Tha' thar Europe...

rick_chasey

and best of all

A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%. This improvement had decreased to 22% in 2006, and during 2006 congestion levels had increased so that the improvement, compared to the year before the scheme, was just 7%. TfL explained this as a result of changes to road priorities within the zone, delays caused by new pedestrian and road user safety schemes, and, most particularly, a doubling of road works in the latter half of 2006.[85] (Utilities were encouraged to complete planned road works in the year proceeding the congestion charge, so it would appear that the first year of measurement used for later comparisons would also have been affected by streetworks to some extent.)[86][87]
TfL's report in June 2007 found that the level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was now consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002.[24] The conservative Bow Group noted that the main effect occurred after 11 am.[79]

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

Well, let me point out the biggest problem with it that Commie Ken implemented.

It's supposed to discourage people from driving within it, right? It does this by levying a fee for the privilege of driving within the zone. But if you're a resident within the zone, you get a discount.

CC area #1 (as originally implemented, and as is now) had relatively little residential property in it. CC area #2 (the Western extension) had a ton. By extending West, Ken brought in a huge swathe of residential area and thereby residents who could drive in the larger zone at a discounted rate. That's not going to reduce congestion.

Which leads to the question: what really is the concept behind the CC? Is it to discourage car use, or tax it? If it were to discourage car use, it would be set at a level that would do just that. Say, oh, £25* or £50 a day. Or more.

If, OTOH, it's there not to discourage car use, but to raise money, then you pitch it at the "well that's inconvenient but it's not going to break the bank and it's still better for me to pay it and have convenience than schlep my stuff around on PT". Which is where it's at.

And then there's the icing on cake, which is that despite the money raising concept behind it, it's so bloody expensive to administer that without the fines it would be loss making. Brilliant.

So, what was the concept again? Oh yes. Don't reduce car use levels and pay public money to do it. Awesome.

Agree, hence my phrase "tax the f*ck out of them." CC is far too cheap to be effective.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

and best of all

A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%. This improvement had decreased to 22% in 2006, and during 2006 congestion levels had increased so that the improvement, compared to the year before the scheme, was just 7%. TfL explained this as a result of changes to road priorities within the zone, delays caused by new pedestrian and road user safety schemes, and, most particularly, a doubling of road works in the latter half of 2006.[85] (Utilities were encouraged to complete planned road works in the year proceeding the congestion charge, so it would appear that the first year of measurement used for later comparisons would also have been affected by streetworks to some extent.)[86][87]
TfL's report in June 2007 found that the level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was now consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002.[24] The conservative Bow Group noted that the main effect occurred after 11 am.[79]

I wouldn't trust any report compiled by those arse monkeys at TFL. They've got form when it comes to fiddling with figures...

W1

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

Well, let me point out the biggest problem with it that Commie Ken implemented.

It's supposed to discourage people from driving within it, right? It does this by levying a fee for the privilege of driving within the zone. But if you're a resident within the zone, you get a discount.

CC area #1 (as originally implemented, and as is now) had relatively little residential property in it. CC area #2 (the Western extension) had a ton. By extending West, Ken brought in a huge swathe of residential area and thereby residents who could drive in the larger zone at a discounted rate. That's not going to reduce congestion.

Which leads to the question: what really is the concept behind the CC? Is it to discourage car use, or tax it? If it were to discourage car use, it would be set at a level that would do just that. Say, oh, £25* or £50 a day. Or more.

If, OTOH, it's there not to discourage car use, but to raise money, then you pitch it at the "well that's inconvenient but it's not going to break the bank and it's still better for me to pay it and have convenience than schlep my stuff around on PT". Which is where it's at.

And then there's the icing on cake, which is that despite the money raising concept behind it, it's so bloody expensive to administer that without the fines it would be loss making. Brilliant.

So, what was the concept again? Oh yes. Don't reduce car use levels and pay public money to do it. Awesome.

Indeed, and what about the joke that is basing "congestion" charging on CO2 emissions? Does a Pious take up less space than another car? No. So it's not just a car tax, it's an environmental tax.

