Following announcements last week that local drivers may soon be charged for travelling alone, many motorists and motoring groups have slammed the Transport Department?s congestion charge initiative.

The theory behind the fee is to encourage motorists to make use of the country?s public transport, and thereby decrease the amount of vehicles entering the city centres and alleviate traffic congestion.

The Cape Town suggestion

Recently, the City of Cape Town suggested a traffic management plan, whereby an intelligent transport system will monitor and enforce measures ? such as cameras to record the licenses of lone motorists using demarcated taxi and bus lanes into the city during peak hours.

Maddie Mazaza, the city?s director of transport, told the Cape Times: ?This is not a simple solution. We need infrastructure, enforcement and an intelligent system.? She also said that the clampdown on single-occupant motorists was one of several measures under scrutiny to alleviate the traffic congestion problem.

Mazaza said that by the end of 2006 there would be public transport incentives for motorists, which she did not elaborate on, and the government would be offering opportunities for alternative bus contracts.

The city plans to provide improved parking facilities and a pedestrian precinct, which would persuade people to walk around the city instead of using their cars.

And the Transport Department plans to phase in high occupancy vehicle lanes for buses and taxis in metropolitan areas and on highways.

From an environmental point of view, Cape Town can do with the breath of fresh air ? the air pollution found in the city skies exceed European guidelines for human health. A study done for the city some years ago showed that 66 percent of air pollution came from vehicle emissions, compared to 22 percent from industry and about 11 percent from domestic fires.

Congestion fees nothing new

And although the congestion fees may be new to South African motorists they have already been implemented in Britain with surprisingly positive results, and will be enforced on a trial basis in Sweden from January to July 2006.

Britain first introduced its congestion charge in 2003 by making motorists pay to drive into the city centres. London is now said to have moved faster after cutting its traffic by thirty percent, and like SA, Londoners at first also complained about these ?unnecessary taxes?.

But it seems that South Africans love their cars: the National Association for Automobile Manufacturers says that there has been a 27 percent increase in the sale of new cars this year, meaning that new car sales have topped 250 000 this year alone.

And if this rapid increase in vehicle sales is a sign of things to come, the country may not have enough time to put measures into place which will see the success of the congestion charge.

Treating the problem or the symptoms?

A reasonable complaint is that the proposed fee is a failed solution that only treats the outward symptoms of the real problem, ie. traffic jams, when the root cause of the problem is our public transport system.

The department has maintained that the money will go towards improving the transport system, including public transport, over the next three years. But once again, is this enough time?

Opponents argue that insufficient infrastructure, poor traffic management and city layouts are to blame for the worsening traffic, and a congestion fee does not necessary stem this problem, although it can prevent the situation from worsening.

?Right now systems are not in place to support the congestion charge programme. It works for London because their public transport structure is different to ours,? says Campbell Tyler, a consultant for Sustainable Energy Africa.

Tyler has just returned from a conference in Sweden where the congestion fee programme is set to go on a trial run from January. Stockholm will be using an intricate network of tollgates to charge single drivers during peak hours, whereas Britain relies on a series of cameras to monitor drivers going into the city centre on a 24-hour basis.

?The difference between Sweden and Britain is that they have the necessary systems in place and a reliable public transport system. South Africa is doing this the wrong way round ? we first need to provide alternatives, which are safe and secure. Once these viable alternatives are in place, then maybe we can consider this.?

An example of a practical alternative, he says, would be to encourage people to park and ride (parking cars outside of the city centre and catching a bus or train from there) or start up carpools and lift clubs.

More investigation needed

But Tyler argues that more investigation needs to be done, like how much to charge motorists, and what sort of system should be put in place to support such a scheme. ?One needs to look at the type of database and technology to be used. I?m not even sure our car database can support this type of technology.?

Andrew Borraine, CEO of the Cape Town Partnership, echoes these thoughts. ?We must be able to enforce whatever scheme we use and provide alternatives,? he told The Cape Times.

One could argue that the congestion charge may alleviate the country?s traffic problem in the long term, but how does the government plan on encouraging motorists to exchange the comfort of their cars for our public transport system?

Positive spin-offs?

People need to understand the impact the positive spin-offs the system would have on travelling and the environment ? the long-term effects should outweigh the inconvenience and use of taxpayers? money.

The issue of traffic jams will be a thing of the past: traffic will flow more easily into the cities, and be redistributed more evenly. Tyler says that after introducing the scheme in 2003, London ?has considered it a real success?, and motorists are getting into the city much quicker than before.

Environmentally, the fewer vehicles there are on the roads, the less air pollution there is, and in the long run, the effects on global warming and pollution will be greatly reduced.