TfL’s consultation on proposed changes to the Congestion Charge ends today. This is your final chance to send in your comments.
Briefly, the notable proposed changes are these:
- Abolish the Western Extension Zone (WEZ) — the section in Kensington and Knightsbridge, west of Park Lane and east of Shepherd’s Bush. This was a manifesto promise of the mayor. The WEZ has been unpopular with rich tories who want to drive to posh Knightsbridge shops, and with the residents of Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith, and Wandsworth, who believe that it has merely shifted the congestion into their own streets.
- More discounts and exemptions for cars with low CO2 emissions, including exemptions for plug-in hybrids and any conventional car that emits less than 100g/km.
- Increasing the charge by £1, to £9.
Roughly, my comments on these were:
- If the CCharge zone is merely redistributing congestion to other neighbourhoods, why not extend it, all the way to the M25 if necessary? If the shifted-congestion claim is true, then TfL’s proposal is endorsing the return of congestion (even worse than before, given the recently remodelled streets) to Knightsbridge and Kensington. I can’t say I’m much of a fan of these particular neighbourhoods, but our friends at NHM and Imperial might want to let the mayor know what they think about his endorsement of a congested and polluted Kensington.
- This implies that the purpose of the CCharge is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not. Carbon emissions are important, but there are a whole suite of other equally important considerations, most notably saving our streets from the blight of continuous noisy intimidating gridlocked traffic, and saving a few of us from the particulate pollutants that kill 4-5,000 Londoners every year. The new exemptions are an extra invitation for people to burn diesel in our streets — releasing pollutants so deadly that they would, if produced by anything other than a car, be illegal, and which will cost London taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds — so long as they keep within the 100g/km CO2 limit
- The price is, of course, absurd and regressive. For most of the people who would want to drive in London — the bankers and drug dealers — £9 is nothing. They’ll spend three times as much on lunch. And for anybody who lives more than 30 miles out, it’s probably equal to a return train ticket. The CCharge is failing, and will continue to fail, because the price is a token price — it’s not enough to put the Motorist off, but it’s sufficient to give them a sense that they have paid for a service, and are owed something in return, something that pedestrians, bus passengers, and cyclists have not paid for and are not owed. The CCharge is the greatest example of our town planners attempting to manage the harm caused by car use, without actually solving the problem. This practice is elsewhere exemplified by one-way systems, traffic signals, speed cameras, bus lanes, double-yellow lines, and forests of road signs. Easily ignored, often useless, and yet frequently cited as evidence of the “War On The Motorist”. Managing the problem isn’t working. It’s time to simply close the central zone roads to any motor vehicle that doesn’t have a very good reason for being there.
I’m not really sure what I’m asking the mayor to do. Strengthen the CCharge as an interim solution, until the problem can be tackled properly, I think.