Lots of joyous envy politics on this thread - let's all trade down to the "average" shall we?

rick_chasey

I can't see any other figures out there, so I'd probably stick with those, rather than wafting notions around with no grounding in stats..

jamesco

W1 wrote:

Indeed, and what about the joke that is basing "congestion" charging on CO2 emissions? Does a Pious take up less space than another car? No. So it's not just a car tax, it's an environmental tax.

Lots of joyous envy politics on this thread - let's all trade down to the "average" shall we?

What's wrong with encouraging a switch to hybrids and electrics? Diesels and so-on cause externalities, so a charge for using them is well justified.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TFL. Which of its statements should we believe? This one:

Sadly, congestion has risen back to pre-charging levels

W1

jamesco wrote:

W1 wrote:

Indeed, and what about the joke that is basing "congestion" charging on CO2 emissions? Does a Pious take up less space than another car? No. So it's not just a car tax, it's an environmental tax.

Lots of joyous envy politics on this thread - let's all trade down to the "average" shall we?

What's wrong with encouraging a switch to hybrids and electrics? Diesels and so-on cause externalities, so a charge for using them is well justified.

Because it's diddly-feck all to do with congestion aka the "congestion charge".

If they wanted an environmental tax, so be it. But to dress it up as a "congestion" charge is just a big lie.

daviesee

jamesco wrote:

What's wrong with encouraging a switch to hybrids and electrics? Diesels and so-on cause externalities, so a charge for using them is well justified.

Small questions.

Where do the cute little green electric cars get their power from?

Take your pick from a dirty coal fired power station or nuclear.
How enviromentaly friendly is it to produce and dispose of the batteries?

jamesco

daviesee wrote:

jamesco wrote:

What's wrong with encouraging a switch to hybrids and electrics? Diesels and so-on cause externalities, so a charge for using them is well justified.

Small questions.

Where do the cute little green electric cars get their power from?

Take your pick from a dirty coal fired power station or nuclear.
How enviromentaly friendly is it to produce and dispose of the batteries?

The power can come from nuclear, wave, bio, solar, wind, all of which do not produce significant CO2. These are already available; one day, fusion may be, too. There's also natural gas, bio-gas and plain old burning rubbish.

Small question for you: which do you think is easier to install and maintain effective scrubbers on - one coal station, or thousands of cars? Which would you rather breath the fumes from - a diesel or an electric?

It's a lot easier to recycle a battery than pull back from the atmosphere all of the CO2, nitrous oxides, particulates etc. that an internal combustion engine produces over its lifespan.

W1

jamesco wrote:

daviesee wrote:

jamesco wrote:

What's wrong with encouraging a switch to hybrids and electrics? Diesels and so-on cause externalities, so a charge for using them is well justified.

Small questions.

Where do the cute little green electric cars get their power from?

Take your pick from a dirty coal fired power station or nuclear.
How enviromentaly friendly is it to produce and dispose of the batteries?

The power can come from nuclear, wave, bio, solar, wind, all of which do not produce significant CO2. These are already available; one day, fusion may be, too. There's also natural gas, bio-gas and plain old burning rubbish.

Small question for you: which do you think is easier to install and maintain effective scrubbers on - one coal station, or thousands of cars? Which would you rather breath the fumes from - a diesel or an electric?

It's a lot easier to recycle a battery than pull back from the atmosphere all of the CO2, nitrous oxides, particulates etc. that an internal combustion engine produces over its lifespan.

Small question for you - does a hybrid car cause as much congestion as a conventional car?

jamesco

W1 wrote:

Small question for you - does a hybrid car cause as much congestion as a conventional car?

What, do I look like Forest Gump or something? Of course one metal box takes up more or less the same space as any other

You've pointed out that the congestion charge is also being used to encourage substitution of hybrids for non-hybrids, but what's the problem with that? Tax can be used to serve more than one purpose. Take VAT, for instance: fruit & vegetables (among other items) are zero-rated; i.e. the tax is being used to encourage the substitution of whole foods for processed foods, as well as to raise revenue.

