Congestion charging paradox is becoming quite the problem for Boris Johnson - and the rest of us too…

From the Mayor of London’s most recent transport plan it looks like the inherent can’t-win dynamic that lies at the core of the congestion charging concept is starting to cause some mild frustration to say the least. The situation is simple: Boris’s budgets are facing a serious shortfall, while congestion in the country’s economic heart looks set to rise unacceptably by 2020 despite the introduction of more buses, cycling routes and all the other measures that Johnson had planned. So Boris needs to raise some extra cash from somewhere, and also to think of additional measures to reduce jams and pollution: surely a congestion charge plan should be considered a godsend in such a situation?

Well, in theory it certainly is - but for one major, and very simple, obstacle: it is generally a very unpopular measure, and ultimately populist politicians like Johnson quite like to give the people what they want. It is this inherent unpopularity of the scheme that seems very difficult to surmount, despite the fact that almost all motorists who oppose the charge would probably also recognise that a problem with congestion and pollution needs tackling, and soon.

Herein lies the key problem - that while we generally tend to acknowledge that something needs to be done, we are dogmatically opposed to any solution that really tests our commitment beyond mere lip service. In other words; we uncompromisingly recognise the necessity of a solution, but only if someone else can pay for it.

Edinburgh and Manchester’s recent public rejection of a congestion charge scheme illustrates exactly where we are on the public perception of such schemes (Manchester voted nearly 4 to 1 against for example). Therefore though Boris publicly seems unwilling to make any concessions to expanding congestion charging schemes, his transport strategy hints that such a choice represents actually quite a sensible option, but in the end it is all quite irrelevant until a more pressing concern is tackled: that of public support for such a programme. After all, what’s the point in forcing through a measure which will then last only a year or two before the next populist Mayor comes in to repeal it (just as Johnson did to Ken Livingstone)?

Ultimately the real challenge that both Johnson’s office, and the government, must recognise is that far more public discussion and information on our cities’ transport situations is required. At this point we currently face a situation where there lies a great disparity between the knowledge contained in specialists’ reports on the challenges we must tackle, and the public’s level of access to such info in more digestible formats. Until we can rectify this we will always shoot ourselves in the foot by shackling the options available to politicians by virtue of our own unwillingness to understand that no workable and viable transport arrangement can ever come either easy, or cheap.

Dejan Levi

, , , , ,

Boris Johnson proves himself a reckless populist once more - this time over congestion charging

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has rather amazingly gotten away with yet another wilfully stubborn and reckless decision last week. This time it’s his repealing of the Western extension to London’s congestion charge zone, which was introduced under previous mayor Ken Livingstone, that has caused shock and incredulity.

The future looks a little like this: charging in the Western zone will cease sometime in 2010, costing TfL somewhere in the region of £55-70m and no doubt contributing to an increase in congestion and, consequently, pollution. So, just to recap, Boris has decided to make London’s public transport body poorer, the city’s air dirtier, its roads more crowded and finally its CO2 emissions greater. Now I don’t live in London myself but nonetheless the issue seems pretty black and white to me. Question is - how on earth has this measure got through?

Ah yes - apparently Boris cites the justification for the move as being that it upholds democratic and economic principles. The problem is that in the current economic climate it’s almost guaranteed that any policy which provides ‘economic relief’ to the struggling public is sure to get by. In short, Boris is a supreme opportunist who knows exactly when to take advantage of the general public’s disorientation and hardship.

Why not also sell off all of London’s buses for fifty quid each, and then pass on a fiver to every  resident of London? No more economic downturn! No more credit crunch! Boris is a genius! Well for about 5 minutes anyway, until we realise that we actually have to live with the consequences of such policies for a lot longer than it takes to spend a few extra pounds at the pub.

Boris says people want the congestion charge scrapped. What they actually want is ANYTHING that will decrease the pressure on households trying to make ends meet amidst rising bills and job losses. Instead of coming up with viable ways to improve the stability and prospects of London’s economy, he is shamelessly reducing ‘democracy’ to a convenient buzzword for justifying a foolish and short-sighted policy.

While most of the world wakes up to the intrinsic relationship between environment and economics (i.e. if we ignore the former in order to prioritise the latter, we’re in serious trouble) Boris is seemingly happy to pretend its 1988 and not 2008 for the sake of popularity. If he were serious about actually improving the economy of London then maybe he would consider some effective and long-term policies that are environmentally sustainable and hence will be economically viable next year as well as this month. Sadly this doesn’t seem likely at the moment.

I’m curious what positive measures Boris has in store to alleviate the problem of congestion and pollution in the capital. Judging on his environmental record thus far i’m not expecting much, though i’d love nothing more than for him to turn round and prove me super super wrong. We’ll see…

Dejan Levi 

, , , ,