"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit

This is not a "trap". You are driving on a public road inside the zone
during the hours of operation. Pay up and stop whingeing. If you don't
like it, get up earlier in the morning or use public transport.

lol. A predicted response as the post was bound to hit a nerve in
certain camps, but thanks for the feedback and your view none the
less.

I should say that IMHO the charge concept is fine and I agree in
principle. Anything that helps to improve efficiency of PT, car
journeys in/through town when necessary and perhaps improve air
quality and noise can only be a good thing, but the black and white
view of "your tyre crossed the line and so you have to pay 5 quid or
get a fine" is faulty.

No matter how vehemently one may be a fan of the CC, the reality is
that being expected to pay over a thousand pounds a year for the right
to travel a few yards down a deserted side road is by any standards
unreasonable, most particularly when the same cost buys the right to
travel for over 10 hours a day and create all manner of havoc if a CC
user so desired. The charge is after all a congestion charge, and
where a 30 second zone journey is the start of a route driving away
from town on roads well below capacity and where one doesn't even get
the chance to add to any congestion for the 5 quid a day (and this is
most likely not because the CC has been effective on the said route),
it can hardly be considered good value for money.

It's a case of where a potentially good project has a flawed
implementation, and whilst grasping the general concept of what's
required, fails to then go further to consider and address its
limitations and problems. I'm sure that with perhaps some additional
expert advice, Ken's minions at TfL can come up with improvements if
they put their collective minds to it, but I'm not holding my breath
on that one.

With regards to public transport, and as with anything, personally I
believe in using the best tool for the job. Obstinately blind to any
downside there are certainly those with the mindset that because they
paid their car tax they're going to use the car to replace even a 2
minute walk to the postbox, and there are equally those who will
always use PT. If there's spare time to be absorbed then fine, but I
prefer to make use of the transport option that makes the most sense
overall and that in general gets me from A to B in the least time in
order for me to be as productive as possible outside of travel time.
Typically PT is good for travelling into town but for travelling on
the periphery, and even before the CC was introduced, with the absense
of any good acceptable alternative the car is typically the most
efficient and sensible choice.

n.