that urban road charging schemes "may have a role to play in reducing levels of congestion in towns and cities across the UK. But we cannot accept that the inclusion of commercial vehicles, at least, under the current circumstances, is justified."

It warned: "Imposing a charge on commercial vehicles when there is no viable alternative simply acts ads an additional tax on business. The continuing need for essential business deliveries and services must be taken into account."