On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:47:59 -0000, "Tony W" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>"Paul Smith" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
>> The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
>> million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single
>> day until it's scrapped. There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental
>> expense that charge payers must endure every time they pay for access.
>Firstly, the capital investment is spent -- though if the system is working I guess the cameras &
>computers can be sold to an enlightened city where Shagger Norris is not the mayor
>Running costs will, doubtless, be very well covered by those who elect to pay this Stupidity Tax.
In large part, they will be passed on to everyone.
>> The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic
>> will skirt the zone and congestion will increase.
>Though that is a danger the evidence from today does not bear it out. Obviously today is atypical
>so we need to wait & see what happens in reality. Of course the Euston Road etc. is London's first
>ring road -- so was designed to divert traffic (then horse & cart) round the central area.
>Equally obviously the zone can be supplemented by lower cost, outer zones to help spread
>this effect.
>> Third is the waiting effect where traffic wishing to enter at the end of the charge time will
>> block the streets waiting for the magic second.
>Nail the bastards with a parking ticket
>> Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases
>> so traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
>> infrastructure.
>Relying on congestion to reduce congestion has, quite clearly, failed.
I don't believe that. I think the failure has been in the anti-vehicle, anti-parking schemes which
have purported to make people seek alternatives, but in reality have just reduced efficiency.
The congestion charge will also impact economic efficiency, by having sky high overheads which
everyone will pay for.
>It is a very expensive solution (one advantage of a successful congestion charging system is that
>it should reduce the costs to people (and particularly companies) who have to take/send vehicles
>into the zone. They may pay 5 quid but should get that and more back through less wasted time).
For a month or two until the traffic returns to normal inside the zone, and until next week when the
traffic on the edge of the zone suffers.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving