Evaluation Design of London's Congestion Pricing Program - Research Paper Example

Evaluation Design of The London’s Congestion Pricing Program of 2003 INTRODUCTION The London Congestion Pricing Program is a concept that was introduced in the city in a bid to help regulate the amount of traffic entering the certain designated areas. The particular area of interest at inception was central London. This program involves the pricing of a scarce resource and charging a given amount of money for the use of such a resource. In this case, the roads happen to be scarce especially during peak hours due to the many users, and hence the congestion. This concept was not new by the time it was introduced in London, but it was an undertaking that demanded a lot of goodwill from both the political leaders and the public for successful implementation. Singapore was the first major city in the world to implement this concept. The program has since been lauded as a successful venture and that saw its westward expansion. PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION The London Congestion Pricing Program was introduced in February 2003. It was designed and implemented in response to the problem of traffic congestion in the city. It was championed by the then mayor of London. The streets of central London were particularly prone to congestion at that point in time, especially during the peak hours. The congestion was practically unavoidable owing to the significantly higher demand for the streets that had hardly expanded since the medieval ages. According to Transport for London problems such as clogging up the streets of London, inhibiting the profitability of the businesses and loss of around 50% of the drivers’ time in the queues were seen to prevail in these circumstances. It was estimated that 2-4 million Euros per week were lost in the form of time. Besides, the reputation of London as a thriving world city was at stake. Transport for London is the agency that implements the congestion pricing program. It is also notable that such congestion is of great harm to human health owing to the harmful gases emitted during such congestion. Minimizing the emission would not only avoid the harmful effects to human health but also to help in lowering the environmental effects of such gases. All these problems negatively affected the economy of the city and the region in multiple ways. The scheme had been previously recommended by planners and economists but, it was not until after the election of Mayor Ken Livingstone that its implementation became a reality. According to a study by Todd Litman, his platform for election included a pledge to implement the congestion pricing scheme. That implies that the issue of congestion was most likely a pressing need among Londoners and needed decisive action. This was certainly a viable response to the problem. ELEMENTS OF THE INTERVENTION The program was designed to curb congestion by imposing taxes on the vehicles plying streets (liable to congestion) in designated areas. The elements involved in this program included a fee of £5 for every vehicle that drove through the designated areas. The fee was revised to £8 with effect from July 2005. The fee is paid by motorists on weekdays between 7:00am and 6:30pm. There are discounts and exceptions in these rule and these are: residents, organizations, blue badge holders and vehicles with certain specifications (vehicles used by disabled people, alternative fuel vehicles, electrically propelled vehicles, vehicles with nine or more seats, licensed taxis, motor tricycles and emergency vehicles,). A 15% discount is given to those who purchase weekly, monthly or annual passes. The taxes can be paid online, by SMS, by phone, at a shop or by post. The payment should be done before driving into the designated areas. One who has not paid the congestion charge is easily identified by the cameras located all over to screen the number plates of the vehicles accessing these areas. Vehicles that access the areas are charged a fine of £80. This reduces to £40 if paid within two weeks, and increases to £120 if not paid within a month. The scheme also involves a comprehensive marking of the designated streets as well as clear indication of the cameras engaged in the screening process. These funds were, according to Todd Litman and by law, to be used to improve transport in London. A substantial amount of money has been collected in the implementation of the program and the transport system has benefited as a result. The program cost a lot to set up and implement. A comprehensive study had to be done before the program could be set up. A lot of equipment had to be acquired and installed. It also required a great deal of training both for the administrators and the users. Maintenance of the program and all its related facilities was also a cost to bear. This implies that quite a lot of resources were required to implement and run the program. INTENDED BENEFICIARIES AND THE BENEFITS The London Congestion Pricing Program was implemented intently to solve a problem of tremendous magnitude. The problem of traffic congestion is common place in almost all the leading cities in the world. The few that do not have problems with traffic in spite of their big sizes are those that apply well thought out plans to curb the problem. In the case of London, congestion was a persistent problem that seemed to have no solution until a bold Ken Livingstone, was voted in as mayor of the city. In fact, his promise to fix the undesirable state of things in central London was fundamental to his election as mayor. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the primary beneficiaries of this program are the Londoners. A host of other stakeholders ultimately gain as a result of the program, but the residents of the city have arguably gained more. In the campaigns, ken Livingstone said that too many Londoners were trying to drive to a very small area, which is central London. A combination of too many vehicles held up in traffic jam definitely led to very high levels of pollution. The move to reduce both the number of vehicles and the amount of fumes emitted on a congested road drastically lowered the levels of pollution. About 12% of pollutants in the air were eliminated and emission of carbon dioxide dropped by 20%. As a result the residents gained substantially in terms of health and a cleaner environment. As earlier stated, the revenues accruing from the program are used to improve the transport system in London. A substantial amount of money has definitely been raised in the course of the program. For example, according to the figures presented by transport for London, by March 2006, the net proceeds from the project stood at £303 million. At that time it was anticipated that a total of £620 million would be raised in the next four years. These funds are used to improve various aspects of the transport system. These include: improving bus networks, extending accessibility of the system for all Londoners regardless of their mobility, interchange improvements to enhance integration of the transport network, enhancing safety and security, accelerating road and bridge maintenance and increasing late night public transport, among others. All these improvements amount to great benefits to the residents of the city. Besides the above benefits, it is also remarkable that with reduction in the amount of traffic, the average speed of vehicles using these streets has increased significantly by 37% from 8 mph to 11 mph. it is also notable that the peak period delays declined by about 30%, while the bus congestion delays declined by a whooping 50%, according to the study by Todd Litman. The Londoners also got another valuable benefit as a result of the program. Taxi fares declined significantly by between 20-40%, since the delays were drastically reduced. With the taxis being able to cover more miles per hour, they were more productive and thus the lower prices. That meant a gain for both the drivers and their clients since they all saved money and time. Generally, most city centre businesses thrived and continue to thrive as a result of this initiative. The productivity is thus higher than before and the reputation of the city is no longer at risk, at least not because of the congestion. In fact other cities like New York too very valuable lessons from the success of the program. ASSUMPTIONS It is definite that the intervention program was developed upon consideration of a set of assumptions. These were necessary in order to help establish the most appropriate model for addressing the prevailing need. The program is founded on the hypothesis that charging a congestion fee on the vehicles entering the designated zone will help resolve the problem of congestion and associated issues. The fact that accessing central London bore no expense before implementation of the program, it was assumed, meant that a lot of people drove to that area. Consequently, making it a bit more expensive to drive to the area by imposing a congestion fee would cut the number of people driving to the area. Upon increasing the cost of driving into central London, the motorists would then look for the cheaper alternative means of accessing the same area. The alternative in that case would most probably be public transport. Since public transport is better placed to move masses, a lot of people would thus access the area but with less traffic. As a result the transport would be more effective and thus the tariffs would go down. The tariffs would go down owing to the fact that the bus companies would adjust fares so as to maintain their operating surplus or deficit. That leads to an assumption that the increased cost of driving versus lowered cost of use of public and alternative means of transport would result in lower congestion. The relative increase in the average miles covered per hour in this area would hence lead improved business and cleaner air assuming that these factors depend on the level of congestion. These factors in the sense that higher speed would push up the rate of business as well as reduce the amount of fumes released in to the air. It was also assumed that there in spite of increased cost of driving into central London during the charging hours, a substantial number of people would still want to drive into the area. As a result the fee was projected as enough to sustain the project after initial investment. Besides, the program was seen as one capable of earning a net income that would be channeled towards improvement of London’s transport system. MONITORING AND EVALUATION DESIGN The monitoring and evaluation model is meant to help determine the effectiveness of the program. In essence it is supposed to measure the extent to which the goals of the project are achieved according to the preset time frames. However, the evaluation should not be purely bound to the goals of the project. In so doing, the model can be flexible enough to evaluate much relevant more details beyond the goals and objectives of the program. The design should be in a position to give feedback on the various variables that are used to determine the progress made. The evaluation can formative or summative but the goals are basically the same. In the case of London congestion pricing program, the main objective was to reduce congestion. That is therefore a fundamental variable to consider in the evaluation model. Congestion in this setting implies the amount of traffic in the designated area especially during the peak hours. The key indicator for this variable is the level by which the amount of traffic falls. It is however not enough to have the figures drop for a start. Maintaining the new figures or even getting them lower. Average speed is the other variable that can help measure the effectiveness of the program. It is only logical that the amount of congestion directly affects the average speed covered by the road users. A reduction in the number of road users at a given time in the day should therefore help increase this speed. Pollution levels should also play a significant role in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. Given that the environment is a key player in the wellbeing of the residents of the city, showing the positive effects of the program would not only show its effectiveness but also enhance its acceptability. The amount of gases produced by vehicles should be analysed and the levels should drop significantly. Owing to the increased cost of driving in central London, patronage of the public transit services should increase significantly during the peak hours. This is because the number of people moving into the city centre does not drop greatly, although the number of vehicles does. If that does not happen even upon implementation of the program, then the effectiveness of the program comes to question. Patronage levels can therefore be effective evaluation tools. The fares charged by the public transport service providers should go down by a certain margin. This is because of increased patronage levels and higher speed. The greater efficiency and bigger client base should help improve profitability of the service providers and hence push down the fares. The program is intended to raise funds to help improve the transport system in the city. Consequently, the net income raked in by the project is a good evaluation tool. If the project is self-sustaining and has a surplus to be channeled towards improvement of the infrastructure, then it is successful ion that case. The projects employed should substantially enhance transport in the city. It would therefore be prudent to assess the effectiveness of the projects in their own capacity. Another criterion to assess the effectiveness of the program is its acceptance by the public and their willingness to comply with laid down regulations. This is because the program needs acceptance by the people it purports to serve. If the program is not adequately accepted, then it can hardly be sustained. Upon acceptance of the program, compliance should not be a big issue and its success can almost be ascertained. Use of alternative means of transport in the charging zone during the peak hours can also be an indicator of successful decongestion. The road users may shift from private vehicles to public means, cycling or walking. That directly lowers congestion levels and hence an indicator of successful program implementation. Change of routes or time of travel can also be used to determine the effectiveness of the program. Those who wish to access a given point in the city and must not use the city centre to do so can use an alternative route. In so doing, they are able to avoid the high cost of driving through the charging zone. In the same way, those who can travel before or after the charging time can do so and hence avoid the charges. These kinds of moves will help lower the amount of congestion. In the evaluation, therefore, these they should be seen to increase by a substantial percentage. Following is a table in which an analysis of the monitoring and evaluation can be entered. Monitoring and Evaluation Model Program Activity Performance Indicators Observed outcomes Impacts recommendations CONCLUSION The monitoring and evaluation model should go a long way in helping establish the extent of success of the program. It should show the level of achievement of the laid down goals and objectives as well as show any other consequences resulting from the program. The proposed design is internally valid due to the fact that the performance indicators are based on verifiable data. There may however be a degree of bias in the sense that factors other than the program may result in a shift in the indicators and hence displaying a wrong observation. That can however be minimized by getting a relevant control group in the same city to help make more objective observations. The fact that other project aimed at impacting the lives of Londoners do not cease to run with the onset of this program means that the external validity will definitely be affected to some extent. Consequently a careful consideration of the possible effects of the other program on some issues should be done. References Richards, Martin. Congestion Charging in London: The Policy and the Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 Read More