[Gllug] [OT] Times Article on ABD was Fighting a virus

[John G Walker]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:47:44 +0000 (GMT) Jason Clifford
<jason at ukfsn.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Tethys wrote:
> 
> > >The purpose of the congestion charge is to reduce pollution in
> > >central London, and this it has done (or so my lungs tell me).
> > >It's got nothing to do with revenue.
> > 
> > I've noticed no difference, personally.
> 
> Coming into London regularly from the green area just outside town my 
> experience is very much that pollution has not changed enormously.

I remember the first Monday the congestion charge was introduced. I
couldn't recall such clear air in central London. The fact that the air
still seems bad when compared with ut-of-town just proves how bad it
was before.

It also shows that road pricing, by itself, doesn't solve the problem
of pollution. It just seems like it does for a day or two.


> Where is the evidence to support the claim that an 8% reduction in
> the number of private vehicles within the congestion charge zone has
> reduced road congestion to a greater degree than the obvious n%
> during the operating times? 
> 


As it happens, today the Circle line and the Edgware Road branch of
the District Line were suspended on the instructions of the police. I
think they found a suspect package, or something.

As a result of this, I had to interrupt my tube journey and catch the
27 bus from High St Kensington to Paddington - in the rush hour. I was
pleasantly surprised to find that it did not, at any point, get stuck
in a traffic jam. This is not how London used to be.

I should also point out that the relationship between increases or
decreases in use of roads, or anything similar, and increases or
decreases in congestion, is not linear. I'm surprised I have to make
the point to a mailing list full of sysadmins,

-- 
 All the best,
 John
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug