The white-on-red C marks all entrances to the congestion charge zone.
The '
London congestion charge' is a fee for some motorists entering the
Central London area. As of 2006 it is the largest city to have adopted a congestion charge model. The organisation responsible for the charge is
Transport for London (TfL), with
Capita Group operating the scheme under contract. A payment of £8 is required each day when a chargeable vehicle enters the congestion charge zone between 7am and 6pm with a penalty payment required for non payment. The zone came into operation on
17 February 2003 and was extended into parts of
West London on
19 February 2007. The aims of the charge are to discourage the use of private cars, reduce congestion, and provide investment in public transport.
The scheme was the first large scale one in the
United Kingdom and has been controversial with reported effects not only on traffic levels, but business activity and the local environment. Worldwide several cities have used the London scheme as a model for possible schemes.
History
Signs indicate the boundary of the congestion charge area.
Many
toll roads and bridges exist in
Great Britain such as the
Severn crossing,
Dartford Crossing and
Forth Road Bridge. Previously toll roads run by
turnpike trusts had been common from the late 1600s to 1800s. General road tolls have also been advocated by many others in the past, such as the 18th century economist
Adam Smith.
[1]
Schemes similar to the current congestion charge have been under consideration by the
British Government since the early 1960s. The
Smeed Report of 1964 first assessed the practicality of road pricing in a British city.
[2][3] During the early years of the
Greater London Council the first plans were drawn up for a system of cordon charging or supplementary licensing for use in the central area. A formal study was undertaken into the merits of the scheme, and in 1973 concluded that it would improve traffic and environmental conditions in the centre. However, the newly elected
Labour council rejected the study's findings in favour of greater investment in
public transport.
The idea nevertheless persisted and gained renewed support in the mid-1990s. The London Congestion Research Programme concluded in July 1995 that the city's economy would benefit from such a scheme.
[4] The power to introduce a form of congestion charge was given to any future mayor in the
Greater London Authority Act 1999.
[5] Having won the first mayoral election in 2000,
Ken Livingstone opted to exercise these powers as promised in his independent manifesto
[6][7] , and carried out a series of consultations with interested parties. The basic scheme was agreed in February 2002, and charging commenced, with some concessions accepted, on
17 February 2003. By law all surpluses raised must be reinvested into London's transport infrastructure and it was anticipated that this would be around £200m.
[8]7 The initial cost of setting up the scheme was
£161.7m,
8 with an annual operating cost of about £115m anticipated.
[9] Total revenues have been £677.4m with the surplus over operating costs being £189.7m.
8 On introduction, the scheme was the largest ever undertaken by a
capital city.
[10]
After the introduction of the charge, there were a number of suggestions for its future. Soon after charging commenced, Livingstone announced that he would carry out a formal review of the charge's success or failure six months after its introduction — brought forward from one year, following the smooth start. On
25 February 2003 Livingstone stated, "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary" referring to the amount that drivers have to pay, indicating that £5 was sufficient to bring about the reduction in traffic that he had hoped for.
[11] By November 2004, Livingstone directly contradicted his earlier stance and said in an interview with BBC London, "I have always said that during this term [his second term in office] it will go up to at least £6."
[12] By the end of the month, Livingstone changed his position again, saying in an announcement that in fact the rise would be to £8 for private vehicles and £7 for commercial traffic. Business groups such as
London First said following the announcement that they were "totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable".
[13][14] The rise to £8 was announced formally on
1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets.
[15][16] On
10 May 2006, in a live TV debate, Livingstone supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008.
[17]
The Western Extension
Soon after the introduction of the charge, newspapers began to speculate that the extension of the congestion charging zone would form part of Livingstone's manifesto for re-election as mayor (under the
Labour Party banner) in 2004. In February 2004, TfL issued a consultation document
[18] on the expansion of the zone to the west, including a map of the enlarged zone
[19] that would cover the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
In August 2004, following Livingstone's re-election in the
June 2004 mayoral election, the results of the consultation were published. A substantial majority of respondents did not want the extension,
[20] however Livingstone said he was going ahead and that the consultation was a charade.
[21] Following on in May 2005 TfL announced a further consultation period with specific proposals about the extensions. These included a plan to reduce the operating hours of the charge by half-an-hour to "boost trade at London's theatres, restaurants and cinemas".
[15][23]
At the end of September 2005, London Mayor Ken Livingstone confirmed the western expansion of the congestion charge, to come into effect on
19 February 2007 despite the majority of residents opposing it in the two consultations.
[24][25] The anticipated start up costs were £125m with operating costs of £33m; expected
gross revenues are expected to be £80m resulting in
nett revenues of £50m.
[26] It is expected that this extension will increase congestion in the zone by around 5% as the 60,000 residents in the new zone will be entitled to the discounts available.
[27]
Since the introduction of the western extension
Transport for London has made a number of bus route changes to take advantage of the presumed higher traffic speeds and a greater demand for public transport. One new route (
route 452) has been introduced and three others (routes
31,
46 and
430) have been extended. In addition the frequency of buses on other routes through the zone extension have been increased.
[28]
Coverage
Original
The original boundary of the zone is sometimes referred to as the
London Inner Ring Road. Starting at the northernmost point and moving clockwise, the major roads defining the boundary are
Pentonville Road,
City Road,
Old Street,
Commercial Street,
Mansell Street,
Tower Bridge Road,
New Kent Road,
Elephant and Castle,
Vauxhall Bridge Road,
Park Lane,
Edgware Road,
Marylebone Road and
Euston Road (other roads fill the small gaps between these roads). The zone therefore includes the whole of the
City of London, the city's financial district, and the
West End, the city's primary commercial and entertainment centre.
[29] There are also 136,000 residents living within the zone (of a total population of around 7,000,000 in
Greater London), though the zone is primarily thought of (and zoned) as commercial rather than residential. There is little heavy industry within the zone. Signs have been erected and symbols painted on the road to help drivers define the congestion charge area.
[30]
Current Area
The boundary of the enlarged zone, as of
19 February 2007, starts at the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge and (travelling in a clockwise direction) heads along the northern bank of the
River Thames as Grosvenor Road, the
Chelsea Embankment and
Cheyne Walk. From here, it heads north, along the eastern edges of the
Kensington and
Earl's Court one-way systems (classified as part of the
A3220), encompassing Edith Grove, Redcliffe Gardens, Earl's Court Road, Pembroke Road, Warwick Gardens and part of the Addison Road, before continuing to the
A40 Westway as the
Holland Road and the
West Cross Route.
The boundary then includes parts of
North Kensington, but the actual boundary is defined by the
West London Line railway track, which runs between Latimer Road (inside the zone) and
Wood Lane (outside the zone), until Scrubs Lane, before turning east, following the
Great Western Main Line out of
Paddington towards
Ladbroke Grove. Here, the boundary follows the
Grand Union Canal and rejoins the existing zone at
Edgware Road after skirting
Paddington, by way of the Bishop's Bridge Road, Eastbourne Terrace,
Praed Street and Sussex Gardens.
[31]
TfL have defined some free through routes, where drivers do not have to pay the charge. The main route is defined by the western boundary of the original zone
Vauxhall Bridge Road,
Grosvenor Place,
Park Lane and
Edgware Road, with some additions around
Victoria. The
Westway is the other exempt route.
[32]
Operation
Payment and exemptions
Closed-circuit cameras and vans police the zone, capturing live video. Vans can be identified by a sticker on the back door (inset).
The congestion charge came into force on
17 February 2003.
[33] Capita are responsible for processing payments and fines and has signed a contract with TfL until 2009.
[15] Initially set at £5, then raised on
4 July 2005 to £8,
[16] the daily charge must be paid by the registered keeper of a vehicle that enters, leaves or moves around within the congestion charge zone between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. (previously 6.30 p.m.), Monday to Friday, excluding
public holidays in England and a period over
Christmas.
[36] Drivers may pay the charge on the
Web, by
SMS text message, in shops equipped with a
PayPoint, or by phone.
[37] The charge may be paid the day after at an increased cost of £10. Failure to pay the charge results in a fine of £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days, but increased to £150 if unpaid after 28 days.
[38]
Some vehicles such as
buses, minibuses (over a certain size),
taxis,
emergency service vehicles (i.e., ambulances, fire engines and police vehicles),
motorcycles,
alternative fuel vehicles and
bicycles are exempt from the charge although some of the exemptions are 100% discounts that still require registration.
[39][40] In the case of
hybrid vehicles, the registration fee of £10 exceeds the congestion charge for one day.
[41] Residents of the zone are eligible for a 90% discount if they pay the charge for a week or more at once (note that there are administration charges for claiming the discount, presently the minimum administration charge is 10GBP).
[42]
TfL can and does suspend the congestion charge either in a small local area to cope with incidents and if directed so by a
police officer.
[43] The congestion charge was suspended on
7 July and
8 July 2005, in response to the
terrorist attacks on London Transport.
[44]
While private drivers are obliged to pay the charge either the day before, on the day or the following day, whether they are seen to enter the zone or not, the same does not apply to fleets of business vehicles. A business can register a group of cars with TfL, and is charged £7 per visit for all vehicles in the fleet detected by the cameras. In May 2005 businessman Miguel Camacho set up fivepounds.co.uk, whose sole function was to sign up private drivers to their "fleet", thus offering the convenience of not having to pay the charge pro-actively, avoiding fines in the case of a forgotten journey and also potentially getting a "free journey" if undetected by the cameras. Transport for London, 36% of whose charge revenue comes from fines, moved quickly to quash the loophole, by demanding that fleet operators provide V5 logbooks for each vehicle in their fleet. Fivepounds went out of business on
26 February 2006.
[45]
Drivers of foreign-registered cars are not exempt from the charge but the current lack of an international legal framework for the assessment and collection of traffic fines makes enforcement and recovery difficult.
[46] In 2005 it was revealed that several London
embassies were not paying the charge as they believed it to be a tax, which they are protected from paying under the
Vienna Convention.
[47] Although some embassies have agreed to pay the charge,
[48] the US embassy currently owes £1,600,000 (approximately $3,000,000) in fines for non-payment, they do however, pay tolls in Oslo and Singapore. Transport for London argues that the charge is a toll, not a tax.
[49]
Technology
The scheme makes use of
CCTV cameras which record vehicles entering and exiting the zone. They can record number plates with a 90% accuracy rate through
Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology
[50][51] 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 infra red technology to identify the number plates on cars. 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.
50 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.
[52] The cameras can be fooled by
tail gating or switching lanes at the correct time.
50
TfL ran a six month trial of
Tag and Beacon from February 2006 to replace the camera based system. This uses an electronic card affixed to the
windscreen of a vehicle and can be used to produce "smart tolls" where charges can be varied dependent on time and direction of travel. This system automatically deducts the charge so that the 50,000 drivers a year who forget to pay the fine would not be penalised. TfL have suggested that this scheme could be introduced from 2009
[53]51
Effects
At Old Street, street markings and a sign (inset) with the white-on-red C alert drivers to the charge.
Traffic levels
Before the charge's introduction, there were fears of a very chaotic few days as the charge bedded down. Indeed
Ken Livingstone,
Mayor of London and key proponent of the charge, himself predicted a "difficult few days".
33 and a "bloody day".
[54] In fact, the first two days saw a dramatic reduction in inner city traffic. On the first day 190,000 vehicles moved into or within the zone during charging hours, a decrease of around 25% on normal traffic levels. Excluding 45,000 exempt vehicles, the decrease was more than 30%.
Anecdotal evidence suggests journey times were decreased by as much as half. Just over 100,000 motorists paid the charge personally, 15–20,000 were fleet vehicles paying under fleet arrangements, and it is believed around 10,000 liable motorists did not pay the due charge.
[55] An extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 20,000) were introduced on the same day.
[56] Bus and
London Underground managers reported that buses and tubes were little, if at all, busier than normal.
