Transport -
Driving
Mayor
Ken Livingstone gave the go-ahead for congestion
charging in London. The scheme charges motorists
£5 a day in an area of central 
London between 7am and
6.30pm Monday to Friday. Those who do not pay the
charge will be fined £80, falling to £40 for
early payment but rising to £120 for late
payment. Supporters of the scheme, including many
businesses and the green lobby, see it as the
answer to the capital's gridlock. But opponents
including Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington
and Chelsea councils are likely to seek to
challenge the scheme in the courts. Motorists
have seen average road speeds fall to as low as
2.9 mph, after traffic lights were re-phased
deliberately to slow journeys and frustrate
drivers out of their cars.
There will be no increase in the fee paid by
drivers to enter central London for at least 10
years, Mayor Ken Livingstone has said. Summing up
the first full week of congestion charging, Mr
Livingstone said the scheme's success meant that
"£5 was enough". He confirmed traffic
levels were about 20-25% lower than normal in the
charging zone during the first week and 20% lower
at the beginning of the second week. Nearly 7,000
people a day failed to pay the charge, which
began on 17 February, with 34,000 penalty notices
being sent out.
The mayor said 45 people had incorrectly been
sent the fines. Mr Livingstone said if he wins
the next mayoral election in 2004, he would look
at extending the scheme to other parts of London.
"We are fine-tuning this system and
monitoring it, and by the summer we will be in a
position to say if it has been a clear success.
Then we could start public consultation about
extending the zone so that people going to the
ballot box next year will know where everyone
stands."
He said he had originally thought the charge
would need to be raised to £6. "It won't
now be necessary. It's now quite clear that £5
was enough. I can't conceive of any circumstances
in the foreseeable future where we would want to
change the charge, although perhaps 10 years down
the line it may be necessary." Mr
Livingstone said traffic would probably
"creep back" into the central zone, but
even if levels increased by 5% it would still be
in line with the 15% reduction target he had set.
The congestion charge has cut traffic so
successfully that Mr Livingstone now faces a huge
cash crisis as drivers avoid the charging zone.
Cars have kept off the busiest roads in central
London since the charge was introduced in
February, and traffic levels have fallen by
around 40%, the mayor's office said. But the lack
of drivers paying £5 each day for entering the
charge zone means Transport for London's budget
for the scheme will be £65 million short by the
end of the financial year, according to the
mayor's latest estimates.
During a meeting of the Greater London Assembly's
budget committee, Mr Livingstone and TfL bosses
acknowledged that the net income generated by the
charge would be just half the £130 million
originally planned. Liberal Democrat Sally
Hamwee, who chairs both the committee and the
Assembly, said she was concerned that the mayor
seemed to have no rescue plan. "This is a
substantial shortfall and I am quite
alarmed," she said. "The things that
get cut in these situations are things that are
less high profile, like road safety, provision
for pedestrians and cyclists."
A spokesman for the mayor said this year's
spending plans would not be affected by the
predicted shortfall. "It is still early days
for the congestion charge but the scheme was
always designed to reduce congestion and not
raise revenue," he said.
Taxpayers
have had to stump up an extra £31million to keep
London mayor Ken Livingstone’s congestion
charge going. The firm running the scheme
complained it was not making a profit. Traffic
has been cut by 16 per cent since the launch
compared to the 10 to 15 per cent estimate and
the number of fines is way below the figure
forecast by the firm Capita. Its £200million
deal with Livingstone’s Transport for London
organisation has now been renegotiated.
Capita has been fined £1m for poor customer
care, months after being given an extra £31m to
improve the service. A report produced by the
budget committee of the London Assembly disputed
the London mayor Ken Livingstone's claim that the
Transport for London (TfL) contract with Capita
represented "best value" for Londoners.
It also said the contract had not proved a good
deal for taxpayers. The report showed that Capita
had forfeited £1m to TfL up to the end of
September because of "problems with customer
service".
The report, which scrutinised Capita's contract
with London mayor Ken Livingstone's TfL, said:
"We dispute the mayor's frequently made
claim that TfL's contract with Capita represents
'best value' for Londoners." It also said
that TfL had problems gauging how well Capita was
doing because of a lack of performance indicators
written into the initial contract. This was one
of the reasons the contract was renegotiated
after just six months into the road toll scheme.
We have an absurd situation whereby Capita pay a
£1m fine and are given an extra £31m by Ken
Livingstone.
In the new deal, Capita was given an extra £31m
to improve the way the scheme worked, according
to TfL. But the committee's report said,
"Our view is that the problems which led to
the contract almost being terminated were in part
due to deficiencies in the initial contract. This
is especially remarkable given the £30m
allocated by TfL in management and support
start-up costs to avoid such problems
occurring."
But a spokesman for TfL said the fine was not to
do with customer service failings. "Capita
forfeited £1m because we had problems with its
management information systems," he said.
"This meant we could not determine Capita's
success or failings. It was also a reason for the
contract being renegotiated and the £1m
forfeited relates to problems that pre-date the
new contract."
See
also: Chaos Ahead
See also: NOP Survey
See also: Association of
British Drivers
Next >>>
Home
These articles
have been collected from various sources. If you
are the copyright owner of any of them, contact us for
either a credit and link to your site or removal
of the article.
--------------