| 7 mins read
SUMMARY
- As cities worldwide have become even more congested, with air quality in decline, the need for a solution like the congestion charge has never been more urgent.
- The temporary congestion charge introduced in Oxford in October 2025 indicates that this policy is coming back into fashion.
- With coherent and integrated policy; strong political leadership, and a compelling evidence-based narrative, it is possible to implement the congestion charge in more locations.
Congestion charging is not merely a standalone tool for traffic reduction; it is a competitive policy solution that must prove its value against alternative schemes aimed at motorists. Its success and growth depend on producing measurable results: reduced motor traffic, improved air quality, and a safer, more amenable environment for pedestrians and cyclists. If these outcomes can be tangibly delivered, they can forge a strong coalition of interests representing policy ‘winners,’ who can construct the narratives needed to maintain and even enlarge the scheme.
The temporary congestion charge introduced in Oxford in October 2025 is the first significant scheme of its type in the UK since the inception of the London congestion charge in 2003. Since then, local authorities have shied away from risking the political costs of such schemes, but does the case of Oxford represent at least an indicator that this type of road pricing may be coming back into fashion? The Oxford scheme is currently planned to only be in place for around twelve months until the completion of road works allows the introduction of traffic filters on six streets in the city. Until then these streets will only be accessible by cars (commercial vehicles are amongst the exemptions) by the payment of a daily charge of £5.
When the London congestion charge was introduced, its proponents hoped it would herald the widespread introduction of this form of road pricing in a wide range of cities. However, defeats in referendums for proposed congestion charge schemes in Edinburgh in 2005 and Manchester in 2008 created pervasive nervousness that motor vehicle users were likely to render such schemes politically unpopular and impractical over time. Internationally, the situation has been only marginally different, with congestion charging schemes in cities such as Singapore, Oslo, Milan, and Stockholm being the exception to a general reluctance to risk the ire of motorists. Significantly, however, in January 2025 New York became the first city in the United States to introduce a congestion charge for areas of Manhattan.
Meanwhile, as cities worldwide have become even more congested, with air quality in decline and the impacts of climate change increasing, the need for an intervention to reduce motor vehicle use has never been more urgent. In those cities where congestion charging has been introduced, revenues are typically hypothecated to transport, including investment in road infrastructure and support for public transport services. These benefits can assist in winning public support for the charge. In this context, the temporary Oxford congestion charge may represent more than a local fix: it hints at a revival for urban road pricing in the UK. For this revival to take hold, policymakers must successfully navigate three core factors.
How to implement the congestion charge in other cities
1. Coherent and Integrated Policy
First, institutional strength and coherence is paramount. Regional and local authorities need to build logically planned and integrated policies over time. In fact, Oxfordshire County Council (the highways authority for Oxford) provides a good example of a local authority that has long been at the forefront of attempts to reduce car use. These policies include long-established park-and-ride bus services, the setting of targets for walking and cycling, and the introduction in 2022 of a zero emissions zone (ZEZ) in the centre of the city. The County Council also introduced six low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in 2021-22 which continue to cause great controversy with opposition from drivers denied access. However, Oxfordshire County Council has now made all six LTNs permanent. The County Council has therefore built up a well-resourced reserve of expertise and institutional strength that can place the congestion charge in a wider context of policies to restrict car use.
2. Strong Political Leadership
Second, demand political courage over consensus. Strong political leadership is required to introduce and maintain congestion charging on the policy agenda. The classic example is provided by London mayor (2000-2008) Ken Livingstone, who proposed the congestion charge for the centre of the capital and then, despite fierce opposition, carried the scheme forward to implementation in 2003. Livingstone declined to hold a referendum on the introduction of the scheme and instead risked his political reputation on its successful implementation. The opposition to the scheme quickly withered to a level that its cancellation became unthinkable. Livingstone demonstrated that success comes from risking one’s political capital on implementation, not on consensus.
3. Strong Policy Narrative
Third, craft dynamic, defensible policy narratives. Crucially, the narrative must tell a story that adjusts to changing circumstances. Inevitably, individual leaders move on, and the danger is that an associated policy narrative loses its impact and relevance. This is what occurred in London when Ken Livingstone introduced a western extension to the congestion charge in 2007. Although the central congestion charge could be strongly justified in terms of restricting traffic, the western extension required a new policy narrative to maintain its existence. Livingstone failed to convincingly supply this, and he was defeated at the mayoral election of 2008. His opponent, Boris Johnson, promised that, if elected, he would cancel the western extension. Once in office, Johnson carried through his promise and instead placed his policy emphasis on the promotion of cycling. This manifested itself particularly with the introduction of a cycle hire scheme which became known colloquially, as it still is today, as ‘Boris Bikes.’ This shows how a congestion charge becomes vulnerable when its original justification is challenged or replaced by a competing, more popular narrative.
While modest in size and time, the Oxford congestion charge is a vital reminder of the intervention’s potential. It shows that with political will, institutional backbone and coherence, and a compelling evidence-based narrative, cities can turn the tide away from gridlock and poor air quality.