54 Initially it was suggested that the reduction in traffic was caused by the half-term school holidays, but this has proved not to be the case. Reports consistently indicate that, over the first month or so of operation, traffic was down at least 15% on pre-charge levels (the first week had a decrease of 20%).
[57]
On
23 October 2003 TfL published a report surveying the first six months of the charge. The main findings of the report were that on average the number of cars entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year, representing a drop in non-exempt vehicles of 30%. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, and the remainder to car-sharing, reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and cycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 15%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report said that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the drop in retail sales.
[58][59] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines are issued in each month. Around 2,000 are appealed against. The larger than anticipated reduction in traffic numbers meant that TfL revenue would be only £68 million — well below the £200 million per year expected by TfL's first projections in 2001. In practice, once the extensive roadworks undertaken in London during 2001-2002 were lifted in November of that year, TfL found traffic levels had dropped noticeably, and the profit projection was lowered to £130 million per year. Once the charge came live in February 2003, traffic levels dipped again, hence the much lower revenue than expected.
A further report published by TfL in October 2004 stated that only seven of the 13 government aims for London transport would be met by 2010. The target on reducing congestion for
Greater London will not be met, the report said.
[60] In 2006 the latest report from TfL stated that congestion was down around 26% in comparison with the pre charge period and traffic delays had also been reduced. It also says that the charge appears to have no impact, either positive or negative, on road safety — the slow trend towards fewer accidents has continued.
[61] In comparison, during an experimental Stockholm congestion charge there has seen on average a 25% reduction in congestion.
[62]
Business
Reports have shops and businesses being heavily impacted by the cost of the charge, both in terms of lost sales and increased delivery costs as recognised by the London Chamber of Commerce.
[63] 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%.
[64] However London First's own report indicated that business was broadly supportive.
[65] Subsequently another report stated that there had been a reduction in some employment in the charging zone.
[66] TfL criticised the reports as unrepresentative and that its own statistics reported no effect on business.
66
A report in May 2005 stated that the number of shoppers had declined by 7% year-on-year in March, 8% in April and 11% in the first two weeks of May. TfL countered that an
economic downturn, the
sars outbreak and
threat of
terrorism were likely factors. At the same time a
London Chamber of Commerce report indicated that 25% of businesses were planning on relocation following the charges introduction.
[67] However an independent report 6 months after the charge was implemented suggested that businesses were now supporting the charge. London First commissioned the study which reported that 49% of businesses felt the scheme was working and only 16% that it was failing.
[68] The Fourth Annual Review by TfL in 2004 indicated that business activity within the charge zone had been higher in both
productivity and
profitability and that the charge had a "broadly neutral impact" on the London wide
economy.
61
It has been estimated that due to the West London extension in February 2007, 6,000 people will eventually lose their jobs.
[69]
Environment
Transport for London have recorded falling particulate levels within the original congestion charge area and along the Inner Ring Road boundary zone.
Nitrous Oxide (NOx) fell 13.4% between 2002 & 2003 along with similar falls for
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and
Particulate Matter (PM10).
[70] The full details are in the following table - the 2003/2004 figures are TfL estimates.
| Charging zone | Inner Ring Road |
| NOx | PM10 | CO2 | NOx | PM10 | CO2 |
| Overall traffic emissions change 2003 versus 2002 | -13.4 | -15.5 | -16.4 | -6.9 | -6.8 | -5.4 |
| Overall traffic emissions change 2004 versus 2003 | -5.2 | -6.9 | -0.9 | -5.6 | -6.3 | -0.8 |
| Source: Transport for London | ||
Reaction
The congestion charge has been heavily criticised by some opponents. They argue that the
public transport network has insufficient spare capacity to cater for travellers deterred from using their cars in the area by the charge. Further, it is said the scheme will hit poorer sections of society more than the rich, as the charge to enter the zone is a flat £8 for all, regardless of vehicle size.
[71] The charge has proved controversial in Outer London, where it has encouraged commuters who previously drove into Central London to instead park at suburban railway or underground stations. This has led to the widespread imposition of controlled parking zones in these areas, at the expense of local residents.
