On 8 Aug 2005 03:45:31 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:
....
Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL
have done when considering where to draw the boundary?

During my time as a minicab driver I probably drove more in those areas
than any of them have. North Kensington is not that congested. Not even
Ladbroke Grove, but if traffic is pushed from Ladbroke Grove onto
Scrubs Lane (which it will be), then Scrubs Lane itself definitely will
not be able to take the capacity. Harrow Road will also reach capacity
between Ladbroke Grove (B450) and Scrubs Lane (A219) as traffic coming
from Kensal Rise will be diverted.

I live in that area and agree - it can get congested if the horsey
army is on the clip-clop from Hyde Park out up Scrubs Lane, or if
something goes pear shaped in Acton but otherwise it is just not
congested. I think Dave's faith in TfL's research is mis-placed: the
intended boundaries for CC2006/7 are probably well chosen for placing
cameras but definitely not for the official aim of reducing congestion
(as there is little enough of that). This is also shown by the other
possible plans: boundary at HolPkAve, boundary one street up from LGr
tube stn - these would be harder to enforce without cameras every 10
metres. It is about earning revenue for bonds to invest in PT, esp.
buses. Admit that and Ken could move on to making payment easier for
residents without having to sign up for that fleet car cover!

What is annoying to me is excluding Sainsbury's and also excluding the
soon-to-open v. massive White City shopping centre will lead to real
congestion all around the imminent west CC zone. Can't preach car
limits on the one hand while allowing the size of retail park which
can only encourage it in the first place (notwithstanding an extra
tube stn).



--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com