Congestion charging and the walking classes
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7385.345 (Published 15 February 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:345
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
EDITOR – I definitely agree with Ian Roberts 1 that congestion
charging is a good idea, but much more is needed to tackle road danger at
its source in the UK. When I first came to this country I was shocked by
the lack of respect for pedestrians and cyclists in the UK traffic
infrastructure compared to other European countries of similar wealth like
Germany, France or the Netherlands. This is evident in many aspects of the
daily traffic experience:
Dysfunctional traffic lights
- The existence of major road crossings in city centres with traffic
lights for cars, but without traffic lights for pedestrians.
- The time during which a pedestrian traffic light is green is so short,
elderly citizens, small children, parents with pushchairs or disabled
persons cannot cross safely.
- At many pedestrian crossings with traffic lights, the lights start
already flashing amber for cars when the pedestrian signs are still on
green.
- Pedestrian traffic lights only turn green when someone pushes the
button, producing intolerable waiting times for pedestrians which in turn
result in many ignoring the lights altogether.
Insufficient inner city speed limits
- Speed limits in inner cities or villages are 40 and 30 mph whereas in
other EU countries for equivalent situations they are approximately 30 and
20 mph (50 and 30 km per hour).
Defaults in infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists
- Pavements are often so narrow that pedestrians are forced to walk on the
streets.
- If there are cycle paths at all, they often come to an end before
dangerous crossings and only resume after the crossing.
- Roundabouts, which abound in this country, are a nightmare for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Car-centred traffic legislation
- Cars turning into side roads have priority over pedestrians who continue
on a straight trajectory.
Adding to these the shortcomings in quality and infrastructure of
public transport, all these points add to the impression that the UK
Government is much less concerned about road safety of pedestrians and
cyclists than other governments in Europe.
A nationwide audit of current traffic control practices and rapid
implementation of improvement measures is urgently needed to protect the
most vulnerable groups of the traffic system – children and the elderly.
‘Tinkering around the edges of the problem’ 1 is as much needed as a big
bang policy restricted to London’s inner city.
1. Roberts I. Congestion charging and the walking classes. BMJ
2003;326:345-6.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor :
At last, you have sounded a note of sanity amidst the
hysteria which has characterised the debate on congestion
charging ('Congestion charging and the walking classes', BMJ
15 February). As a member of the 'walking (and cycling)
class' who gave up her car 10 years ago in London I can
wholly endorse your observation that it is the poor (or
car-less in my case) who face the greatest risk on the
roads. As a consequence our children have become virtual
prisoners in their own homes and our streets belong to the
muggers. I am not a great fan of Ken Livingstone but I do
think he has shown true guts in introducing this charge and
only wish the government had a fraction of his courage.
The congestion charge is an example of social justice and,
as you point out, a major public health reform. As such, the
medical profession should welcome it with open arms. I hope it does.
Competing interests:
Member of Friends of the
Earth.
Competing interests: No competing interests
As a worker for the London Ambulance Service, it could be said that i
am biased in being against the congestion charge, in actual fact this is
not the case, i merely cringe at one loophole which has been left in the
congestion charge setup.
The congestion charge in central London will not be levied on
motorbikes, only cars - presumably because motorbikes are smaller, more
manouverable, and therefore cause less congestion than cars. Fantasic, so
far so logical, but i predict that the congestion charge will lead to a
boom of bike sales, as all inner city workers rush to get bikes and get
qualified to dodge the charge and still avoid having to expend energy in
getting to work (i know i would if i could afford to).
I am reliably informed that riding a motorbike is an acquired skill
and requires good vision and road awareness all around because one is so
vulnerable and much harder for others to see. Driving in London is an
interesting experience at the moment, because a few (it only takes a few)
people just do not THINK when behind the wheel, let alone pay adequate
attention to the road, other road users etc.
Imagine then, if you will, just some of these impatient and
inconsiderate road users, applying their roadcraft and road attitudes to a
motorbike which they aren't used to. Now i hope you see why i cringe.
