Nuxx:09f96d50-3a24-416c-bfa8-6578ee875ad2@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <09f96d50-3a24-416c-bfa8-6578ee875ad2@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Traffic congestion as bad as it was before C-charge Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 64 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218046425 21330 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2008 18:13:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:13:45 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3990 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:661365

The con charge hasn't improved congestion, yet the trolls still support it. Is this because:

a. they want to see fewer motorists on the roads, despite not being anti-motorist? b. they like motorists to have to pay more and more as a punishment for daring to drive in the first place? c. they never wanted the con charge to reduce congestion in the first place, as that would have made things easier for motorists? d. all of the above?

And I'm sure the trolls also love the fact that the scheme is heavily dependent on fines from drivers. Doubtless they were furious about fivepounds.co.uk, and relieved when a stop was put to it. Why would anyone who wasn't anti-motorist be so eager for motorists to be fined? Ask the trolls, though a straight answer is highly unlikely.

http://tinyurl.com/concharge

Traffic congestion as bad as it was before C-charge

David Williams, Motoring Editor 06.08.08

Central London congestion has soared back to levels last seen before the C-charge was introduced, an official report discloses today.

Transport for London's annual impacts monitoring study is the first time the organisation has formally admitted that the battle against congestion has gone into reverse.

Traffic levels in central London are 21 per cent lower than they were before the C-charge was launched in 2003. Traffic entering the western extension has fallen by 14 per cent.

But roadworks and traffic management measures have seen road space squeezed, triggering severe delays.

Mayor Boris Johnson today ordered TfL to bring forward emergency measuresto boost traffic flow. He told TfL to re-phase traffic lights to smooth out traffic and said he was now exercising new powers to fine utility companies that cause delays through badly planned work.

Talks were also under way with Thames Water to reduce the impact of mains repair work. TfL was pushing through plans to cover excavations with steel sheeting when work is not in progress so roads remain in use.

Mr Johnson was also bringing forward plans to let motorcyclists use bus lanes and was pushing for a bicyclehire scheme. The report said the C-charge generated provisional net income of =A3137 million in 2007/08 and that 70,000 fewer cars were entering the original charging zone each day compared to pre-charging levels.

Some =A373 million in revenue came from motorists who were fined for not paying the daily =A38 charge.

Paul Watters, the AA's head of roads and transport policy, said: "It is very concerning that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels.

"It means that motorists are getting very poor value for money when they pay the charge. It also costs a huge sum of money to run the scheme and it is still heavily dependent on fines income from drivers. The scheme depends on a high level of non-compliance."