The walking classes also need road-space reallocation
Dear Sir
Congestion charging and the walking classes
We very much welcome Ian Roberts' editorial, making the case for the
new London Congestion Charge on health grounds (1), particularly as the
revenue is legally required to be spent on transport improvements. We
agree that the likely result is an increase in physically active transport
such as walking and cycling. It is important that this be monitored
adequately, with attention given to prior activity levels and broken down
by socio-demographic groups, to assess the impacts on health and
inequalities.
There are other potential effects of congestion charging, for example
that it is likely to improve access for emergency vehicles, but not all
are positive; the impact of the policy will depend on which complementary
measures are introduced at the same time.
One statement with which we disagree is, "Less car travel will result
in fewer crashes". This is one aspect of the charge where the impacts are
more difficult to predict.(2) If Transport for London’s predictions are
correct that shorter journey times will occur primarily due to reductions
in time spent queuing at junctions, i.e. that shorter journey times will
ensue without concomitant increases in travelling speed, then he is
probably correct. If traffic reduction is greater than predicted, then
travel speeds may become substantially faster. While shorter journey times
could reduce people's exposure to the risk of collisions, higher speeds
could increase the risk by a greater amount.(3)
Congestion charging without other transport improvements could also
have an adverse impact on equity: road space vacated by people who are
deterred by the charge could be occupied by those who are less price-
sensitive, who are likely to have higher disposable income (3),
reinforcing the benefits of access for wealthy drivers and the adverse
effects of others’ car use for the less well-off.
Both of these potentially adverse effects can be effectively combated
by the simultaneous introduction of road-space reallocation measures,
giving priority to buses, preferential access to disabled drivers, and
effective protection to cyclists and pedestrians.(3) This is largely true
of the London Congestion Charge, but it is important to consider when
other towns and cities follow suit.
Even London has thus far been timid about pedestrianising road space
– Soho and Covent Garden would seem like ideal candidates. Experience has
shows that whereas such schemes tend to be initially opposed by
shopkeepers and other local businesses, once the schemes are implemented,
they benefit economically.
Yours sincerely
Michael Joffe
Jennifer Mindell
1. Roberts I. Congestion charging and the walking classes. BMJ 2003;
326: 345-46.
2. Mindell J. Quantification of health impacts of air quality
management in Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. PhD thesis
submitted to University of London.
Rapid Response:
The walking classes also need road-space reallocation
Dear Sir
Congestion charging and the walking classes
We very much welcome Ian Roberts' editorial, making the case for the
new London Congestion Charge on health grounds (1), particularly as the
revenue is legally required to be spent on transport improvements. We
agree that the likely result is an increase in physically active transport
such as walking and cycling. It is important that this be monitored
adequately, with attention given to prior activity levels and broken down
by socio-demographic groups, to assess the impacts on health and
inequalities.
There are other potential effects of congestion charging, for example
that it is likely to improve access for emergency vehicles, but not all
are positive; the impact of the policy will depend on which complementary
measures are introduced at the same time.
One statement with which we disagree is, "Less car travel will result
in fewer crashes". This is one aspect of the charge where the impacts are
more difficult to predict.(2) If Transport for London’s predictions are
correct that shorter journey times will occur primarily due to reductions
in time spent queuing at junctions, i.e. that shorter journey times will
ensue without concomitant increases in travelling speed, then he is
probably correct. If traffic reduction is greater than predicted, then
travel speeds may become substantially faster. While shorter journey times
could reduce people's exposure to the risk of collisions, higher speeds
could increase the risk by a greater amount.(3)
Congestion charging without other transport improvements could also
have an adverse impact on equity: road space vacated by people who are
deterred by the charge could be occupied by those who are less price-
sensitive, who are likely to have higher disposable income (3),
reinforcing the benefits of access for wealthy drivers and the adverse
effects of others’ car use for the less well-off.
Both of these potentially adverse effects can be effectively combated
by the simultaneous introduction of road-space reallocation measures,
giving priority to buses, preferential access to disabled drivers, and
effective protection to cyclists and pedestrians.(3) This is largely true
of the London Congestion Charge, but it is important to consider when
other towns and cities follow suit.
Even London has thus far been timid about pedestrianising road space
– Soho and Covent Garden would seem like ideal candidates. Experience has
shows that whereas such schemes tend to be initially opposed by
shopkeepers and other local businesses, once the schemes are implemented,
they benefit economically.
Yours sincerely
Michael Joffe
Jennifer Mindell
1. Roberts I. Congestion charging and the walking classes. BMJ 2003;
326: 345-46.
2. Mindell J. Quantification of health impacts of air quality
management in Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. PhD thesis
submitted to University of London.
3. Joffe M, Garnett T, Mindell J. Mapping the links - Project
evidence base for Health Impact Assessments.
http://155.198.41.240/projects/mapthelinks/mapthelinks.htm (accessed 27
February 2003).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests