You wait ages for a bus and then 200 come at once 10/7/01

JEREMY VINE:
We have David Begg, who's a Government advisor on transport, facing John Dawson of the AA and Mr Mike Liggins who's the manager of New Covent Garden Market. Mr Liggins, your fruit and veg will move quicker?

DR MIKE LIGGINS:
It could move more swiftly. These journeys all have to be made. There is no guarantee the traffic will move more swiftly into the centre of town. My concern would be if the centre of town is freed of a certain amount of traffic, how much will end up on the ring road and add to congestion there.

VINE:
That would not bother you or your market?

LIGGINS:
It would of the 5,000 vehicle movements we have....

VINE:
Are you bothered be the charge?

LIGGINS:
A number of those will have to go into the centre of town to do their business and make deliveries. To the extent it may be easier to move across the centre of town that could be negated by greater traffic around the periphery.

PROFESSOR DAVID BEGG:
There are problems of the detail of the scheme. Whenever you put in boundary there'll be diversion around this boundary. Transport professionals have advocated congestion charges for 30 years. This is about the type of city people want to live in. It is the business community driving this change. This is not just about a few environmentalists who want cleaner atmosphere it is the businesses who are saying "enough is enough and we want radical action, and soon."

VINE:
No-one wants to live in a city, whichever city it is ringed by cars trying to avoid a congestion area.

BEGG:
There are toll rings in Norway which have worked very well. What I would not say is this system is somehow cast in stone and will not be changed in the future. What I will say is there is no alternative strategy being put forward. People in London have had enough of chronic traffic conditions, poor public transport. This is about freeing up road space to make traffic move quicker and providing the sums of money London needs to create a world-class public transport system.

LIGGINS:
I hear what he says. But the fact is our transport is essential to London's requirements. The delivery of fresh food daily to the population of London does not just involve deliveries to hotels and restaurants but all manner of public services, too - hospitals, schools, prisons even, museums, central and local Government. All these have to be served.

VINE:
Can you use fewer vans?

LIGGINS:
I don't think we could. These deliveries have to be made by commercial firms.

BEGG:
What is the cost, I understand where you are coming from, what is the cost to your traders because of the chronic traffic conditions in London where your vehicles will be going than a horse and cart did 100 years ago?

LIGGINS:
Obviously there is a cost to all transport and particularly commercial transport for that sort of congestion. But on the Mayor's own figures he's looking to save 15% of current vehicle journeys.

VINE:
What is your prescription here?

JOHN DAWSON:
David has talked about a toll ring in Norway working effectively. That toll ring he was talking about was to raise money to pay for road tunnels, not to reduce the traffic, and in fact it has not reduced the traffic. The only scheme in the world which has reduced the traffic is in Singapore. There they did something different. They gave the revenue back to motorists. This London congestion charge equates to £75 off the road tax of every motorist. If this was a genuine proposal to reduce congestion on the model of the only city in the world who has introduced it, every motorist in England would be given a £75 tax reduction.

VINE:
Surely that would mean people get back into cars?

DAWSON:
Absolutely not.

VINE:
It is a rebate?

DAWSON:
£75 you get, you spend it on a holiday, food, whatever. That is the theory, that is what works and the only city in the world which has put in this massively complicated scheme. I think the real problem, is the theory is fine, but in practice there are horrendous problems, we have heard already of the ring road. This is before the Tube is upgraded. What is the point of charging motorists £5 and shutting the stations because there is not enough capacity on the stairs to for people.

VINE:
Where is this capacity?

BEGG:
On the buses. There isn't one simple objective, yes, it is about reducing congestion by 10-15%. Free up road service on the surface, to provide better conditions for cyclists, pedestrians. It is also about raising the money if London wants a world-class Tube system. Yes, the Government are putting money in. We need a step change investment . I am impatient for change. I do not want to debate this for another ten years. People out in London are desperate to see the type of changes that the Mayor is proposing.

VINE:
Do you think it will act as a regressive tax? Of course, it is the less well off people who get pushed hardest, rich lawyers can drive around, because they will not be bothered by £5 a day.

BEGG:
I take opposite view. If you put this £5 on motorists and put money back into transport, that is the most progressive strategy.

DAWSON:
We know well, it is not published today that women are going to be particularly hard hit by this kind of charge. That is what actually happens.

BEGG:
The vast majority of women on low income travel by public transport in London. This is not regression, it is progressive.

DAWSON:
We are talking about central London. This is a strategy he is publishing, - where are the details. Did you know over a third of the revenue raised will be spent on the junk to collect it, people's time getting permits to drive. People phoning up asking for a permit. It will cost money.

BEGG:
I think your members want something done about congestion. A few years ago I think the AA had the right policy. Your policy was to say you are in favour of congestion charges as long as all the money goes into public transport. Now, that is happening you are shifting the goal posts.

DAWSON:
The AA has not supported congestion charges but has supported the idea that is discussion on whether something like this might work on the model of giving the money back, which is the Singapore model, might be acceptable. For example, a season ticket discount to motorists might be another way of doing this. The problem with this particular proposal is we are not talking about large sums of revenue which are going to make a change in transport. We've got the world's highest fuel tax, and that is the position we are now in.

BEGG:
Can I just come in here. What I am really fed up with is the way they distort the argument here to make out our motoring taxes are higher than anywhere in the world. In European league table of motoring taxes, Britain comes in the middle. Yes we have fuel tax, but we have a lot lower vehicle excise duty. You mention Singapore, if you are proposing the same tax burden on motorists as Singapore does, your members would be tearing their hair out.

VINE:
Mr Liggins, what is your, because this isn't just London, it is other cities who are possibly going to see congestion charges down the line? What's the alternative?

LIGGINS:
Something has to be done about congestion in London. The problem stems from cars not from commercial vehicles. Commercial vehicles represent a mere 14%. One could easily exempt commercial traffic and not seriously affect the mayor's revenue raising and cars we all make use of those and clearly, we have to take our pill.

VINE:
Thank you all very much.