A congestion zone is a place that is popular and is normally congested with traffic. That zone has been change into a congestion zone which basically means that you have to pay to enter that area each day. Congestion zones are good because people only use them if they really have to, so a cut down on gases being emitted into the air. So, less pollution. The cost that people pay are going towards the environment, new more environmentally friendly buses. They are bad because you have to pay a sum of money to enter them, using a car becomes more expensive.
Also, people know where they are, so they may avoid that area. Which may seem a good thing, BUT they will find a different route which would cause congestion in other places. Congestion zones are both good and bad, it depends on your own view. I can’t really decide. I think they’re good on one hand because people will only use it if they really need to so they may use other forms of transport such as bikes, or public transport which would cut down on gases emitted. But then on the other hand they are bad because people are losing more money, just to get to work.
And they can cause congestion in other areas. Are Congestion Zones A Good Idea? By Katja Rackin In this report I will be finding out whether or not congestion zones are a good idea, using researched data, charts and tables to back up my ideas. The conclusion of this matter relies on how accurate and reliable the information is. Congestion Zones are used in hope that traffic gets reduced. The mayor of London has recently put congestion zones into place in hopes they will reduce traffic by 15%.
The public has to pay ?8 when entering congestion zones, however most money raised is used to improve public transport. Critics of the scheme however, say that it is unworkable and unfair. They also claim it will probably lead to more congestion as people try to avoid the charging areas. Central London has had a dramatic cut in traffic since the introduction of the congestion charge. 40 000 less people are driving through the Are Congestion Zones A Good Idea? In this report I will be finding out whether or not congestion zones are a good idea, using researched data, charts and tables to back up my ideas.
The conclusion of this matter relies on how accurate and reliable the information is. Congestion Zones are used in hope that traffic gets reduced. The mayor of London has recently put congestion zones into place in hopes they will reduce traffic by 15%. The public has to pay ?8 when entering congestion zones, however most money raised is used to improve public transport. Critics of the scheme however, say that it is unworkable and unfair. They also claim it will probably lead to more congestion as people try to avoid the charging areas.
Central London has had a dramatic cut in traffic since the introduction of the congestion charge. 40 000 less people are driving through the zone each Year 10 Science in the News: Congestion Charges The question I am trying to answer is ‘Are Congestion Zones a Good Idea? ‘. Congestion Zones were first introduced in the UK in London in the Central District in 2003. The idea of the Congestion Zone was to charge a fixed rate to travel around within this zone during a certain time frame, in London’s case between 7. 0am and 6. 30pm.
The Congestion Zone was set up in order to try and lower the amount of harmful pollutants in the air around the city centre, because (before the Zone was implemented) there would be a large volume of traffic passing through the area at a slow speed which meant cars were producing more pollution, but with the Zone cars could travel faster as there were fewer cars as they would want to try and avoid the charge and would mean less pollution was being
In the following essay I am going to answer the question: ‘are congestion charges a good idea? ‘ I shall be looking a t data, facts, opinions and trends- and will also look at how congestion charges are affecting health, the environment and the economy. http://www. dailymail. co. uk/news/article-1097003/I-scrap-congestion-zone-altogether-says-Boris. html Some people agree with the congestion charge, and can produce many facts to support their view. My source one can also provide many facts and figures.
Source one says that since the congestion zone was put into place, traffic had been cut by 18%, and delays were down by 30% Since the congestion zone has been bought in, the public transport in the city (TFL) has improved dramatically, with 29,000 more people using the service- which will mean much more money towards it’s improvement. Source one also says that the streets of London were ‘clogged’ and the heavy traffic on the roads was costing businesses approximately i??2 million a week. Research, polls and surveys also showed that 75% of Londoners supported the scheme ‘because it works’.
However, my Source two disagrees with the congestion charge, and in the source current London mayor Boris Johnson states how he plans to ‘scrap’ the extended zones altogether. Source two says that the move by Johnson follows a ‘public consultation’, in which 67% of respondents (including 86% of businesses) said they wanted the extended zone lifted. On the other hand, this source also contains some contradicting points to Johnson’s declaration, made by the labour party. They state that the movement was ‘not in the interest of Londoners’, and that it was a ‘foolish and backward step’.
