Professor Nick Reed, founder and CEO of Reed Mobility, discusses the psychology of tolling, with particular reference to London’s Congestion Charge and ULEZ, and suggests ways in which public acceptance can be gained for such schemes
In 2000, Londoners elected their first mayor, Ken Livingstone. An independent candidate sitting outside of national party politics and emboldened by a popular victory, Livingstone implemented a radical policy to reduce traffic jams and, in 2003, introduced the Congestion Charge; a flat daily fee for drivers entering a designated zone in central London during peak hours.
“The ULEZ scheme introduces new ‘carrots’ to offset the ‘stick’”
The Congestion Charge is a prime example of a ‘stick’ approach to traffic management, imposing an additional cost for driving in a specific area. This strategy targets congestion directly. Drivers must consciously determine whether the value of their trip outweighs the financial burden. London also offered a ‘carrot’ with improved public transport. Revenue from the charge was used to enhance public transport and cycling provision, providing alternatives to reduce reliance on cars.
The policy has been a critical weapon in the drive towards more sustainable travel. However, the daily fee is not a ‘stick’ for a small proportion of wealthy drivers and the experience of driving in central London is improved by the reduction in traffic associated with the charge – a ‘paradoxical carrot’ that may encourage car use. Meanwhile motorists outside of this elite group are shepherded into public transport.
Of course, this misses the bigger picture. While a very small number of drivers may feel they have benefited from the charge, a much larger number will have benefited from the improvement in public transport – not least those who cannot afford a car. Furthermore, everyone benefited from improved air quality.
This success has encouraged variations of the scheme to emerge. In 2017, record air pollution led another newly-elected mayor, Sadiq Khan, to implement the toxicity charge (T-Charge) – an additional fee for the most polluting vehicles. This was replaced by the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in 2019, which levies fees at all times on vehicles falling below a certain emissions standard – expanded in 2023 to cover the entire Greater London region.
The ULEZ scheme introduces new ‘carrots’ to offset the bigger ‘stick’. Of course, the key benefit is the much greater reduction in emissions, improving public health and disproportionately benefiting those more vulnerable to such pollution. It also incentivizes the needed shift to cleaner vehicles, public transport and active travel and generates revenue for reinvestment into other services.
As with the Congestion Charge, the impact for people on low incomes or with additional mobility needs was somewhat mitigated by improving public transport – although this is much more challenging given the huge increase in the geographic area of the ULEZ and the relatively sparser coverage of public transport services in the outer regions. Further mitigations include vehicle scrappage incentives and promotion of alternative mobility services.
London’s approach to using financial means to influence travel behaviors has evolved its extent and sophistication and in its understanding of how ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ apply to a complex and ever-changing social, technical and economic environment. It’s not perfect but is a hugely valuable case study illustrating how transport lays the foundations for societal prosperity, how policy decisions have far-reaching and nuanced implications and the challenges that we must face in achieving safe, clean, efficient and equitable mobility.
This article first appeared in the March 2024 edition of TTi magazine
