In the following essay I am going to answer the question: ‘are congestion charges a good idea?’ I shall be looking a t data, facts, opinions and trends- and will also look at how congestion charges are affecting health, the environment and the economy.
Some people agree with the congestion charge, and can produce many facts to support their view. My source one can also provide many facts and figures. Source one says that since the congestion zone was put into place, traffic had been cut by 18%, and delays were down by 30% Since the congestion zone has been bought in, the public transport in the city (TFL) has improved dramatically, with 29,000 more people using the service- which will mean much more money towards it’s improvement. Source one also says that the streets of London were ‘clogged’ and the heavy traffic on the roads was costing businesses approximately £2 million a week. Research, polls and surveys also showed that 75% of Londoners supported the scheme ‘because it works’. However, my Source two disagrees with the congestion charge, and in the source current London mayor Boris Johnson states how he plans to ‘scrap’ the extended zones altogether. Source two says that the move by Johnson follows a ‘public consultation’, in which 67% of respondents (including 86% of businesses) said they wanted the extended zone lifted. On the other hand, this source also contains some contradicting points to Johnson’s declaration, made by the labour party. They state that the movement was ‘not in the interest of Londoners’, and that it was a ‘foolish and backward step’. They also produce figures such as: the Transport For London (TFL) will lose around £70 million a year, which could be used on improving the service. Also, the pulling of the zones will increase traffic and air pollution in one of the ‘dirtiest and noisiest areas in central London’. The air should also get worse, which is a ‘disaster’ for the 43,00 asthma suffers in London. My Source 3 shows facts on congestion, not only in London, but also other cities were the scheme is being thought about. This source shows that almost 86% of Britain’s traffic is in England, and that congestion has a number of consequences, such as causing delays and making journey times unreliable. This agrees with my evidence for the congestion charge. However, the source then goes on to say their research shows that traffic on key routes slows down around the times of 6:30am and 6:45am due to congestion, then returns to normal speeds around 9:30am- although the congestion charge applies during the times of 7:00am and 6:00pm- so surely the times should be earlier?
B;
Congestion zones are reducing the amount of gases thrown into our atmosphere by motor vehicles. (only that particular area of course, but hey, it’s a start) Data that I have found shows that though levels of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Benzene are higher in the congestion zone- levels of each are dropping at a much faster rate than outside. This is because the areas of the congestion zone was one of the busiest in London, so the levels will naturally take time to decrease to the levels of outside. However, the rates are dropping faster because with the £8.00 charge in place not many people will want to pass through the zone unless its necessary, so therefore there is less air pollution in the area due to a drop in vehicles. This data supports the congestion charges for safer air. One thing that congestion zones are doing as well as the previously mentioned, is reducing the risk of damage to the city. This is because the zones are dropping levels of SO2, which is essentially acid rain. In 2001, there average levels of SO2 were 4.274 in the zones, and the predicted levels for 2010, nine years later, is down to 1.138. This reduces the risk of damage because acid rain has an effect on Limestone (a material that a lot of statues are made out of) where by it almost eats away at it, so the zones because of this. Same with the levels of Benzene- a harmful bi-product of burning fuel. In 2001, the levels were at an average of 1.072, in 2010 the levels have been predicted to be around 0.658.
C;
Source reliability can make all the difference, which is why I have picked three very reliable sources. My Source one is a report by BBCNEWS. I feel this makes it very reliable. This is because the BBC is a well known and trusted organisation, backed by the government. The Source also includes exclusive interviews for the BBC by the mayor of the time, Ken Livingstone. This report was published on the 17th February 2004. Though this source is a few years old, I think it is still reliable, because the evidence is still valid; also because of the report being published one year after the scheme was put into place, we can see how it is progressing, and compare results to determine its success. The Source is very relevant to the question, as it provides facts supported and given by the government, but also includes opinions of Londoners. The Source also has validility, as it addresses all the factors that it claims to. My second Source, also a BBCNEWS report is just as, if not more reliable than the first. This is because again, the organisation is trusted, and the BBC spoke exclusively to current London mayor Boris Johnson, Labours Transport Spokesperson Val Shawcross and Green Party’s Jenny Jones. This report was published on Thursday 27th November 2008., making it very reliable as this was less than one year ago. I think the report is relevant to the question ,because although it is first and foremost about plans to ‘scrap’ the extended zones, it still presents facts, figures and evidence for and against the congestion charges. I think this Source is a valid one, as it stays to the question mostly, though I do not think it is as valid as source 1- as it does go into different points. My final Source are road statistics from the governments Department Of Transport. (DFT) Because the stats are from the government, they are going to be very reliable indeed, as they will contain no gossip, rumours or assumptions. The document doesn’t state the exact date of when it was published, but the statistics are from 2007, so are still reliable because they are still fairly recent. The report will also be in no way bias, and will have been reviewed many times before being published- adding to its reliability. This data is accurate, and I know this because if the document was inaccurate, the government would have corrected the information immediately, after all, they want no reason for the public to dislike them. I think that though less than Sources one and two it has some validility, because although it is not answering the question, or even aiming to answer the question, it does prevent some facts that are relevant to the question, such as the percentage of traffic and consequences of congestion. Out of all my Sources, I feel that my Source two is most reliable. This is due to age, validility, fact, bias, author and the exclusive interviews. This Source shows both positive and negative points about the congestion charge.
D;
The congestion charge also has an impact on many other things, which I can place under Social, Economical and Environmental.
Social:
The people that will be affected by this are local, national and global. It will mainly affect local, seeing as those in the area will either have to pay the charge, or they will be facing probable delays on alternate routes, due to the number of people trying to avoid the area. They will also benefit from the cleaner, safer air if they live around the congestion zones, however, if they leave near the alternate routes their air could worsen, and their health deteriorate. It will to a small degree affect national people, because as they visit the city as tourists, the congestion in certain areas will be lessened, the air there will be cleaner and safer. However, they may have to pay the charge. As for global people, they will be affected in the same way national people are. The quality of life should be improved, as again the air is cleaner which will benefit health massively. The money generated from the charge is also being used to benefit the public. Of course, not everybody pays the charge. People that are exempt are: buses, taxis disabled people, electric cars and cars using ‘green’ fuel. This then means that the use of public transport will increase, and public transport and green energy are promoted.
Economical:
For those that have no choice but to pass through the zone it is just adding to their payments. Not only do they have bills and road tax, but now they have to pay £8.00 every time they need to get somewhere essential, such as work. The money made from the charges is going towards public transport, to buy new buses that are fully equipt with new technology and disabled access. Personally I think this is a great idea, but one the transport is up to scratch, the money should be spent on solving the problem of littler, and should also go to local charities and hostels. Though in Source one ken Livingstone stated local businesses had not suffered, my research shows some businesses are being affected by things such as stock delivery, which now costs the business because of the charge.
Environmental:
Obviously pollution plays a big part in the charge. In out conquest to become a green as possible world we have even started charging people to use their cars, but it is actually working? My data shows that the pollution levels inside the zones are decreasing massively. With toxic Sulphur Dioxide and Benzene levels dropping quicker than you can say’ that’s eight pounds please’, and harmless Nox decreasing but still maintaining a normal level, it seems to be like the charge is working. The congestion affects people and the environment. If a person is caught up in heavy traffic their journey times will be unreliable, impacting on all sorts of thing such as family, work, health appointments etc. Not to mention in extreme cases delays can cause frustration, which can lead to a dangerously high blood level. As for the environment, if a vehicle is moving slowly or stationary, it produces more carbon emissions than if it moves at a normal speed. One of the negative effects of the congestion charge is its knock-on effect on the wider community; with people looking for new routes, surrounding areas could become clogged with congestion, and we would have the same problem all over again.
How Do They All Link Together? :
These three areas all together because, positive or negative, they are all factors and consequences of the congestion charge. Everything Environmental, such as the emissions and pollution, links to the Social element because of things such as public health. The Social element ties to the Economical element because of things such as the taxes and generation of revenue having an effect on the people, just like the Economical links to the Environmental, due to the fact that to reduce pollution takes money. (such as the charge, the cost of green technologies etc)
E (conclusion);
To conclude, after considering all the evidence for both sides, I think that overall congestion charges are a good idea. That’s not to say that it doesn’t have its negative points though, because it does. The information that most helped me reach my decision was the data I found, and my source 1, BBCNEWS report. This is because I feel the health of the people will be improving, and you cant really argue with that. Also, the fact that the money is being spent on the public- which I think is a brilliant idea. However, like I have said, the congestion charge does not come without its negative points, such as: people paying a ‘double tax’ when they have no choice, delays and congestion being created on alternate routes due to drivers trying to avoid the congestion charge area, and also, the fact that some businesses are suffering is something that I find quite unacceptable. So yes, the system does need some tweaking, but overall think it is a good idea that initially solves a problem. I think my conclusion is valid because I have considered all of the evidence and made an educated decision.
BIBLIOGRAPHY;
Source one- http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/3494015.stm
Source two- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7752046.stm
Source three-
The soruce (for)
Mayor Livingstone explains: "Congestion charging has meant that the number of
cars entering the central area has been cut by some 70,000 vehicles a day. Put
simply it has prevented London from grinding to a halt … The amount of traffic
entering central London during charging hours has been cut by around 20 per
cent … It has contributed to the growth of cycling, with more people than ever
before travelling by bike."
www.roke.co.uk/resources/.../Benefits-of-Congestion-Charging.pdf
Mayor Livingstone explains: "Congestion charging has meant that the number of
cars entering the central area has been cut by some 70,000 vehicles a day. Put
simply it has prevented London from grinding to a halt … The amount of traffic
entering central London during charging hours has been cut by around 20 per
cent … It has contributed to the growth of cycling, with more people than ever
before travelling by bike."
