Congestion Charge Report

My argument in this report is does congestion charging prevent congestion or is it just away of the government taking more money from us?
I will discuss the good and the bad effects the congestion charging has in London.

Background on congestion charge:
Congestion charging was introduced to London by the mayor of London Ken Livingston in the year of 2003. It was seen as a solution to the high traffic in central London and making more people use public transport, the money that is made will be used for further improvements and for new transport projects. Capita is responsible for the payment process and have a contract with TFL till 2009. The way it works is that when you drive into central London you will have to pay £8 it runs from 7:00 am to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday and if you pay late after 10pm on the day of the travel you will be asked to pay £10. The payment can be made my text, online, or pay point at shops.
If the vehicle is detected by the digital cameras that use license recognition software (which I will go into more detail later) and the payment of £8 wasn’t made then driver will be fined for £50 if this amount isn’t paid in 14 days then it goes up to £100 then £150 if it isn’t paid in 28 days. Busses, taxis, emergency vehicles, bicycle, motor cycle and alternative fuel vehicle are let off the congestion charge although they may need to register it.

In what ways does it have effect?
The congestion charge was put out to the citizens as a good thing when it was first made public. Then when the public got to see what it was really about which is nothing but a way of the government taking more money from us. But the public was unable to do anything about as it was already decided that it will go ahead and some of the public didn’t do anything about it even though they didn’t agree with it. The effects it has on us is the fact that we can’t use our cars to travel we are made to use the public transport which is also making profit for the government. The public transport service very poor the trains are always delayed in the busiest times which is between 9 – 5. When it comes to busses it’s even worse because there are not enough busses in the rush hour you wait for more than 20 – 30 minutes for a bus to come and then when it eventually arrives it does open the front door it only allows passengers to abort because the bus is packed with passengers to the fullest. Another thing the tubes aren’t that great neither as they are always on strike, delayed or works been done underground so you have to find alternative ways of reaching your destination. I know all of this not just from research but from personal experience I lived in London before I started studying at the University of Portsmouth it was such a struggle to get to college from where I lived first I tried taking bus then I started taking tube which no matter how early I left the house I always got to college late the amount of times the tube will be full and I had to wait for another one to come at London Bridge station. So as a student I struggled but imagine what the public go through to get to work which isn’t the same as me I just had to get a late slip but people could get fired for turning up at work late so they have to get up extra early. The congestion charge has appeared to have a small impact on the number of road traffic accidents. The scheme has also affected the businesses in the area in a bad way in August 2003, the John Lewis Partnership announced that in the first six months of the charge's operation, sales at their Oxford Street store fell by 7.3% whilst sales at other stores in the Greater London area but outside the Congestion Charge Zone rose by 1.7%. Since the congestion charge TfL has reported falling levels of some emissions within the original congestion charge area and along the Inner Ring Road boundary zone. Levels of two greenhouse gases fell, nitrous oxide (N2O), by 13.4% between 2002 & 2003, and carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as particulates (PM10). In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, N2O emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%.

The primary sustainable technology objective/ issue:
It has proven that the traffic congestion has bought ease to the traffic congestion in central London by persuading people to switch from private cars to public transport. I believe that this issue concerns students that are studying in London because it’s hard and expensive to travel.
The progress that the government has made to the high traffic in London is that it’s bought down the traffic and the emission, the table below shows the emission levels since 2002 to 2004 which proves that the congestion charging has improved the level of emission. But apparently some motors are allowed to be driven in the congestion zone without paying the fee but it hasn’t been set yet and forms take a very long process.

The possible technical alternatives and consequences regarding the congestion charge:
The scheme makes use of CCTV cameras to record vehicles entering and exiting the zone. Cameras can record number plates with a 90% accuracy rate through automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology. There are also a number of mobile camera units which may be deployed anywhere in the zone. The majority of vehicles within the zone are captured on camera. The cameras take two still pictures in colour and black and white and use infrared technology to identify the number plates. These identified numbers are checked against the list of payees overnight by computer. In those cases when a number plate has not been recognised then they are checked by humans. Those that have paid but have not been seen in the central zone are not refunded, and those that have not paid and are seen are fined. The registered owner of such a vehicle is looked up in a database provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), based in Swansea. The cameras can be fooled by tail gating or switching lanes at the correct time.

Discuss the potential political and financial effects of the congestion charge:
It’s not just the public that has a problem with the scheme other parties don’t agree with it. The conservative’s party candidate Steven Norris, is known to be furious of the charge, branding it the 'Kengestion' charge, and promises to scrap it if he became mayor in June 2004. He had also pledged that, if elected, he would grant an amnesty to anyone with an outstanding fine for non-payment of the charge on 11 June 2004. Conservative leader Michael Howard has also backed his candidate's view by saying the charge has undoubtedly had a damaging effect on business in London.
But the Liberal Democrat candidate, Simon Hughes, however, supported the basic principles of the scheme. He will change a few things with the scheme like changing the end time from 6:30 pm to 5 pm and automatically giving all vehicles five free days each year so as not to affect occasional visitors. In 2005, the Liberal Democrats claimed that Capita had been fined £4.5 million for missing the targets set for the congestion charge, which was equivalent to £7,400 for every day that the charge had existed.
The London Assembly Budget Committee 2003 report on the company criticised the contract with Capita as not providing value for money. It was reported in July 2003 that TfL agreed to subsidise Capita by paying it £31 million because it was making no profits from the project, and that the most critical problem was the 103,000 outstanding penalty notices not paid.

The potential effects that the congestion charge has for sustainable development from a national or global perspective:
The effect it has on the sustainable development is just making the public’s lives harder and more expensive to travel. The nation is affected in a way that they aren’t able to travel to work or even shopping with their own cars without been asked to £8. It’s affected the world in a small but a good way the congestion and emission in London down. So the effects to the globe are good but the effect it has on the public isn’t great it’s made their lives very difficult.