They also produce figures such as: the Transport For London (TFL) will lose around i??70 million a year, which could be used on improving the service. Also, the pulling of the zones will increase traffic and air pollution in one of the ‘dirtiest and noisiest areas in central London’. The air should also get worse, which is a ‘disaster’ for the 43,00 asthma suffers in London. My Source 3 shows facts on congestion, not only in London, but also other cities were the scheme is being thought about.
This source shows that almost 86% of Britain’s traffic is in England, and that congestion has a number of consequences, such as causing delays and making journey times unreliable. This agrees with my evidence for the congestion charge. However, the source then goes on to say their research shows that traffic on key routes slows down around the times of 6:30am and 6:45am due to congestion, then returns to normal speeds around 9:30am- although the congestion charge applies during the times of 7:00am and 6:00pm- so surely the times should be earlier? B;
Congestion zones are reducing the amount of gases thrown into our atmosphere by motor vehicles. (only that particular area of course, but hey, it’s a start) Data that I have found shows that though levels of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Benzene are higher in the congestion zone- levels of each are dropping at a much faster rate than outside. This is because the areas of the congestion zone was one of the busiest in London, so the levels will naturally take time to decrease to the levels of outside. However, the rates are dropping faster because with the i??8. 0 charge in place not many people will want to pass through the zone unless its necessary, so therefore there is less air pollution in the area due to a drop in vehicles.
This data supports the congestion charges for safer air. One thing that congestion zones are doing as well as the previously mentioned, is reducing the risk of damage to the city. This is because the zones are dropping levels of SO2, which is essentially acid rain. In 2001, there average levels of SO2 were 4. 274 in the zones, and the predicted levels for 2010, nine years later, is down to 1. 38. This reduces the risk of damage because acid rain has an effect on Limestone (a material that a lot of statues are made out of) where by it almost eats away at it, so the zones because of this. Same with the levels of Benzene- a harmful bi-product of burning fuel. In 2001, the levels were at an average of 1. 072, in 2010 the levels have been predicted to be around 0. 658. C; Source reliability can make all the difference, which is why I have picked three very reliable sources. My Source one is a report by BBCNEWS.
I feel this makes it very reliable. This is because the BBC is a well known and trusted organisation, backed by the government. The Source also includes exclusive interviews for the BBC by the mayor of the time, Ken Livingstone. This report was published on the 17th February 2004. Though this source is a few years old, I think it is still reliable, because the evidence is still valid; also because of the report being published one year after the scheme was put into place, we can see how it is progressing, and compare results to determine its success.
The Source is very relevant to the question, as it provides facts supported and given by the government, but also includes opinions of Londoners. The Source also has validility, as it addresses all the factors that it claims to. My second Source, also a BBCNEWS report is just as, if not more reliable than the first. This is because again, the organisation is trusted, and the BBC spoke exclusively to current London mayor Boris Johnson, Labours Transport Spokesperson Val Shawcross and Green Party’s Jenny Jones. This report was published on Thursday 27th November 2008. making it very reliable as this was less than one year ago. I think the report is relevant to the question ,because although it is first and foremost about plans to ‘scrap’ the extended zones, it still presents facts, figures and evidence for and against the congestion charges.
I think this Source is a valid one, as it stays to the question mostly, though I do not think it is as valid as source 1- as it does go into different points. My final Source are road statistics from the governments Department Of Transport. DFT) Because the stats are from the government, they are going to be very reliable indeed, as they will contain no gossip, rumours or assumptions. The document doesn’t state the exact date of when it was published, but the statistics are from 2007, so are still reliable because they are still fairly recent. The report will also be in no way bias, and will have been reviewed many times before being published- adding to its reliability. This data is accurate, and I know this because if the document was inaccurate, the government would have corrected the information immediately, after all, they want no reason for the public to dislike them.
