[lbo-talk] London congestion charge

James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Apr 9 15:50:23 PDT 2008


Doug, quoting Transport for London: 'Congestion Charging has led to reduced traffic levels and pollution, shorter journey times and better air quality. By law, all net revenue has to be invested in improving transport in London. <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx>

But it would make as much sense to quote George Bush on the success of the surge.

Even the section you cite admits that the impact on actual congestion has been negligible (eight per cent). As for 'by law all net revenue...' the point is that that is all *NET* revenue, but most of the revenue disappears in administration costs. Then there is the question of what qualifies as investment in improving transport, which mostly means vast payouts to the army of gladhanding 'consultants' sucking on the GLA tit - none of whom has done anything to improve transport.

Livingstone has already admitted that the congestion charge was a failure by changing the rationale for its introduction - to reduce congestion at the time, to penalise motorists afterwards.

It is true of course that the public transport system consumes vast subsidies (rising to one billion sterling http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/busesstrategicreview.pdf). And at the same time public transport fares are rising way above inflation http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-why-are-rail-fares-rising-so-fast-and-can-these-higher-prices-be-justified-430581.html



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list