[72]
Steven Norris, the
Conservative Party candidate for mayor in 2004, has been a fierce critic of the charge, branding it the 'Kengestion' charge, and pledged 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. In an interview with London's ''
Evening Standard'' newspaper on
February 5 2004, Conservative leader
Michael Howard backed his candidate's view by saying "[the charge] has undoubtedly had a damaging effect on business in London."
[73] Liberal Democrat candidate,
Simon Hughes however supported the basic principles of the scheme. Amongst some of the changes he proposed included changing the end time from 6:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.; automatically giving all vehicles five free days a year so as not to affect occasional visitors.
[74]
In 2005 the
Liberal Democrats claimed that Capita had been fined £4.5 million for missing the targets set for the congestion charge, that was equivalent to £7,400 for every day that the charge had existed.
[75] The ''London Assembly Budget Committee'' 2003 report on the company criticised the contract with Capita as not providing value for money.
[15] It was reported in July 2003 that TfL agreed to bail-out Capita by paying them £31 million because they were making no profits from the project, and that their most critical problem was the 103,000 outstanding penalty notices not paid.
[77] Capita was also the company that won the 'Most Invasive Company' award in the
Privacy International 2003 Big Brother Awards.
[78]
Capita have employed subcontractors including
Mastek, based in
Mumbai,
India, who are responsible for much of the
IT infrastructure. Due to the wide spread around the globe of sub-contractors and because some data protection regulations vary from country to country, the scheme has prompted concerns about privacy from technology specialists.
[79]
Congestion charge CCTV cameras on Vauxhall Bridge Road
Towards the end of 2006, the Mayor proposed the introduction of a variable congestion charge. Similarly to
vehicle excise duty (VED), it would be based on emissions of carbon dioxide in grams/km. This would reduce or eliminate the charge for small and fuel-efficient vehicles, and increase it to up to £25 a day for large, inefficient vehicles such as
SUVs, large
saloons and
compact MPVs with a Band G VED rating, that is, emissions of > 225 g/km of CO
2. Electric zero-emissions vehicles are already exempt from the charge.
31[80]
Outside London
The first congestion charge in the
UK was a much smaller £2 million scheme which has been running in
Durham since 2002,
[81] however the London scheme was the first large-scale implementation.
[15] Following implementation the
Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-wing
think tank, to call for similar schemes to be rolled out across the country.
[83] However, in November 2003,
Secretary of State for Transport Alistair Darling said that despite apparent initial interest from many city councils, including those of
Leeds,
Cardiff,
Manchester,
Birmingham and
Bristol, no city apart from
Edinburgh had yet approached the Government for assistance in introducing a charge.
Edinburgh City Council It seems unlikely that Edinburgh will introduce a scheme any time soon, after a
postal referendum showed that almost 75% of voters in Edinburgh opposed congestion charging.
[84] Unlike in London, where Ken Livingstone had sufficient
devolved powers to introduce the charge on his own authority, other cities would require the confirmation of the Secretary of State for Transport under the Transport Act 2000. Manchester has proposed a peak time congestion charge scheme which could be implemented in 2011/2012 (see
Manchester Congestion Charge).
[85][86] In the East Midlands the three major cities of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester are examining the feasibility for a congestion charge.
[87] The
government has proposed a nationwide scheme or road tolls.
[88]
Many cities around the world already use or have used congestion charging zones including
Malta,
[89] Stockholm,
Oslo,
Trondheim,
Bergen and
Singapore (the first scheme worldwide, starting in 1975.
[90])
References
1. Should Darling travel down Smith's road pricing route?
2. Q&A: National road charging scheme Matthew Tempest
3. Road pricing: the economic and technical possibilities, , R.J., Smeed,, HMSO, 1964,
4. The London Congestion Research Programme, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, , , HMSO, 1995,
5. What does the mayor get to do?
6. Blair accuses Livingstone of £5 car toll
7. Drivers face £5 London toll
8. Where has the money gone?
9. Congestion charging
10. Smooth start for congestion charge
11. 'No increase' in congestion charge
12. Road toll up by 'at least £1'
13. Congestion charge rise to £8 planned by London mayor Roger Blitz
14. Congestion charge may rise to £8
15.