W1

jamesco wrote:

W1 wrote:

Small question for you - does a hybrid car cause as much congestion as a conventional car?

What, do I look like Forest Gump or something? Of course one metal box takes up more or less the same space as any other

You've pointed out that the congestion charge is also being used to encourage substitution of hybrids for non-hybrids, but what's the problem with that? Tax can be used to serve more than one purpose. Take VAT, for instance: fruit & vegetables (among other items) are zero-rated; i.e. the tax is being used to encourage the substitution of whole foods for processed foods, as well as to raise revenue.

Because emissions have nothing to do with congestion charging.

It's just, in effect, another "green" tax dressed up as a congestion charge. They could at least be honest about it.

rjsterry

Can a tax not have two or more motives? A reduction in congestion would also result in a reduction in vehicle pollution. I'm not convinced the congestion charge does either very well, but it doesn't have to be 'single issue'.

walkingbootweather

Expected this to be a thread from a supporter of one of the Manchester clubs.

Very disappointed....

cjcp

Nobody likes us and we don't care.

il_principe

walkingbootweather wrote:

Expected this to be a thread from a supporter of one of the Manchester clubs.

Very disappointed....

This is going to amuse me until it happens to Chelsea.

daviesee

jamesco wrote:

The power can come from nuclear,
There's more to the environment than CO2. Where is all the waste going.
wave, bio, solar, wind, all of which do not produce significant CO2.
But not suitably efficient.
These are already available; one day, fusion may be, too.
One day too late probably.
There's also natural gas,bio-gas
That'll help the starving.
and plain old burning rubbish.
Just how much rubbish do you have to put in the tank?

Small question for you: which do you think is easier to install and maintain effective scrubbers on - one coal station, or thousands of cars?
Thousands of tiny scrubbers. Like catalytic converters?
Which would you rather breath the fumes from - a diesel or an electric?
Got me on that one.

It's a lot easier to recycle a battery than pull back from the atmosphere all of the CO2, nitrous oxides, particulates etc. that an internal combustion engine produces over its lifespan.
Easier but not clean.

All I am saying is that electric or hybrid cars are not the environmentalist's green wet dream that they are painted as.

jamesco

daviesee wrote:

All I am saying is that electric or hybrid cars are not the environmentalist's green wet dream that they are painted as.

Hey, I couldn't argue with that, electric cars are just a different shade of sh1t. That said, they offer some benefits. It's much, much easier to clean one power station up that the thousands of cars it supports. Build one scrubber, spend lots of money to make sure it does things that just won't scale down, and have only one scrubber to inspect & repair.

Nuclear power doesn't scare me, either; the waste is either hot - and therefore short-lived - or cold - and not as dangerous. Certain types of reactor produce a lot less waste than others, though because of proliferation concerns they have been discouraged. Vastly fewer people have been killed/injured by nuclear power production than coal. Affordable fusion is only 20 years away, and always will be

Noone eats natural gas (unless indirectly via fertilizers). Plasma arc gassification - i.e. burning rubbish - beats letting it rot (or not) underground, generating methane gas and polluting water supplies. Bio-fuels like oil & corn-derived ethanol are a dreadful concept on a large scale and not what I was referring to.

All of the renewable sources I mentioned are 'efficient'; hydrocarbons are basically mined, and once they're gone, they're not replaced. Wind, solar, thermal & wave are inexhaustible.

Yeah, some people who drive hybrids are sanctimonious, but it's worth putting up with for the benefit the rest of us enjoy.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Can a tax not have two or more motives? A reduction in congestion would also result in a reduction in vehicle pollution. I'm not convinced the congestion charge does either very well, but it doesn't have to be 'single issue'.

Well, in "theory" it's not a tax, it's a charge for a service (this is as argued by TFL against the embassies, they cannot have their cake and eat it).

You are, in effect, paying in order to be less held up i.e. less congestion. You are not paying to be held up by Pious drivers.

So it's not a tax, it's a misleading charge that pays for a service that it is not providing.