In my view the congestion charge could lead to a rise in motorbike
RTAs, and a rise in mortality and traumatic injuries, especially cervical
spine injuries because motorbikes offer so little protection in a crash. I
can only hope i'm wrong.
Competing interests:
London Ambulance Service Worker
Competing interests: No competing interests
I strongly agree with Ian Roberts’ view – that traffic can damage
health and well being, particularly among those on lower incomes. However,
I have concerns about the possible effects of congestion charging upon
traffic speeds in London. Traffic congestion appears to have been a highly
effective, if inadvertent, form of traffic calming in London and seems to
have played an important role in reducing pedestrian fatalities in the
city.
My PhD analysis (recently completed and submitted) focused on the
geography of child and teenage road accident fatalities in England &
Wales. I found that deaths among child pedestrians aged 5-9 years and 10-
14 years declined faster between 1981-85 and 1991-95 in the Inner London
Boroughs in comparison to other districts in England and Wales. The Inner
London Boroughs, over this time period, have changed from having
relatively high pedestrian death rates in comparison to other districts to
relatively low death rates in these age groups. The sharp fall in child
pedestrian death rates in Inner London have coincided with falls in
traffic speeds (1, 2)and increasing congestion. The significant
improvements in Inner London’s record on child pedestrian fatalities
appear to have been lost in discussion of London’s growing traffic
volumes.
The beneficial role of congestion in reducing pedestrian fatalities
is further suggested by the results of my analysis which finds that
between 1981-85 and 1991-95 child pedestrian fatalities became relatively
less concentrated in high population density urban wards in England and
Wales. While the movements of children have been increasingly restricted
as traffic volumes have increased (3), the importance of falling traffic
speeds in reducing fatal pedestrian accidents is suggested by the falling
risk of death per mile travelled by foot (4, 5). Falling traffic speeds
also may also explain in part why overall numbers of traffic injuries in
Britain have been stable in recent years but the proportion of fatalities
has declined (2).
Highly congested streets are clearly not the ideal environment for
pedestrian journeys. However, the alternative option of fewer, faster
moving vehicles offered by congestion charging in central London appears
to produce obvious benefits for those travelling by car and bus in terms
of reduced journey times, but the benefits are more ambiguous for those
travelling by foot. There is a real risk that if congestion charging
meets its objectives of reducing traffic volumes and increasing traffic
speeds that there will be fewer traffic collisions but with a greater
proportion of these collisions resulting in serious and fatal injuries.
It is important therefore that the impact of congestion charging upon
traffic speeds and the numbers of traffic injuries of different severities
are carefully monitored.
1. Rowland M (1998) Traffic Speeds in Inner London: 1998, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Statistical Bulletin (98),
22
2. Department for Transport (2003) Transport Statistics Great
Britain: 2002 Edition; London: HMSO
3. Hillman M, Adams J and Whitelegg J (1990) One False Move: A Study
of Children's Independent Mobility, London: Policy Studies Institute
4. DiGuiseppi C, Roberts I, Li L (1997) Influence of changing travel
patterns on child death rates from injury: trend analysis, BMJ, Vol. 314,
pp710-3
5. DiGuiseppi C, Li L and Roberts I (1998) Influence of travel
patterns on mortality from injury among teenagers in England and Wales,
1985-95: trend analysis, BMJ, Vol. 316, 21 pp904-5
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I fully endorse this excellent paper; it is good to see the public
health impact of traffic so well described.
I would, however, urge just one note of caution. Although it is
likely that 'less car travel will result in fewer crashes', if traffic
levels drop enough to shorten journey times (which is one of Ken
Livingstone's stated aims), the inevitable increase in speeds may in fact
increase the danger from traffic.
This is not in any to diminsh the rightness or importance of
congestion charging, or other mechanisms for internalising the
externalities of travel. But we should be aware of potential unintended
consequences; awareness may help us to avoid them.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
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