16. Congestion charge increases to £8
17. Anger at '£10 congestion charge'
18. Western Extension to the Congestion Charge Consultation Archive
19. Congestion charge extension map
20. Congestion charge zone to expand
21. C-charge consultation is charade, admits Ken Katharine Barney
22.
23. Charge zone times could shorten
24. Congestion Charging Western Extension
25. Livingstone takes charge zone farther west despite opposition Ben Webster
26. Congestion Charging: Proposed Western Extension Public Consultation Economic and Business Impact Assessment Transport for London with GLA Economics
27. Capital's congestion charge area extended Peter Woodman
28. Buses increased after congestion extension
29. What it is
30. Signs and Symbols
31. Q&A: The congestion charge
32. Congestion Charge Through Roads
33. Livingstone predicts 'difficult few days' as congestion charge begins Matthew Beard
34.
35. Congestion charge increases to £8
36. Congestion charging over Christmas
37. How to pay the charge
38. Penalties and Enforcement
39. Congestion Charging in London
40. Exemptions & Discounts
41. Registering for the Alternative Fuel Discount
42. Residents' Provisional Registration - Introduction
43. Will I have to pay the Charge if I am diverted into the Zone?
44. LONDON BOMBS ROUNDUP Four terrorist blasts kill at least 37 people UPDATE
45. TfL changes rules to stop C-charge 'fleet' scheme David Williams
46. TfL axes C-charge debt collection agency Andrew Clark
47. Road toll leads to diplomatic row
48. Embassy to pay congestion charge
49. Embassy road toll row continues
50. Preparing for Congestion Tom Symonds
51. C-charge plans 'will waste £166m'
52. How it Works
53. Electronic tags for cars as congestion charge spreads out Webster
54. Congestion charge cuts traffic levels
55. 10,000 chased for congestion fine
56. First congestion fines to go out
57. Congestion charge survives school run
58. Congestion charging 6 months on, , , , Transport for London, ,
59. Charge fails to stop roar of London traffic Caroline Muspratt
60. Road toll 'fails to cut traffic'
61. Impacts monitoring - Fourth Annual Report Overview
62. Traffic solutions
63. Congestion charge cost £300m, say Oxford St traders Caroline Muspratt
64. Store chief hits at congestion charge Rebecca Allison
65. Jury out on congestion charging
66. C-charge 'leads to layoffs' Andrew Clark
67. Congestion charge hammers shops Richard Allen
68. Business backs congestion charge Andrew Clark
69. Congestion charge: Green lobby hails road-toll extension
70. Impacts Assessment Fourth Annual Report
71. Why Ken's charge will do damage for years to come Steve Norris
72. Road and rail promises leave commuters unmoved Andrew Clark
73. Howard: C-charge damages business Joe Murphy
74. Hughes will stop road toll at 5pm
75. CAPITA FINED £4.5MILLION FOR MISSING C-CHARGE TARGETS
76.
77. Capita making no profits from London congestion charge scheme - report
78. Mayor Ken named Big Bad Brother
79. The London charge zone, the DP Act, and MS .NET John Lettice
80. Congestion charge will rise to £25 for 'Chelsea tractors' Ben Webster
81. Drivers charged to cut congestion
82.
83. UK congestion charge proposed
84. Edinburgh rejects congestion plan
85. Congestion charging: FAQs
86. City congestion fee plan unveiled
87. £1.8m congestion research begins
88. Push towards pay-as-you-go roads
89. Valletta Controlled Vehicular Access (CVA) System CVA Technology
90. Charging schemes around the world UK Commission for Integrated Transport
External links
★
Transport for London's congestion charge homepage
★
BBC London's congestion charge page
★
National Alliance Against Tolls congestion charge page
★
Association of British Drivers' congestion charge factsheet
★
MayorWatch congestion charge guide
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