I think that though less than Sources one and two it has some validility, because although it is not answering the question, or even aiming to answer the question, it does prevent some facts that are relevant to the question, such as the percentage of traffic and consequences of congestion. Out of all my Sources, I feel that my Source two is most reliable. This is due to age, validility, fact, bias, author and the exclusive interviews. This Source shows both positive and negative points about the congestion charge. D;
The congestion charge also has an impact on many other things, which I can place under Social, Economical and Environmental. Social: The people that will be affected by this are local, national and global. It will mainly affect local, seeing as those in the area will either have to pay the charge, or they will be facing probable delays on alternate routes, due to the number of people trying to avoid the area. They will also benefit from the cleaner, safer air if they live around the congestion zones, however, if they leave near the alternate routes their air could worsen, and their health deteriorate.
It will to a small degree affect national people, because as they visit the city as tourists, the congestion in certain areas will be lessened, the air there will be cleaner and safer. However, they may have to pay the charge. As for global people, they will be affected in the same way national people are. The quality of life should be improved, as again the air is cleaner which will benefit health massively. The money generated from the charge is also being used to benefit the public. Of course, not everybody pays the charge.
People that are exempt are: buses, taxis disabled people, electric cars and cars using ‘green’ fuel. This then means that the use of public transport will increase, and public transport and green energy are promoted. Economical: For those that have no choice but to pass through the zone it is just adding to their payments. Not only do they have bills and road tax, but now they have to pay i??8. 00 every time they need to get somewhere essential, such as work. The money made from the charges is going towards public transport, to buy new buses that are fully equipt with new technology and disabled access.
Personally I think this is a great idea, but one the transport is up to scratch, the money should be spent on solving the problem of littler, and should also go to local charities and hostels. Though in Source one ken Livingstone stated local businesses had not suffered, my research shows some businesses are being affected by things such as stock delivery, which now costs the business because of the charge. Environmental: Obviously pollution plays a big part in the charge. In out conquest to become a green as possible world we have even started charging people to use their cars, but it is actually working?
My data shows that the pollution levels inside the zones are decreasing massively. With toxic Sulphur Dioxide and Benzene levels dropping quicker than you can say’ that’s eight pounds please’, and harmless Nox decreasing but still maintaining a normal level, it seems to be like the charge is working. The congestion affects people and the environment. If a person is caught up in heavy traffic their journey times will be unreliable, impacting on all sorts of thing such as family, work, health appointments etc.
Not to mention in extreme cases delays can cause frustration, which can lead to a dangerously high blood level. As for the environment, if a vehicle is moving slowly or stationary, it produces more carbon emissions than if it moves at a normal speed. One of the negative effects of the congestion charge is its knock-on effect on the wider community; with people looking for new routes, surrounding areas could become clogged with congestion, and we would have the same problem all over again. How Do They All Link Together? :
These three areas all together because, positive or negative, they are all factors and consequences of the congestion charge. Everything Environmental, such as the emissions and pollution, links to the Social element because of things such as public health. The Social element ties to the Economical element because of things such as the taxes and generation of revenue having an effect on the people, just like the Economical links to the Environmental, due to the fact that to reduce pollution takes money. (such as the charge, the cost of green technologies etc)
E (conclusion); To conclude, after considering all the evidence for both sides, I think that overall congestion charges are a good idea. That’s not to say that it doesn’t have its negative points though, because it does. The information that most helped me reach my decision was the data I found, and my source 1, BBCNEWS report. This is because I feel the health of the people will be improving, and you cant really argue with that. Also, the fact that the money is being spent on the public- which I think is a brilliant idea.
However, like I have said, the congestion charge does not come without its negative points, such as: people paying a ‘double tax’ when they have no choice, delays and congestion being created on alternate routes due to drivers trying to avoid the congestion charge area, and also, the fact that some businesses are suffering is something that I find quite unacceptable. So yes, the system does need some tweaking, but overall think it is a good idea that initially solves a problem. I think my conclusion is valid because I have considered all of the evidence and made an educated decision.