There\’s an article in today\’s Times. about the Congestion Charge.
The key facts in the body of the article are:
1) \”The number of vehicles entering the zone fell slightly last year and is now 20 per cent below the level in 2002.\”
2) \”The fall in vehicles has failed to produce a lasting reduction in congestion because the capacity of the road network has fallen over the past four years\”
3) \”The duration of works by all utilities tripled between 2004 and 2006, largely due to the replacement of leaking Victorian water mains. The Mayor admitted that the introduction of new bus lanes and sets of traffic lights had also reduced the capacity of the network, although he claimed that the effects of these were small compared with the delays caused by road works.\”
In other words, the Congestion Charge has worked admirably and would be a good model to follow, freeing up space for road works, bus lanes and pedestrians while reducing carbon emissions. Result! However, that isn\’t the way the introductory paragraphs of the article have been spun:
Congestion in central London is almost as bad as it was before the daily charge was introduced four years ago, according to official figures.
The loss of most of the benefits of congestion charging is causing concern in other cities that have been considering whether to follow Londonâ€™s lead.
Whoever wrote those lead paragraphs is a dishonest cunt and should have pokers thrust in their eyes. Also, it\’s time to prepare for an onslaught of ignorant car-loving Ken-hating buffoons claiming that the CC has failed on the basis of this \’evidence\’…