EPQ Master Draft PDF

Over the 100 years, private car ownership has become increasingly widespread, with many people struggling to conceive of a world without them. They make our lives seemingly more convenient by providing us with the freedom of travel, allowing us to go anywhere, anytime. However, these machines are pr...

Over the 100 years, private car ownership has become increasingly widespread, with many people struggling to conceive of a world without them. They make our lives seemingly more convenient by providing us with the freedom of travel, allowing us to go anywhere, anytime. However, these machines are proving to be more of a burden on humanity than a tool to assist our progress toward the future. At a time when pollution is considered the biggest environmental threat to human health (Defra Press Office, 2021), governments around the world have decided to act against polluters and the greenhouse gasses they emit. However, due to the culture that surrounds cars, progress has been slow. Between 1990 and 2019, the transport sector was the only sector to increase its emissions, a 33.5% increase (European Environment Agency, 2022). The effect on the environment is not the only concern, as congestion in crowded areas is becoming a major issue in towns and cities alike. As the population over the 20^th^ century was growing exponentially, existing transport infrastructure in towns and villages is struggling to keep up (Aziz and Mohamad, 2013). However, within major cities, action is beginning to be taken. This paper will discuss some methods within that are being used globally, and compare their implementation, effectiveness, and popularity. Congestion Charging \[1275\] ============================ The first method I will analyse is congestion pricing (also congestion tax or congestion charge). First introduced in 1975, the congestion pricing is one of the earliest forms of traffic control and has been well studied and adapted since then. Despite this, they continue to be a controversial topic, and their effectiveness been debated by experts, politicians and citizens alike. This section will analyse 3 of the most significant congestion charges around the world: London's Congestion Zone; Singapore's ERP; and Stockholm's Congestion Tax. Each of these systems achieves the same goal, however their implementation, objectives and technology vary greatly. I aim to discover why this is and compare the differences between each one. Objectives ---------- The objectives of the systems are the reasons they are introduced, and the reason they remain. While they do all share the common goal to reduce the traffic in a certain area, there are also many nuances in why a city may want to reduce traffic. For example, the ERP in Singapore was designed to increase the speed of traffic to 45kph on expressways and 25kph on arterial roads (Lim, 2008), while Stockholm's scheme was introduced to not only reduce the traffic times, but also to reduce the emissions produced by cars and improve the environment (Stockholmsförsöket, 2005). Reasons can also change over time, as originally London's scheme was introduced to decrease congestion within the city centre and help fund the transport network (BBC, 2003). However, following the proposal of CO~2~ based pricing, it was clear that sustainability was becoming more of a pressing issue for London. Technology and Implementation ----------------------------- Singapore, Stockholm and London display a perfect range of 3 main technologies used for enforcing congestion zones; number plate recognition, gantries and a newly emerging GNSS based system. I will not be discussing the GNSS technology due to a lack of data on the topic. ### Number Plate Recognition ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) is the method used by London and Stockholm to enforce their congestion zones (BBC, 2003; Eliasson, 2014). This system uses a fleet of cameras to read the number plates of all vehicles entering and leaving the congestion charge. ### Gantries Singapore uses both RFID technology and ANPR to detect cars. The RFID scanners, directly charge the IU as the car drives beneath the gantry (Ministry of Transport, 2024). However, if no IU is detected, the gantries are also equipped with ANPR cameras to capture the rear licence plate of the car and issue a charge to the registered owner (Land Transport Authority, 2020). Figure 1-ERP Gantry (Walker, Blythe and Pickford, 2012) ### Summary The ANPR system and the RFID system are both effective ways of enforcing a congestion charge, however they are not without their flaws. The ANPR system is dependent on the number plate of every car being unobstructed. While keeping your number plate clean and unobstructed is required by law in both UK and Sweden (Landsbygds- och infrastrukturdepartementet RSIB TM, 2019; Rac.co.uk, 2024), factors outside of the driver\'s control, such as obstructive weather (snow, hail, etc) (Gurney et al., 2013), foliage (Gurney et al., 2013), or even wildlife (RAC, 2019). I am unable to find any data on the obstruction of the IU or OBU, although the existence of the ANPR cameras alongside this technology makes the maintenance of the IU and OBU's within the driver's best interests. Security is another key consideration, as the ANPR system allows for those who don't pay to be caught, assuming the numberplate is visible. Although, many ANPR systems (including London) do allow police direct live access to their cameras and the photos taken (Transport for London, 2024a). RFID systems alone are unable to detect cars that do not have the IU, however since the ERP also uses ANPR to cross reference with the RFID to ensure the car has paid, the security is covered by that. While this does increase the complexity of the ERP, I am unable to find any data linking this to an increase in incorrect or missed bills. Payments -------- Singapore has RFID technology in the gantries (see **1.2.2**), allowing each vehicle passing beneath that has either and IU or OBU to be billed automatically, through either a prepaid store-value card (SVC) or a backend payment method that creates a direct connection to a bank account (Land Transport Authority, 2020). Both London and Stockholm take similar approaches to enforcing payment but with some key differences. Both cities do not charge at the entrance, the charge is expected to be paid either in advance or withing a certain amount of time after entry (Stockholmsforsoket.se, 2024; Transport for London, 2014a). ### Costs The Singapore and Stockholm schemes both have dynamic pricing systems in place to determine the price at different times throughout the day (Land Transport Authority, 2020; Swedish Transport Authority, 2020). London uses a static fee: £15 if paid before or on the day of travel, or £17.50 for three days after travel (Transport for London, n.d.). While this is higher than the rates in Singapore and Stockholm, London's scheme charges per-day as opposed to the per-entry charge of Singapore and Stockholm. Interestingly, Stockholm puts a cap on the amount a car can spend in a day, meaning that after 135 SEK (£9.77 as of writing) has been charged, any entries after are free. The dynamic system in Stockholm has been generally praised by citizens, as during the quiet hours, the price is four times cheaper than at peak, 11 SEK (79p GBP as of writing) instead of 45 SEK (£3.25 GBP as of writing) (Swedish Transport Authority, 2020). This is in stark contrast to the static pricing of London's scheme, which has been accused of disproportionately effecting lower income drivers due to the high pricing (Craik and Balakrishnan, 2022), with London's scheme being the most expensive for an individual entrance. Although Singapore's scheme does not have a cap like Stockholm's, it is unrealistic that any driver would surpass £15 worth of charge in one day, as this would require entering the highest-priced ERP gantry (\$7 SGD or £3.61 GBP) five times within the same half-hour period. A price this high will only appear about once a week, under one specific ERP gantry, whereas most gantries at peak are between \$3 to \$4.50 (£1.79 to £2.38 GBP) (Land Transport Authority, 2024). Impacts on Traffic ------------------ Each city has seen a significant drop in traffic within each of the zones, a decrease in traffic that has been constant since the introduction of the zones. In London, in 2002, the year before the scheme was introduced, an average of 185,218 cars entered the zone. By 2003, this decreased to an average of 124,246 cars, a decrease of 33%, a level that continued up to the end of the official reports in 2008 (Transport for London, 2008). Alongside this, bus and coach trips into the zone increased by 23% in 2003, a level that had risen to 31% by 2008 (Hurt, 2025; Transport for London, 2008). This combination of a decrease in private car ownership and increase in public transport is ideally what cities should be aiming for, as alternative transportation methods, such as busses and coaches, are much less polluting per person kilometer when compared to private cars (Ritchie, 2023). Despite the drop in direct car emissions this has caused, due to a series of factors (small size of congestion zone when compared to Greater London, plethora of other polluters in the area, not active 24/7), there has not been a noticeable decrease in NO~2~ emissions directly due to the Congestion Zone (Transport for London, 2007). Stockholm saw a similar decline in private vehicles, 21% during the trial period, and a 20.9% decrease once introduced. Like London, this value continued consistently at 21% until 2011, when the data stops (Eliasson, 2014). However, Stockholm took their approach to public transport differently. Instead of increasing their public transport routes as the scheme was introduced, they increased the public transport routes in a period of 3 months before the charging scheme was introduced. As a result, during the phase of public transport expansion, trips through the zone increased by 29%, a similar increase to London. This led to a marginal increase of 6% in the time after the zone was introduced to trial (Kottenhoff and Brundell Freij, 2009). This separation of public transport expansion and charge introduction not only allowed residents to get used to the new system but also helped researchers to separate the effects of the expansion transit system and the charge (Kassirer and Boddy, 2014). The ERP is a unique case in comparison to London and Stockholm's charge, as it has a precursor, and that there was no data prior to the introduction, making comparing its effectiveness to the others difficult. However, the Land Transport Authority did set a goal of reaching optimal traffic flow speeds (45kph for expressways and 20kph for arterial roads), and as of 2008, the average speed on these roads was above these speeds. However, this is an average, and between 38% of drivers were still experiencing speeds below 45kph (Lim, 2008). Overall, both London and Stockholm seem to have had ideal decreases in car usage and increased their public transport a considerable amount to accommodate the higher demand. It is unclear exactly why the ERP has been less successful compared to the others, as it is similar Stockholm in price and implementation. However, Singapore has had a congestion charge for significantly longer than both Stockholm and London, meaning the average resident buying a car in 2024 likely grew up experiencing the ERP or the ALS, and potentially would not see it as much of a deterrent as a London or Stockholm resident would. However, there is no evidence that supports this, and is just speculation. Improving Public Transportation \[1275\] ======================================== Reliability ----------- Reliability and punctuality of a public transport system are incredibly important, as they are one of the biggest factors in passenger trust. Switzerland has one of the most reliable train systems in the world, with 92.53% of their trains being on time in 2022 (SBB, 2024a) contributing to a high rider satisfaction rate of 77.92 (on a 100-point scale) (SBB, 2024b). Conversely, in 2022, New York's subway had an on-time performance rating of 0.85, which is 15% below average, and the third lowest in the Community of Metros (COMET), which is an international benchmarking group for metros around the world (Metropolitan Transport Authority, 2023). This is in line with the subway's incredibly low 47% rider satisfaction rate (Metropolitan Transport Authority, 2024). Improving reliability and punctuality involves regular maintenance, investment in infrastructure, and effective management practices, ensuring that passengers can depend on public transport to get them to their destinations on time. Coverage -------- One of the most crucial factors for a public transport network is its coverage. A complete network must cover as much area as possible, as every suburb or neighbourhood must be connected to the wider city. For example, one of Amsterdam's main forms of public transport are its trams, with five hundred stops spanning 200km of track (Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf, 2024b), resulting in 94.6 million passengers, 35.8% of all journeys, in 2023 (Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf, 2024a). Over a similar period, London's tram network of thirty-nine stations (Transport for London, 2024a) accounted for 0.5% of all journeys in fiscal year 2023/24 (Transport for London, 2024b). This statistic does not necessarily imply that London has bad trams, but it does show that the tram network does not span a large enough area to compare to London's bus or metro networks. Affordability ------------- An affordable public transport system is crucial to the widespread adoption of the network by the public. For example, since 2003, Tallinn has been slowly making the public transport within the city as affordable as possible. In 2003 they gave residents a 40% discount on all ticket fares. They also gave many groups, such as the elderly, children, students and low income, fare exemption (Cats, Susilo and Reimal, 2016). However, on the 1/1/2013, after the 2008 financial crisis left many unable to pay the fares, the government decided to give every resident of the city fare exemption, being the largest city to do so ever. Within the first year, ridership increased by 14% (Cats, Susilo and Reimal, 2016). Dunkirk started providing a similar service in 2018, with all bus tickets becoming free. Within the first year, ridership on weekdays increased by around 60% and the weekend ridership almost doubled **\[citation needed\]**. While this is significantly more than Tallinn's growth, I believe the figure for Tallinn is lower as their transition to free public transport was much more gradual than Dunkirk's, with many groups already having fare exemption, as stated previously. Comfort and Safety ------------------ Comfort and safety can be the deciding factor for many people in whether they use public transport. In Delhi, 89% of female students from Delhi University have experienced sexual harassment whilst on public transport, and despite the government giving more provisions to female passengers, this only causes more harassment as backlash from some men. Incidents like this cause only 9% of women to view public transport as safe in India (Meena, 2024). Japan had a similar issue, with groping being a major issue on Japan's incredibly crowded metro trains. Since the 2000s in Tokyo and Osaka, women-only carriages have become commonplace on many lines, providing women a safe space away from men in the normal carriages (Tokyometro.jp, n.d.). This has sparked some outrage with some men in Japan, claiming this method is discriminatory (K, 2022), however it is believed this outrage stems from the fear of growing gender equality in a society where sexist ideology is commonplace, placing 120^th^ out of 156 countries when ranked by overall gender equality (World Economic Forum, 2021). **\[waiting for email response\]**. Integration ----------- Integration between each mode of transport is an efficient way to make each part of the public transport network feel like one system. Having transport hubs at key points in a city which several types of transport meet at not only allows for more convenient travel, but the large ones become cultural icons: - Kings Cross St Pancras Station in London is a metro station acting as a stop for six underground lines, fourteen bus routes, National Rail, and international rail (Eurostar). It also provides direct services to three airports and is a 5-minute walk from Euson Station, another major national rail station (King's Cross, n.d.). London also provides the Oyster Card system, which allows passengers to top up a card that can be used to pay for all public transport in London (apart from some stations on the Elizabeth line), creating a "pay-as-you-go" system that is designed to remove the stress of buying individual tickets for each journey (Transport for London, n.d.). - Shinjuku Station in Tokyo is the busiest train station in the world (Guinness World Records, 2024), serving five JR lines, three subway lines, two private train lines, and an Expressway Bus Terminal (Shinjukustation.com, n.d.-a). This station was specifically designed and integrated to ensure millions of people can pass through and transfer between ten of the most important train lines in Tokyo. These transportation hubs also contribute heavily to their local economy. Having a hub with potentially millions of passthrough passengers daily provides an excellent opportunity for businesses to capitalise. Shinjuku station has managed to form a community around it, with streets full of restaurants and shops, places to live, and the hundreds of employment opportunities that come with running a hub of this size. Both Shinjuku station and Kings Cross St. Pancras have seen this, and both stations have integrated shopping centres. Shinjuku has four, with the largest having over three hundred shops (King's Cross, n.d.-b; Shinjukustation.com, n.d.-b). Impacts on Traffic ------------------ It is undeniable that a good public transport system will encourage many people to make use of it more efficiently, proven several times above, however the effect of car ownership is highly disputed. Cities discussed above that have high use public transport systems still struggle with congestions at peak times. For example, London has a good combination of the Congestion Charge, ULEZ and public transport in and around the city centre, however only 33% of Londoners are considered to live in a "high" connectivity area, most of which live in central London (seen in figure 2) (Transport for London, 2023b). As you head out to the suburban areas in outer London, the percentage of households that own at least 1 car increases from 22.8% to 78.1% (Mahmud, Cottell and Harding, 2023). This indicates that while public transport can be a good lure away from owning a car, it must be effective in these 5 categories, as while London does have good public transport, it does not achieve effective coverage and therefore has no effect on the car ownership in those areas.  Figure 2 - Public Transport Access Levels (PTALs) in London, Autumn 2023. (Transport for London, 2023b) Pedestrian Friendly Cities \[1275\] =================================== One key step in the eradication of cars is the implementation of alternative transport, and many cities around the world are embracing the pedestrian-focused methods, such as walking and cycling. This section of the essay will discuss different ways cities are encouraging it's citizens to use the oldest form of transportation. Walking ------- If a city is to be well traversable by foot, there must be the relevant infrastructure available to allow this. Wide, well-maintained paths are essential to accommodate peak pedestrian traffic and to ensure a nicer experience for the public. Many European cities that existed before the introduction of the car have fitting examples of these, as before the car, many people simply walked everywhere (see 2.1). Central London, one of the oldest parts of London, has kept these wide, well-maintained paths as they are still used by commuters and tourists daily. In Figure 1, there is the example of Regent Street, the paths are the same width as each road lane, with a smaller path in the middle of the road to assist pedestrians in crossing the road. Another key feature of a walkable city are car-free or car-restrictive zones, such as the London Congestion Charge (see Congestion Pricing), which Regent Street is also within. These car free zones allow for safer travel for pedestrians by lowering traffic, which: lowers traffic volume, allowing for a more pleasant walking experience; reduces curb-side emissions (London City Hall, 2020), improving health and breathing experience; and leads to an increase in public transport serving the area (Kottenhoff and Brundell Freij, 2009; Transport for London, 2008). These factors all directly mitigate the social and environmental costs of having a busy central road (like Regent St.) running through a busy shopping space, whilst also increasing the economic benefits of the shopping area by encouraging more foot traffic, people who are more likely to spontaneously enter a shop and purchase something than people in cars (Hass-Klau, 1993). Cycling ------- Cycling is a divisive topic between city residents. While many people swear by it, using their bike as a key method of transportation, others see cyclists as a nuisance that hog their roads (MacMichael, 2024). Despite the discourse, there is a plethora of objective benefits to cycling: they're more space efficient (Lee and March, 2010); quieter; don't use fuel; etc. Due to reasons like this, many cities are providing their citizens with series of new cycling infrastructure to encourage the shift away from cars. Bike lanes are possibly the most iconic form if bicycle infrastructure, with most modern cities having some form of them. Cycle lanes allow for safer travel by cyclists around cities by keeping them separated from cars and avoiding complex road design that would be potentially dangerous for a cyclist. Some cities will also provide bike-bypasses or bike-bridges, allowing cyclists to completely avoid an intersection by going above, below or around it. Many cities are introducing bike-hire programs. London has the Santander Bikes, colloquially named the "Boris Bikes", a fleet of 12,000 bikes (Transport for London, n.d.); Paris has the Vélib\' bikes, a fleet of 20,000 bikes (Velib-metropole.fr, 2021); and Montreal has Bixi bikes, a fleet of over 11,000 bikes (BIXI Montréal, 2024). These programs allow people to rent a bike, pick it up from a bike station and use to get around. In cities such as London, Paris and Montreal where other forms of cycling infrastructure or anti-car infrastructure, such as cycle lanes and congestion charges, are commonplace, the programs work in tandem with each other, allowing for an easily cyclable city. Forms of infrastructure like this are leading to a direct increase in cycling among city residents, as cycling is becoming an increasingly popular form of transportation. In the US, the amount of people cycling to and from work increased by 51% from 2010 to 2016 (Marshall and Ferenchak, 2019), in London, there was a 20% increase in daily cycle trips in London from 2019 to 2023 (Transport for London, 2023) and between 2001 and 2011, cycling levels in Glasgow grey by 69% (Glasgow City Council, 2016). All these rises happened around the same time as cycling infrastructure was being developed or expanded: Glasgow expanded their cycling network by 160% since 2006 (Glasgow City Council, 2016); London's Cycleway network has quadrupled in size between 2016 and 2024 (Transport for London, 2024a) and in America, over 17,600km of routes were expanded or built between 2010 and 2016 (Wikipedia.org, 2006). Not only did cycling increase, but it became safer as well. In 1970s Netherlands, urban cycling became a national political demand, and cycling infrastructure has enormously increased since them. Additionally, since their peak in 1970, both cycling road fatalities and child motor fatalities have been on a significant downward trend (Dekker, 2021). Mixed-Use Development --------------------- Mixed-use development is an idea within city planning to have buildings or area that contain various necessary places for daily life, such as residential, commercial and recreational spaces, intending to make life easier for the residents living in or nearby by reducing the need for long travels times. Due to the nature of mixed-use areas (focus of accessibility, limited size, focuses on sustainability, etc), the designers often try to minimise the use of cars within the area. Barangaroo in Sydney is aiming for 4% of commutes to work to be taken by car, 16% lower than the surrounding central business district (New South Wales Government, 2020). There are even some places, like Mirvish Village in Toronto, that only has roads along the border of the neighbourhood (Mirvish-village.com, 2022). Both examples also provide transportation alternatives, with Barangaroo encouraging walking through increased pedestrian-friendly infrastructure (New South Wales Government, 2020) and Mirvish Village having access to a subway station and streetcar stops (Mirvish-village.com, 2022). Summary ------- It is to be noted that whilst cycling and walking are on the rise, this does not inherently indicate an identical drop in car ownership or usage. While it is true that car use within many cities has decreased, and there are notable levels of decrease when these methods are implemented, as discussed previously, they are not decreases that exactly match the increase in alternative transport methods. For example, while it is true that cycling to work in America has gone up by 51% (Marshall and Ferenchak, 2019), this is just to work, and drivers still make an average of 2.44 driving trips per day as of 2022 (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2023). This indicates that while walking and cycling are seen as viable transport options, they are not deemed as suitable replacements for cars, but as situational. This is further shown in cities like Stockholm, where there is over 820km of cycleways or cycling infrastructure, but where 375 out of 1000 citizens still own a car, compare to nearby Copenhagen, a city with 390km of cycleways or cycling infrastructure (similar density to Stockholm), only having 258 cars per 1000 citizens (Haustein et al., 2019). What I believe this data shows most is that while having good infrastructure can lead to increased cycling usage, it alone is not enough to displace the significant number of drivers on the road. And while having certain areas like mixed-use land will create pockets where car usage is potentially 0, decreasing the city-wide car use through providing good infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians is simply not enough when enacted by itself. Discussion \[750\] ================== I have explored 3 methods that cities are using to decrease car use within their cities. Congestion Charges, public transportation and improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure all have their own unique benefits and challenges. Congestion charging has proven to be very effective at consistently reducing car usage within its borders (see 1.4), they are often criticised for being unfair on lower income residents (Craik and Balakrishnan, 2022). Conversely, improvements to walking infrastructure, especially the development of mixed-use areas, allow the lower income residents to make use of free, public land, nearby to affordable housing (Mirvish-village.com, 2022), however they aren't often useful enough to dissuade car ownership. Considering that these methods have such stark downsides and upsides, I believe each method works best when all enacted together. A congestion charge over a city wouldn't be unfair on lower income residents if there was an effective, affordable public transport network or a cycle lane going through. Central London is the perfect example, as within central London there is a congestion charge (see section 1), a great public transport system (see section 2), and great walking infrastructure (see section 3). This combination has led to only 22.8% of central London residents owning a car (Mahmud, Cottell and Harding, 2023). Comparing this to Birmingham, a city where the congestion charge only affects 6% of cars (Birmingham City Council, 2023), only 9.9% of people cycle once a week (West Midlands Combined Authority, 2019) and where 1.6 million residents do not have access to a transport link to the city centre (Farayibi and Udechukwu, 2023), it is clear why 68.3% of households in Birmingham own at least 1 car (UK Census, 2021). However, there are problems when trying to enact these policies, such as funding, public resistance and infrastructure limitations. For example, there have been 3 plans to implement a congestion pricing scheme in New York since the 1950s and only as the 5th of January 2025, has a scheme been implemented (Metropolitan Transport Authority, 2025; Ritter, 2024). While car ownership has certainly met its peak, and is now on the decline, it is evident that many people still view the major threat of pollution and several years of our lives spent in transport as simply not as important as their right to drive, or their profits to be made off drivers. While we have a long way to go before car ownership falls to acceptable levels, our major cities are pioneering a way forward, to a cleaner, safer and more affordable future.