GOING WEST â - London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Operating HoursAs discussed earlier in this report, company directors were dismissive of the benefitsthat would derive from ending the charge half an hour earlier, at 6pm rather than6.30pm. However, while this proposal was derided there was widespread support forthe idea of more significant changes to the congestion charge’s hours of operation.The manager of an optician on the King’s Road said that the congestion chargeshould only operate during rush hour ‘because during the day there is no congestionproblem here’.The LCCI survey suggested two different proposals for changing the operating hoursof the charge: creating a charge free window between 11am and 2pm each day orsimply ending the charge at 1pm daily. The proposition that the charge should beterminated at 1pm is based upon the logic that much rush hour traffic at both ends ofthe day would be curtailed by the morning charge and then deliveries and shopperscould be allowed to travel into the zone free of charge in the afternoon. Thealternative suggestion, that of creating a charge-free window in the middle of the day,would allow a delivery window for trade and perhaps the possibility that people couldcome into the city and have lunch and do some shopping.Both ideas were endorsed by the majority of respondents though support wasmarkedly higher for ending the charge at 1pm, which was backed by 71 per cent ofthose surveyed compared with the 55 per cent who supported the charge freewindow proposal.The proprietor of a furnishing shop, said that ending the charge at 1pm ‘woulddecrease commuting whilst allowing businesses to trade’. The proprietor of theBourbon Hanby Antiques Centre said a charge free window ‘is sensible because atthat time of the day there is not much traffic anyway’. Some businesses liked the ideaof the charge free window but felt that it could be longer or should cover a differentperiod. According the partner of a retailing and manufacturing company: “11am to4pm would be better to allow parents to pick up their children.” One restaurateur feltthe charge free window should be four hours not three.However, these ideas were not without their critics. Joseph Wan of Harvey Nicholssaid: “[the charge-free window] was part of our recommendations, but is still notideal.” Yvonne Sakthiseelan, store manager of One Nation, was concerned that thecharge free window scheme ‘would lead to heavy congestion in those hours’, asentiment echoed by the store manager of a King’s Road store, who said: “it wouldonly worsen the lunch hour rush.” Colin Thorpe, manager of Animal Fair, said it was‘too complicated’. The marketing manager of a grocery shop said of the proposal: “itmay have some benefits but, from a staffing point of view, it seems impractical.” Thedirector of corporate communications of a department store puts across theargument held by many of those interviewed when he labelled the idea of a chargefree window ‘confusing’. Fears that a time window would encourage congestion andthat people could get caught in the zone whilst trying to leave in time were alsoamong the concerns raised by interviewees.One director of a retail company said that: “the removal [of the charge] on key dayssuch as around Christmas is helpful.” This echoes the finding of a previous report bythe London Chamber of Commerce, based on interviews with company directors inthe retail, hospitality and leisure sectors in December 2005, which called for the21
suspension of the congestion charge for the whole of the final full week beforeChristmas each year. 21Monitoring and AssessmentTfL has paid for extensive reports analysing the impacts of the congestion charge onbusiness. The obvious problem with this state of affairs is that the organisationcommissioning the analysis clearly has a vested interest in the scheme beingperceived as a success.Objective analysis by independent experts is now accepted policy in a number ofother areas where the actions of government have serious economic consequences.For example, the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of Englandin 1997 and, more recently, proposals by HM Treasury to make the Office of NationalStatistics independent of government. In both cases the moves have sought torebuild public confidence in the integrity and transparency of economic decisionmaking.These sentiments are echoed by the business community surveyed regarding thetransparency of the congestion charge. According to one major high-street retailer,‘to expect TfL to conduct an independent investigation is ludicrous’. The proprietor ofa clothing shop said: “I am not against the congestion charge. But it needs to beclear, fair and have proper aims.” Rebecca Salt, director of communications at EarlsCourt Olympia, said: “I would rather see the whole charge given a review from anindependent body to look at the results and impact on business.”National Road Pricing: A Smarter Alternative?A modern and flexible road pricing system could be more equitable in ensuring themost heavily congested roads really were cleared. The system could be far moreconvenient and easier to pay, it would be more responsive to actual real-time trafficflows, have less of a damaging impact on business in a specific area and it could bemore likely to raise revenue for the capital. If the system was applied nationally, noarea would be specifically penalised and businesses could once again compete on amore equitable grounding.Road pricing had its supporters amongst the company directors surveyed. Some 51per cent of respondents said they considered a national road pricing scheme to be agood idea. Hazel Smith, chair of the King’s Road Trade Association, said such ascheme would be ‘much fairer’. George Khachfe, director of Poliform UK Ltd, said itwould be an improvement if it was instead of the congestion charge. Alan MacKay,general manager of Bill Amberg Ltd, said he had ‘no problem with the idea that heavyroad users pay more than low road users’. The proprietor of a retailer in the zonesaid: “It’s a much fairer system. Why should we have to pay [the congestion charge]to drive in our residential area?” She also added that one solution to congestionwould be to ‘charge the M1 - people coming into London instead of those livingthere’.The proprietor of one furnishing shop said: “It is very unfair to single out one area.We will be isolated from the rest of the city…[national road pricing] is a fairer system.But it must apply to a greater area and mustn’t single out certain areas.” Thissentiment was shared by the director of an antique shop who said: “Some sort of22
Page 1 and 2: GOING WEST -Recommendations based o
Page 3 and 4: The London Chamber of Commerce has
Page 5 and 6: Trotters (King’s Road, SW3), Rich
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary• February 2006
Page 9 and 10: 1. IntroductionThe purpose of this
Page 11 and 12: 2. Views on the WEZValue for money?
Page 13 and 14: Secondly, as Annie McDonald, manage
Page 15 and 16: According to the store manager of o
Page 17 and 18: 62 per cent attributed this fall to
Page 19 and 20: shown that ‘the combined impact o
Page 21: 4. Towards a better congestion char
Page 25 and 26: ConclusionThe attitude of businesse
Page 27 and 28: The LCCI would like to thank the fo
Page 29 and 30: Pantalon Chameleon, Retailer, SW6Pa
Page 31: 12. Will the Mayor’s proposal to

GOING WEST â - London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

GOING WEST â - London Chamber of Commerce and Industry